Berkeley City Council
April 14, 2026

f. Submit to legal bill audits and law firm audits if requested by DHCS. Such audits may be conducted by State employees or its designees or by any legal cost control providers retained by DHCS for such purpose.
g. Applicable only to legal agreements of $50,000 or more:

Contractor agrees to make a good faith effort to provide a minimum number of hours of pro bono legal services during each year of the contract equal to the lesser of 30 multiplied by the number of full time attorneys in the firm’s offices in the State, with the number of hours prorated on an actual day basis for any contract period of less than a full year or 10% of its contract with the State.

Failure to make a good faith effort may be cause for non-renewal of a state contract for legal services, and may be taken into account when determining the award of future contracts with the State for legal services.

37. Compliance with Statutes and Regulations
a. The Contractor must comply with all California and federal law, regulations, and published guidelines, to the extent that these authorities contain requirements applicable to Contractor's performance under the Agreement. This includes any changes to the applicable laws, regulations, and/or published guidelines that arise after the execution of this Agreement.
b. For federally funded agreements, these authorities include, but are not limited to, 2 C.F.R. Part 200, subpart F, Appendix II; 42 C.F.R. Part 431, subpart F; 42 C.F.R. Part 433, subpart D; 42 C.F.R. Part 434; 45 C.F.R. Part 75, subpart D; and 45 C.F.R. Part 95, subpart F. To the extent applicable under federal law, this Agreement will incorporate the contractual provisions in these federal regulations and they will supersede any conflicting provisions in this Agreement.

38. Lobbying Restrictions and Disclosure Certification
(Applicable to federally funded agreements in excess of $100,000 per Section 1352 of the 31, U.S.C.)
a. Certification and Disclosure Requirements
1) Each person (or recipient) who requests or receives a contract or agreement, subcontract, grant, or subgrant, which is subject to Section 1352 of the 31, U.S.C., and which exceeds $100,000 at any tier, must file a certification (in the form set forth in Attachment 1, consisting of one page, entitled “Certification Regarding Lobbying”) that the recipient has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by Paragraph b of this provision. 2) Each recipient must file a disclosure (in the form set forth in Attachment 2, entitled “Standard Form-LLL ‘disclosure of Lobbying Activities’”) if such recipient has made or has agreed to make any payment using non- appropriated funds (to include profits from any covered federal action) in connection with a contract, or grant or any extension or amendment of that City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit D

contract, or grant, which would be prohibited under Paragraph b of this provision if paid for with appropriated funds.
3) Each recipient must file a disclosure form at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that requires disclosure or that materially affect the accuracy of the information contained in any disclosure form previously filed by such person under Paragraph a(2) herein. An event that materially affects the accuracy of the information reported includes:
a) A cumulative increase of $25,000 or more in the amount paid or expected to be paid for influencing or attempting to influence a covered federal action;
b) A change in the person(s) or individuals(s) influencing or attempting to influence a covered federal action; or
c) A change in the officer(s), employee(s), or member(s) contacted for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence a covered federal action. 4) Each person (or recipient) who requests or receives from a person referred to in Paragraph a(1) of this provision a contract or agreement, subcontract, grant or subgrant exceeding $100,000 at any tier under a contract or agreement, or grant must file a certification, and a disclosure form, if required, to the next tier above.
5) All disclosure forms (but not certifications) must be forwarded from tier to tier until received by the person referred to in Paragraph a(1) of this provision.

That person must forward all disclosure forms to DHCS Program Contract Manager.
b. Prohibition
Section 1352 of Title 31, U.S.C., provides in part that no appropriated funds may be expended by the recipient of a federal contract or agreement, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered federal actions: the awarding of any federal contract or agreement, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract or agreement, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit D

Attachment 1

CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING

The recipient certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making, awarding or entering into of this Federal contract, Federal grant, or cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of this Federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency of the United States Government, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned must complete and submit Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities'' (Attachment 2) in accordance with its instructions.

3. The recipient must require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontractors, subgrants, and contracts under grants and cooperative agreements) of $100,000 or more, and that all subrecipients must certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S.C., any person who fails to file the required certification will be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

By signing or otherwise accepting the Agreement, the recipient certifies and files this Attachment 1. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING, as required by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S.C., unless the conditions stated in paragraph 2 above exist. In such case, the awardee/contractor must complete and sign Attachment 2. CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING and returning it to the Department of Health Care Services.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit D

Attachment 2

CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
Approved by OMB (0348-0046)
Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352 (See reverse for public burden disclosure)

1. Type of Federal Action: 2. Status of Federal Action: 3. Report Type:
_ a. contract
b. grant
c. cooperative agreement
d. loan
e. loan guarantee
f. loan insurance
_ a. bid/offer/application
b. initial award
c. post-award
_ a. initial filing
b. material change
For Material Change Only:

Year quarter
date of last report .

4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity: 5. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime:
☐ Prime ☐Subawardee
Tier , if known:

Congressional District, If known:

Congressional District, If known:

6. Federal Department/Agency 7. Federal Program Name/Description:

CDFA Number, if applicable:

8. Federal Action Number, if known: 9. Award Amount, if known:

10.a. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant
(If individual, last name, first name, MI):
b. Individuals Performing Services
(including address if different from 10a.
(Last name, First name, MI):

11. Information requested through this form is authorized by title 31 U.S.C. section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying activities is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed by the tier above when this transaction was made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be available for public inspection. Any person that fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject to a not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Signature:

Print Name:

Title:

Telephone Number:

Date:

Federal Use Only Authorized for Local Reproduction
Standard Form-LLL (Rev. 7-97)
City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit D

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF SF-LLL, DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING

ACTIVITIES
This disclosure form shall be completed by the reporting entity, whether subawardee or prime Federal recipient, at the initiation or receipt of a covered Federal action, or a material change to a previous filing, pursuant to title 31 U.S.C. section 1352. The filing of a form is required for each payment or agreement to make payment to any lobbying entity for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with a covered Federal action. Complete all items that apply for both the initial filing and material change report. Refer to the implementing guidance published by the Office of Management and Budget for additional information.

1. Identify the type of covered Federal action for which lobbying activity is and/or has been secured to influence the outcome of a covered Federal action.

2. Identify the status of the covered Federal action.

3. Identify the appropriate classification of this report. If this is a followup report caused by a material change to the information previously reported, enter the year and quarter in which the change occurred. Enter the date of the last previously submitted report by this reporting entity for this covered Federal action.

4. Enter the full name, address, city, State and zip code of the reporting entity. Include Congressional District, if known. Check the appropriate classification of the reporting entity that designates if itis, or expects to be, a prime or subaward recipient. Identify the tier of the subawardee, e.g., the first subawardee of the prime is the 1st tier.

Subawards include but are not limited to subcontracts, subgrants and contract awards under grant.

5. If the organization filing the report in item 4 checks "Subawardee," then enter the full name, address, city, State and zip code of the prime Federal recipient. Include Congressional District, if known.

6. Enter the name of the Federal agency making the award or loan commitment. Include at least one organizational level below agency name, if known. For example, Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard.

7. Enter the Federal program name or description for the covered Federal action (item 1). If known, enter the full Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and loan commitments.

8. Enter the most appropriate Federal identifying number available for the Federal action identified in item 1 (e.g., Request for Proposal (RFP) number; Invitation for Bid (IFB) number; grant announcement number; the contract, grant, or loan award number; the application/proposal control number assigned by the Federal agency). Include prefixes, e.g., "RFP-DE-90-001”.

9. For a covered Federal action where there has been an award or loan commitment by the Federal agency, enter the Federal amount of the award/loan commitment for the prime entity identified in item 4 or 5.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit D

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

The valid OMB control number for this information collection is OMB No. 0348- 0046.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348- 0046), Washington, DC 20503.

10. (a) Enter the full name, address, city, State and zip code of the lobbying registrant under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 engaged by the reporting entity identified in item 4 to influence the covered Federal action.
(b) Enter the full names of the individual(s) performing services, and include full address if different from 10 (a). Enter Last Name, First Name, and Middle Initial (MI).

11. The certifying official shall sign and date the form, print his/her name, title, and telephone number.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit D

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018

Exhibit E
Additional Provisions

1. Amendment Process
A. This provision is in addition to provision 2 of Exhibit C, General Terms and Conditions (GTC 02/2025).

B. Should either party, during the term of this Agreement, desire a change or amendment to the terms of this Agreement, such changes or amendments must be proposed in writing to the other party, who will respond in writing as to whether the proposed changes/amendments are accepted or rejected. If accepted and after negotiations are concluded, the agreed upon changes must be made through the State's official agreement amendment process, unless otherwise stipulated within this Agreement. No amendment will be considered binding on either party until it is formally approved by both parties and the Department of General Services (DGS), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), or any other applicable regulatory agencies, is such approval(s) are required.

2. Termination for Convenience
A. This provision replaces and supersedes only Provision 10(b) Termination for Convenience in Exhibit D. Note: Provision 10(a) Termination for Cause in Exhibit D remains in force as is.

B. This agreement may be terminated, in whole or in part, without cause, and without penalty, by either party by giving thirty (30) calendar days advance written notice to the other party. Such notification must state the effective date of termination or cancellation and include any final performance and/or payment/invoicing instructions/requirements. Upon receipt of a notice of termination or cancellation from DHCS, Contractor must take immediate steps to stop performance and to cancel or reduce subsequent contract costs.

C. In the event of termination, in whole or in part, under this paragraph, the State may require the Contractor to transfer title, or in the case of licensed software, license, and deliver to the State any completed deliverables, partially completed deliverables, and any other materials related to the terminated portion of the Contract including but not limited to, computer programs, data files, user and operations manuals, system and program documentation, training programs related to the operation and maintenance of the system, and all information necessary for the reimbursement of any outstanding Medicaid claims.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018

Exhibit E
Additional Provisions

D. The Contractor will be entitled to compensation upon submission of an invoice and proper proof of claim for the services and products satisfactorily rendered, subject to all payment provisions of the Agreement. Payment is limited to expenses necessarily incurred pursuant to this Agreement up to the date of termination.

3. Insurance Requirements
Contractor must comply with the following insurance requirements:

A. General Provisions Applying to All Policies

1. Coverage Term
Coverage needs to be in force for the complete term of the contract. If insurance expires during the term of the contract, a new certificate must be received by the State at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this insurance. Any new insurance must still comply to the original terms of the contract.

2. Policy Cancellation or Termination & Notice of Non-Renewal Contractor is responsible to notify the State within thirty (30) days of any cancellation, non-renewal or material change that affects required insurance coverage. In the event Contractor fails to keep in effect at all times the specified insurance coverage, the State may, in addition to any other remedies it may have, terminate this Contract upon the occurrence of such event, subject to the provisions of this Contract.

3. Deductible & Other Costs
Contractor is responsible for any deductible or self-insured retention contained within their insurance program, or any premiums or assessments.

4. Primary Clause
Any required insurance contained in this contract must be primary, and not excess or contributory, to any other insurance carried by the State.

5. Insurance Carrier Required Rating
All insurance companies must carry an
A rating or better. If the Contractor is
self-insured for a portion or all of its insurance, review of financial information including a letter of credit may be required.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018

Exhibit E
Additional Provisions

6. Endorsements
Any required endorsements requested by the State must be physically attached to all requested certificates of insurance and not substituted by referring to such coverage on the certificate of insurance.

7. Inadequate Insurance
Inadequate or lack of insurance does not negate the Contractor’s obligations under the contract.

8. Subcontractors
If Contractor has identified subcontractors for the work/services identified in the scope of work, the Contractor must include all subcontractors as insureds under Contractor’s insurance or supply evidence of subcontractor’s insurance to the State equal to policies, coverages and limits required of Contractor.

9. Certificate of Insurance
The Contractor shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance for in complete compliance with the terms of the applicable insurance requirements in this provision (i.e., coverage type; dollar limit per occurrence; cancellation requires notification to DHCS at least thirty (30) days in advance; and the State of California, its officers, agents, and employees are included as additional insureds with respect to work performed for the State of California under this Agreement).

B. Commercial General Liability
Contractor and any subcontractors must maintain general liability on an occurrence form with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage liability combined. If Commercial General Liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limits must apply separately to this project/location, or the general aggregate limit must be twice the required occurrence limit. If the aggregate applies “per project/location” it must so state on the certificate. The policy must include coverage for liabilities arising out of premises, operations, independent contractors, products, completed operations, personal & advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract. This insurance must apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought subject to the Contractor’s limit of liability. The policy must be endorsed to include the State of California, its officers, agents and employees as additional insured with respect to work performed under the

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018

Exhibit E
Additional Provisions

contract. The additional insured endorsement must be provided with the certificate of insurance.

C. Automobile Liability
Contractor must maintain motor vehicle liability with limits not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident. Such insurance must cover liability arising out of a motor vehicle including owned, hired and non-owned motor vehicles. The policy must be endorsed to include the State of California, its officers, agents and employees as additional insured with respect to work performed under the contract. The additional insured endorsement must be provided with the certificate of insurance.

D. Workers Compensation and Employers Liability
Contractor must maintain statutory worker’s compensation and employer’s liability coverage for all its employees who will be engaged in the performance of the Contract. Employer’s liability limits of $1,000,000 are required. The Workers’ Compensation policy must be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the State.

E. Errors and Omissions/Professional Liability
Contractor shall maintain Errors and Omissions/Profession liability with limits of not less than $1,000,000 each incident and $2,000,000 aggregate covering damages caused by negligent, acts or omissions. The policy retro date must be shown on a certificate of insurance and must be before the Contract date, or before the date contract work begins. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after the completion of work.

Contractor must maintain Pollution Liability covering the Contractor's liability for bodily injury, property damage, and environmental damage resulting from pollution and related cleanup costs incurred, all arising out of the work or services to be performed under this agreement. Coverage must be provided for both work performed on site and during transportation as well as proper disposal of hazardous materials. Proof of Pollution during transportation must be provided on an MCS-90 form. Limits of not less than $1,000,000 per incident, and annual aggregate amount of $2,000,000 must be provided. The policy must name The State of California, its officers, agents, and employees as additional insured, but only with respect to work performed under the

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018

Exhibit E
Additional Provisions

agreement.

F. Cyber Liability
Contractor shall maintain Cyber Liability insurance with limits of not less than $2,000,000 for each occurrence and an annual aggregate of $4,000,000 covering claims involving privacy violations, information theft, damage or destruction of electronic information, intentional and/or unintentional release of State and or private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy must name The State of California, its officers, agents, and employees as additional insured with respect to work performed under the contract.

DHCS 2352 (Revised 08/
2021) Page 1 of 2
Contractor’s Release
Instructions to Contractor:

Final Invoice(s)
Submit one original invoice signed by a person authorized to bind the Contractor. The original invoice may submitted and signed electronically using an authorized electronic signature in accordance with California State Administrative Manual 1240. The only authorized form of electronic signature is a digital signature that meets requirements under California Government Code 16.5 and California Secretary of State Regulations for Digital Signatures.

Submission of Final Invoice
Pursuant to contract number ___________ entered into between the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and the Contractor (identified below), the Contractor does acknowledge that final payment has been requested via invoice number(s) ________________________________, in the amount(s) of $ _____________________________ and dated ________________.

If necessary, enter "See Attached" in the appropriate blocks and attach a list of invoice numbers, dollar amounts and invoice dates.

Release of all Obligations
By signing this form, and upon receipt of the amount specified in the invoice number(s) referenced above, the Contractor does hereby release and discharge the State, its officers, agents and employees of and from any and all liabilities, obligations, claims, and demands whatsoever arising from the above referenced contract.

Repayments Due to Audit Exceptions / Record Retention
By signing this form, Contractor acknowledges that expenses authorized for reimbursement does not guarantee final allowability of said expenses. Contractor agrees that the amount of any sustained audit exceptions resulting from any subsequent audit made after final payment will be refunded to the State.

All expense and accounting records related to the above referenced contract must be maintained for audit purposes for no less than three years beyond the date of final payment, unless a longer term is stated in said contract.

Recycled Product Use Certification
By signing this form, Contractor certifies under penalty of perjury that a minimum of 0% unless otherwise specified in writing of post-consumer material, as defined in the Public Contract Code Section 12200, in products, materials, goods, or supplies offered or sold to the State regardless of whether it meets the requirements of Public Contract Code Section 12209. Contractor specifies that printer or duplication cartridges offered or sold to the State comply with the requirements of Section 12156(e).

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit F

DHCS 2352 (Revised 08/
2021) Page 2 of 2
Reminder to Return State Equipment/Property (If Applicable) (Applies only if equipment was provided by DHCS or purchased with or reimbursed by contract funds) Unless DHCS has approved the continued use and possession of State equipment (as defined in the above referenced contract) for use in connection with another DHCS agreement, Contractor agrees to promptly initiate arrangements to account for and return said equipment to DHCS, at DHCS' expense, if said equipment has not passed its useful life expectancy as defined in the above referenced contract.

P
atents / Other Issues
By signing this form, Contractor further agrees, in connection with patent mat ters and with any claims that are not specifically released as set forth above, that it will comply with all of the provisions contained in the above referenced contract,
including, but not limited to, those provisions relating to notification t
o the State and related to the defense or prosecution of litigation.

ONLY SIGN AND DATE THIS DOCUMENT WHEN ATTACHING IT TO THE FINAL INVOICE Contractor’s Legal Name (as on contract):

Signature of Contractor or Official Designee:

Printed Name/Title of Person Signing:

Date:

Distribution: Accounting (Original) Program
City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit F

DHCS HIPAA BAA 04/2024
Business Associate Addendum

1. This Agreement has been determined to constitute a business associate relationship under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and its implementing privacy and security regulations at 45 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 160 and 164 (collectively, and as used in this Agreement)

2. The term “Agreement” as used in this document refers to and includes both this Business Associate Addendum and the contract to which this Business Associate Agreement is attached as an exhibit, if any.

3. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Business Associate” shall have the same meaning as set forth in 45 CFR section 160.103.

4. The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) intends that Business Associate may create , receive, maintain, transmit or aggregate certain information pursuant to the terms of this Agreement , some of which information may constitute Protected Health Information (PHI) and/or confidential information protected by Federal and/or state laws.

4.1 As used in this Agreement and unless otherwise stated, the term “PHI” refers to and includes both “PHI” as defined at 45 CFR section 160.103 and Personal Information ( PI) as defined in the Information Practices Act (IPA) at California Civil Code section 1798.3(a). PHI includes information in any form, including paper, oral, and electronic.

4.2 As used in this Agreement, the term “confidential information” refers to information not otherwise defined as PHI in Section 4.1 of this Agreement , but to which state and/or federal privacy and /or security protections apply.

5. Contractor (however named elsewhere in this Agreement) is the Business Associate of DHCS acting on DHCS's behalf and provides services or arranges, performs or assists in th e performance of functions or activities on behalf of DHCS , and may create, receive, maintain, transmit, aggregate, use or disclose PHI (collectively, “use or disclose PHI”) in order to fulfill Business Associate’s obligations under this Agreement.

DHCS and Business Associate are each a party to this Agreement and are collectively referred to as the "parties.”

6. The terms used in this Agreement, but not otherwise defined, shall have the same meanings as those terms in HIPAA and/or the IPA. Any reference to statutory or regulatory language shall be to such language as in effect or as amended.

7. Permitted Uses and Disclosures of PHI by Business Associate . Except as otherwise indicated in this Agreement, Business Associate may use or disclose PHI, inclusive of de -identified data derived from such PHI, only to perform functions, activities or services specified in this Agreement on behalf of DHCS, provided that such use or disclosure would not violate HIPAA or other applicable laws if done by DHCS.

7.1 Specific Use and Disclosure Provisions. Except as otherwise indicated in this Agreement, Business Associate may use and disclose PHI if necessary for the proper management and administration of the Business Associate or to carry out the legal responsibilities of the Business Associate . Business Associate may disclose PHI for this purpose if the disclosure is required by law, or the Business Associate obtains reasonable assurances from the person to whom the information is disclosed that it will be held confidentially and used or further disclosed only as required by law or for the purpose s for which it was disclosed to the person. The person shall no tify the Business Associate of any instances of which the person is aware that the confidentiality of the information has been breached, unless such person is a treatment provider not acting as a business associate of Business Associate.

7.2 Nondisclosure. Business Associate shall not use or disclose PHI or other confidential information other than as permitted or required by this Agreement or as required by law.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit G

DHCS HIPAA BAA 04/2024

8. Compliance with Other Applicable Law

8.1 To the extent that other state and/or federal law s provide additional , stricter and/or more protective (collectively, more protective) privacy and/or security protections to PHI or other confidential information covered under this Agreement beyond those provided through HIPAA, Business Associate agrees:

8.1.1 To comply with the more protective of the privacy and security standards set forth in applicable state or federal laws to the extent such standards provide a greater degree of protection and security than HIPAA or a re otherwise more favorable to the individuals whose information is concerned; and

8.1.2 To treat any violation of such additional and/or more protective standards as a breach or security incident, as appropriate, pursuant to Section 19. of this Agreement.

8.2 Examples of laws that provide additional and/or stricter privacy protections to certain types of PHI and/or confidential information, as defined in Section 4. of this Agreement, include, but are not limited to the Information Practices Act, California Civil Code sections 1798-1798.78, Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records, 42 CFR Part 2, Welfare and Institutions Code section 5328, and California Health and Safety Code section 11845.5.

8.3 If Business Associate is a Qualified Service Organization (QSO) as defined in 42 CFR section 2.11, Business Associate agrees to be bound by and comply with subdivisions (2)(i) and (2)(ii) under the definition of QSO in 42 CFR section 2.11.

9. Additional Responsibilities of Business Associate

9.1 Safeguards and Security.

9.1.1 Business Associate shall use safeguards that reasonably and appropriately protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of PHI and other confidential data and comply, where applicable, with subpart C of 45 CFR Part 164 with respect to electronic protected health information, to preve nt use or disclosure of the information other than as provided for by this Agreement. Such safeguards shall be based on applicable Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 199 protection levels.

9.1.2 Business Associate shall, at a minimum, utilize a National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication (NIST SP) 800 -53 compliant security framework when selecting and implementing its security controls and shall maintain continuous compliance with NIST SP 800 - 53 as it may be upd ated from time to time. The curr ent version of NIST SP 800 -53, Revision 5, is available online at https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-53/rev-5/final; updates will be available online at https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/sp800.

9.1.3 Business Associate shall employ FIPS 140 -3 validated encryption of PHI at rest and in motion unless Business Associate determines it is not reasonable and appropriate to do so based upon a risk assessment, and equivalent alternative measures are in place and documented as such. FIPS 140 -3 validation can be determ ined online at https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/validated- modules/search. In addition, Business Associate shall maintain, at a minimum, the most current industry standards for transmission and storage of PHI and other confidential information.

9.1.4 Business Associate shall apply security patches and upgrades, and keep virus software up-to- date, on all systems on which PHI and other confidential information may be used.

9.1.5 Business Associate shall ensure that all members of its workforce with access to PHI and/or other confidential information sign a confidentiality statement prior to access to such data. The statement must be renewed annually.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit G

DHCS HIPAA BAA 04/2024

9.1.6 Business Associate shall identify the security official who is responsible for the development and implementation of the policies and procedures required by 45 CFR Part 164, Subpart C.

9.1.7 Remote access to PHI from outside the continental United States, inclusive of remote access to PHI by Business Associate’s support staff in identified support centers, is prohibited.

9.1.8 Business Associate shall only store PHI in a data center physically located within the continental United States.

9.2 Business Associate’s Agent. Business Associate shall ensure that any agents, subcontractors, subawardees, vendors or other s (collectively, “agents”) that use or disclose PHI and/or con fidential information on behalf of Business Associate agree to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to Business Associate with respect to such PHI and/or confidential information.

10. Mitigation of Harmful Effects . Business Associate shall mitigate, to the extent practicable, any harmful effect that is known to Business Associate of a use or disclosure of PHI and other confidential information in violation of the requirements of this Agreement.

11. Access to PHI. Business Associate shall make PHI available in accordance with 45 CFR section 164.524.

12. Amendment of PHI. Business Associate shall make PHI available for amendment and incorporate any amendments to protected health information in accordance with 45 CFR section 164.526.

13. Accounting for Disclosures. Business Associate shall make available the information required to provide an accounting of disclosures in accordance with 45 CFR section 164.528.

14. Collaboration. The parties shall collaborate as appropriate and necessary to ensure compliance with th is Agreement, including but not limited to Sections 11 – 13 of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge and agree that neither party intends that this Agreement shall create obligations and/or liabilities that do not otherwise exist as appropriate based on the nature of the work performed and applicable law.

15. Compliance with DHCS Obligations. To the extent Business Associate is to carry out an obligation of DHCS under 45 CFR Part 164, Subpart E, comply with the requirements of the subpart that apply to DHCS in the performance of such obligation.

16. Access to Practices, Books and Records. Business Associate shall make its internal practices, books, and records relating to the use and disclosure of PHI on behalf of DHCS available to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services for purposes of determining DHCS’ compliance with 45 CFR Part 164, Subpart E.

17. Return or Destroy PHI on Termination ; Survival. At termination of this Agreement, if feasible, Business Associate shall return or destroy all PHI and other confidential information received from, or created or received by Business Associate on behalf of, DHCS that Business Associate still maintains in any form and retain no copies of such informatio n. If return or destruction is not feasible, Business Associate shall notify DHCS of the conditions that make the return or destruction infeasible, and DHCS and Business Associate shall determine the terms and conditions under which Business Associate may retain the PHI. If such return or destruction is not feasible, Business Associate shall extend the protections of this Agreement to the information and limit further uses and disclosures to those purposes that make the return or destruction of the information infeasible.

18. Special Provision for SSA Data. If Business Associate receives data from or on behalf of DHCS that was verified by or provided by the Social Security Administration (SSA data) and is subject to an agreement between DHCS and SSA, Business Associate shall provide, upon request by DHCS, a list of all employees and agents and employees who have access to such data, including employees and agents of its agents, to DHCS.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit G

DHCS HIPAA BAA 04/2024

19. Breaches and Security Incidents . Business Associate shall implement reasonable systems for the discovery and prompt reporting of any breach or security incident, and take the following steps:

19.1 Notice to DHCS.

19.1.1 Business Associate shall notify DHCS immediately upon the discovery of a suspected breach or security incident that involves SSA data. This notification shall be provided via the DHCS Incident Reporting Portal upon discovery of the breach. If Business Associate is unable to provide notification via the DHCS Incident Reporting Portal , then Business Associate shall provide notice by email or telephone to DHCS.

19.1.2 Business Associate shall notify DHCS within 24 hours via the online DHCS Incident Reporting Portal (or by email or telephone if Business Associate is unable to use the DHCS Incident Reporting Portal) of the discovery of the following, unless attributable to a treatment provider that is not acting as a business associate of Business Associate:

19.1.2.1 Unsecured PHI if the PHI is reasonably believed to have been accessed or acquired by an unauthorized person;

19.1.2.2 Any suspected security incident which risks unauthorized access to PHI and/or other confidential information;

19.1.2.3 Any intrusion or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of PHI in violation of this Agreement; or

19.1.2.4 Potential loss of confidential information affecting this Agreement.

19.1.3 Notice submitted to the DHCS Incident Reporting Portal will be sent to the DHCS Program Contract Manager (as applicable), the DHCS Privacy Office , and the D HCS Information Security Office. If providing notice to DHCS via email, use the DHCS contact information at Section 19.6 below (collectively, “DHCS Contacts”).

Notice shall be made using the DHCS Incident Reporting Portal via the link on the DHCS Data Privacy Website online at
https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/laws/priv/Pages/default.aspx Notice via email shall be made using the current DHCS “Privacy Incident Reporting Form” and shall include all information known at the time the incident is reported. The form is available online at
https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/laws/priv/Documents/Privacy-Incident-Report-PIR.pdf Upon discovery of a breach or suspected security incident, intrusion or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of PHI, Business Associate shall take:

19.1.3.1 Prompt action to mitigate any risks or damages involved with the security incident or breach; and

19.1.3.2 Any action pertaining to such unauthorized disclosure required by applicable Federal and State law.

19.2 Investigation. Business Associate shall immediately investigate such security incident or breach.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit G

DHCS HIPAA BAA 04/2024

19.3 Complete Report. Business Associate shall provide a complete report of the investigation to DHCS within ten (10) working days of the discovery of the security incident or breach. This complete report must include any applicable additional information not included in the initial submission. The complete report shall include a n assessment of all known factors relevant to a determination of whether a breach occurred under HIPAA and other applicable federal and state law s. The report shall also include a full, detailed corrective act ion plan, including its implementation date and information on mitigation measures taken to halt and/or contain the improper use or disclosure. If DHCS requests additional information, Business Associate shall make reasonable efforts to provide DHCS with such information. DHCS will review and approve or disapprove Business Associate’s determination of whether a breach occurred, whether the security incident or breach is reportable to the appropriate entities, if individual notifications are required, and Business Associate’s corrective action plan.

19.3.1 If Business Associate does not submit a complete report within the ten (10) working day timeframe, Business Associate shall request approval from DHCS within the ten (10) working day timeframe of a new submission timeframe for the complete report.

19.4 Notification of Individuals . If the cause of a breach is attr ibutable to Business Associate or its agents, other than when attributable to a treatment provider that is not acting as a business associate of Business Associate, Business Associate shall notify individuals accordingly and shall pay all costs of such notifications, as well as all costs associated with the breach . The notifications shall comply with applicable federal and state law. DHCS shall approve the time, manner and content of any such notifications and their review and approval must be obtained before the notifications are made.

19.5 Responsibility for Reporting of Breaches to Entities Other than DHCS. If the cause of a breach of PHI is attributable to Business Associate or its agents, other than when attributable to a treatment provider that is not acting as a business associate of Business Associate, Business Associate is responsible for all required reporting of the breach as required by applicable federal and state law.

19.6 DHCS Contact Information. To contact the above referenced DHCS staff, the Contractor shall initiate contact as indicated here. DHCS reserves the right to make changes to the contact information below by giving written notice to Business Associate. These changes shall not require an amendment to this Agreement.

DHCS Program
Contract Manager
DHCS Privacy Office DHCS Information Security Office
See the Scope of Work
exhibit for Program
Contract Manager
information. If this
Business Associate
Agreement is not
attached as an exhibit
to a contract, contact
the DHCS signatory to
this Agreement.

Privacy Office
c/o: Data Privacy Unit
Department of Health Care Services
P.O. Box 997413, MS 4722
Sacramento, CA 95899-7413
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: (916) 445-4646
Information Security Office
Department of Health Care Services
P.O. Box 997413, MS 6400
Sacramento, CA 95899-7413
Email: [email protected]

20. Responsibility of DHCS. DHCS agrees to not request the Business Associate to use or disclose PHI in any manner that would not be permissible under HIPAA and/or other applicable federal and/or state law.

21. Audits, Inspection and Enforcement

21.1 From time to time, DHCS may inspect the facilities, systems, books and records of Business Associate to monitor compliance with this Agreement . Business Associate shall promptly remedy any violation of this Agreement and shall certify the same to the DHCS Privacy Officer in writing. Whether or how City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit G

DHCS HIPAA BAA 04/2024
DHCS exercises this provision shall not in any respect relieve Business Associate of its responsibility to comply with this Agreement.

21.2 If Business Associate is the subject of an audit, compliance review, investigation or any proceeding that is related to the performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement, or is the subject of any judicial or administrative proceeding alleging a violation of HIPAA, Business Associate shall promptly notify DHCS unless it is legally prohibited from doing so.

22. Termination

22.1 Termination for Cause . Upon DHCS’ knowledge of a violation of this Agreement by Business Associate, DHCS may in its discretion:

22.1.1 Provide an opportunity for Business Associate to cure the violation and terminate this Agreement if Business Associate does not do so within the time specified by DHCS; or

22.1.2 Terminate this Agreement if Business Associate has violated a material term of this Agreement.

22.2 Judicial or Administrative Proceedings . DHCS may terminate this Agreement if Business Associate is found to have violated HIPAA, or stipulates or consents to any such conclusion , in any judicial or administrative proceeding.

23. Miscellaneous Provisions

23.1 Disclaimer. DHCS makes no warranty or representation that compliance by Business Associate with this Agreement will satisfy Business Associate’s business needs or compliance obligations. Business Associate is solely responsible for all decisions made by Business Assoc iate regarding the safeguarding of PHI and other confidential information.

23.2. Amendment.

23.2.1 Any provision of this Agreement which is in conflict with current or future applicable Federal or State laws is hereby amended to conform to the provisions of those laws. Such amendment of this Agreement shall be effective on the effective date of the laws necessitating it, and shall be binding on the parties even though such amendment may not have been reduced to writing and formally agreed upon and executed by the parties.

23.2.2 Failure by Business Associate to take necessary actions required by amendments to this Agreement under Section 23.2.1 shall constitute a material violation of this Agreement.

23.3 Assistance in Litigation or Administrative Proceedings. Business Associate shall make itself and its employees and agents available to DHCS at no cost to DHCS to testify as witnesses, or otherwise, in the event of litigation or administrative proceedings being commenced against DHCS, its directors, officers and/or employees based upon claimed violation of HIPAA, which involve inactions or actions by the Business Associate.

23.4 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall confer, upon any third person any rights or remedies whatsoever.

23.5 Interpretation. The terms and conditions in this Agreement shall be interpreted as broadly as necessary to implement and comply with HIPAA and other applicable laws.

23.6 No Waiver of Obligations . No change, waiver or discharge of any liability or obligation hereunder on any one or more occasions shall be deemed a waiver of performance of any continuing or other obligation, or shall prohibit enforcement of any obligation, on any other occasion.

City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Community Services 26-60018
Exhibit G

Contractor/Bidder Firm Name (Printed) Federal ID Number Date Executed Executed in the County of
Contractor Certification Clause
CCC 04/2017

CERTIFICATION
I, the official named below, CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that I am duly authorized to legally bind the prospective Contractor to the clause(s) listed below. This certification is made under the laws of the State of California.

By (Authorized Signature)
Printed Name and Title of Person Signing

CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION CLAUSES

1. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE: Contractor has, unless exempted, complied with the nondiscrimination program requirements. (Gov. Code §12990 (a-f) and CCR, Title 2, Section 11102) (Not applicable to public entities.)

2. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS: Contractor will comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 and will provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions:
a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations.
b. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program to inform employees about:
1) the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
2) the person's or organization's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; 3) any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and, 4) penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. c. Every employee who works on the proposed Agreement will:
1) receive a copy of the company's drug-free workplace policy statement; and, City of Berkeley Dept of Health, Housing and Comm 94-6000507

2) agree to abide by the terms of the company's statement as a condition of employment on the Agreement.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under the Agreement or termination of the Agreement or both and Contractor may be ineligible for award of any future State agreements if the department determines that any of the following has occurred: the Contractor has made false certification, or violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above. (Gov. Code §8350 et seq.)

3. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION: Contractor certifies that no more than one (1) final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a Federal court has been issued against Contractor within the immediately preceding two-year period because of Contractor's failure to comply with an order of a Federal court, which orders Contractor to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board. (Pub. Contract Code §10296) (Not applicable to public entities.)

4. CONTRACTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES $50,000 OR MORE- PRO BONO REQUIREMENT: Contractor hereby certifies that Contractor will comply with the requirements of Section 6072 of the Business and Professions Code, effective January 1, 2003.

Contractor agrees to make a good faith effort to provide a minimum number of hours of pro bono legal services during each year of the contract equal to the lessor of 30 multiplied by the number of full time attorneys in the firm’s offices in the State, with the number of hours prorated on an actual day basis for any contract period of less than a full year or 10% of its contract with the State.

Failure to make a good faith effort may be cause for non-renewal of a state contract for legal services, and may be taken into account when determining the award of future contracts with the State for legal services.

5. EXPATRIATE CORPORATIONS: Contractor hereby declares that it is not an expatriate corporation or subsidiary of an expatriate corporation within the meaning of Public Contract Code Section 10286 and 10286.1, and is eligible to contract with the State of California.

6. SWEATFREE CODE OF CONDUCT:
a. All Contractors contracting for the procurement or laundering of apparel, garments or corresponding accessories, or the procurement of equipment, materials, or supplies, other than procurement related to a public works contract, declare under penalty of perjury that no apparel, garments or corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies furnished to the state pursuant to the contract have been laundered or produced in whole or in part by sweatshop labor, forced labor, convict labor, indentured labor under penal sanction, abusive forms of child labor or exploitation of children in sweatshop labor, or with the benefit of sweatshop labor, forced labor, convict labor, indentured labor under penal sanction, abusive forms of child labor or exploitation of children in sweatshop labor.

The contractor further declares under penalty of perjury that they adhere to the Sweatfree Code of Conduct as set forth on the California Department of Industrial Relations website located at www.dir.ca.gov, and Public Contract Code Section 6108. b. The contractor agrees to cooperate fully in providing reasonable access to the contractor’s records, documents, agents or employees, or premises if reasonably

required by authorized officials of the contracting agency, the Department of Industrial Relations, or the Department of Justice to determine the contractor’s compliance with the requirements under paragraph (a).

7. DOMESTIC PARTNERS: For contracts of $100,000 or more, Contractor certifies that Contractor is in compliance with Public Contract Code section 10295.3.

8. GENDER IDENTITY: For contracts of $100,000 or more, Contractor certifies that Contractor is in compliance with Public Contract Code section 10295.35.

DOING BUSINESS WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The following laws apply to persons or entities doing business with the State of California.

1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Contractor needs to be aware of the following provisions regarding current or former state employees. If Contractor has any questions on the status of any person rendering services or involved with the Agreement, the awarding agency must be contacted immediately for clarification.

Current State Employees (Pub. Contract Code §10410):
1). No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest and which is sponsored or funded by any state agency, unless the employment, activity or enterprise is required as a condition of regular state employment. 2). No officer or employee shall contract on his or her own behalf as an independent contractor with any state agency to provide goods or services.

Former State Employees (Pub. Contract Code §10411):
1). For the two-year period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract in which he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements or any part of the decision-making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any state agency. 2). For the twelve-month period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract with any state agency if he or she was employed by that state agency in a policy-making position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the 12-month period prior to his or her leaving state service.

If Contractor violates any provisions of above paragraphs, such action by Contractor shall render this Agreement void. (Pub. Contract Code §10420) Members of boards and commissions are exempt from this section if they do not receive payment other than payment of each meeting of the board or commission, payment for preparatory time and payment for per diem. (Pub. Contract Code §10430 (e))

2. LABOR CODE/WORKERS' COMPENSATION: Contractor needs to be aware of the provisions which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions, and

Contractor affirms to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement. (Labor Code Section 3700)

3. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: Contractor assures the State that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)

4. CONTRACTOR NAME CHANGE: An amendment is required to change the Contractor's name as listed on this Agreement. Upon receipt of legal documentation of the name change the State will process the amendment. Payment of invoices presented with a new name cannot be paid prior to approval of said amendment.

5. CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA:
a. When agreements are to be performed in the state by corporations, the contracting agencies will be verifying that the contractor is currently qualified to do business in California in order to ensure that all obligations due to the state are fulfilled. b. "Doing business" is defined in R&TC Section 23101 as actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit. Although there are some statutory exceptions to taxation, rarely will a corporate contractor performing within the state not be subject to the franchise tax.
c. Both domestic and foreign corporations (those incorporated outside of California) must be in good standing in order to be qualified to do business in California. Agencies will determine whether a corporation is in good standing by calling the Office of the Secretary of State.

6. RESOLUTION: A county, city, district, or other local public body must provide the State with a copy of a resolution, order, motion, or ordinance of the local governing body which by law has authority to enter into an agreement, authorizing execution of the agreement.

7. AIR OR WATER POLLUTION VIOLATION: Under the State laws, the Contractor shall not be: (1) in violation of any order or resolution not subject to review promulgated by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution control district; (2) subject to cease and desist order not subject to review issued pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code for violation of waste discharge requirements or discharge prohibitions; or (3) finally determined to be in violation of provisions of federal law relating to air or water pollution.

8. PAYEE DATA RECORD FORM STD. 204: This form must be completed by all contractors that are not another state agency or other governmental entity.

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Contract No. 32200185 Amendment: Sonya Dublin Consulting to Provide Evaluation Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute an amendment and any subsequent amendments or extensions to Contract No. 32200185 with Sonya Dublin Consulting for evaluation services. The amendment would increase the contract amount by $62,400, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $171,600.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for the external evaluator is available through Local Lead Agency funding through the California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) in budget code 157-51-506- 559-2053-000-451-612990. The not-to-exceed amount of the contract is currently $109,200 and the amendment will increase the limit by $62,400 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $171,600.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Through the Health, Housing and Community Services Department’s Public Health Division (HHCS/PHD), the City of Berkeley receives grant funding from the California Tobacco Control Program as a Local Lead Agency and is required to contract with an external evaluator as part of the program’s contract deliverables.

Effective January 1, 2026, local agencies are required to satisfy noticing requirements for certain contracts for services that meet the criteria outlined in Government Code Section 3504.1 as amended by AB 339. This project does not meet the criteria in Government Code Section 3504.1 and is exempt from the noticing requirement.

BACKGROUND
As a Local Lead Agency receiving funding from the California Control Tobacco Program, HHCS/PHD is required to contract with an external evaluator that is responsible for designing the evaluation plan and providing consultation on the entire scope of work; developing data collection instruments, protocols, and methodology; analyzing data; and preparing evaluation reports. The external evaluator coordinates

08

Resolution for Contract No. 32200185 Amendment CONSENT CALENDAR April 14, 2026

with the Tobacco Control Program Director and will execute a variety of evaluation- related tasks.

This service is specialized because Sonya Dublin is an approved evaluator of the California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP), the grant funder of the City of Berkeley Tobacco Prevention Program. She has conducted evaluation services for the City of Berkeley’s Tobacco Prevention Program and the California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) for the past two years and has extensive, intimate knowledge of the program, datasets, and evaluation plan that would provide the necessary continuity in the upcoming funding cycles.

On February 21, 2022, HHCS/PHD entered into Contract No. 32200185 for a total amount not to exceed $15,600 and for a term from February 21, 2022, to June 30, 2022.

On June 2, 2022, HHCS/PHD, extended the term of the contract to June 30, 2025, and all other aspects of the contract remained the same. On July 26, 2022, the HHCS/PHD amended Contract No. 32200185 with Sonya Dublin Consulting by Resolution No. 70,462-N.S., adding $93,600 for a contract total amount not to exceed $109,200 and the term of the contract to June 30, 2025. On April 25, 2025, HHCS/PHD amended Contract No. 32200185 with Sonya Dublin Consulting extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2027, all other aspects of the contract remained the same.

This grant cycle concludes in FY2027. The City of Berkeley will conduct a new RFP process in the new grant cycle, which begins on July 1st, 2027 (FY 2028).

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Execution of this contract will allow the City of Berkeley’s Tobacco Prevention Program to comply with the California Tobacco Control Program’s external evaluator requirement as a Local Lead Agency awardee.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
City Council could consider not approving the contract amendment. However, failure to contract with an external evaluator would render the City of Berkeley’s Tobacco Prevention Program unable to complete program deliverables and would place the City of Berkeley out of compliance with its contract with the California Tobacco Control Program.

CONTACT PERSON
JoAnn Evangelista, Sr. Health Services Program Specialist, HHCS, 510-981-7710

Resolution for Contract No. 32200185 Amendment CONSENT CALENDAR April 14, 2026

Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 32200185 AMENDMENT: SONYA DUBLIN CONSULTING TO

PROVIDE EVALUATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Health, Housing & Community Services Department’s Public Health Division Tobacco Prevention Program, as a State funded LLA grantee, fosters collaboration and engagement in grassroots community mobilization activities to support social norm change and education to reduce tobacco use and address the tobacco industry strategies through a comprehensive tobacco control plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley entered into Contract No. 32200185 on February 21, 2022, for a total amount not to exceed $15,600 and for a term from February 21, 2022, to June 30, 2022, and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley on June 2, 2022, extended Contract No. 32200185 with Sonya Dublin Consulting extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2025, all other aspects of the contract remained the same, and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley on July 26, 2022, amended Contract No. 32200185 with Sonya Dublin Consulting by Resolution No. 70,462-N.S., adding $93,600 for a contract total amount not to exceed $109,200 and the term of the contract to June 30, 2025, and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley on April 25, 2025, extended Contract No. 32200185 with Sonya Dublin Consulting extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2027, all other aspects of the contract remained the same, and
WHEREAS, Local Lead Agency funding is available through the California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) for Fiscal Year 2023 through Fiscal Year 2027 in budget code 157-51-506-559-2053-000-451-612990 ($171,600 total).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or designee is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32200185, and any subsequent amendments or extensions with Sonya Dublin Consulting to provide external evaluation services for the Health, Housing & Community Services Department’s Public Health Division Tobacco Prevention Program, adding $62,400 for a total amount not to exceed $171,600 through June 30, 2027. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Office of the City Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contracts for On-call Hardscape Installation and Repair Services at Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Facilities

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt three (3) Resolution’s authorizing the City Manager to execute on-call contracts and amendments for hardscape installation and repair services for a period of three years each with the following:

1. Redwood Engineering Construction, for an amount not to exceed $300,000.

2. Kerex Engineering, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $300,000.

3. Calico California Constructores, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $300,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for the on-call contracts is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138) and Marina Fund (608) minor maintenance budgets. Funding for FY 2027 through FY 2029 is subject to appropriation in the Parks Tax and Marina Fund and will be identified as needs arise.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On-call hardscape installation and repair services are needed from qualified contractors to perform large-scale installation and repair of surfaces in and around park fixtures and buildings, parking lots, docks, retaining walls, sport courts, catwalks, pedestrian bridges, road surfaces, medians, paths, staircases, and other park assets throughout the City.

BACKGROUND
The City contracts with private companies for large-scale hardscape installation and repair services that include concrete, stone, and asphalt surface work, sport court surfaces, pour-in-place for protection in playgrounds, and excavation for park repairs and improvements. On January 20, 2026, the City published a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide on-call hardscape installation and repair services (Specification No. 26-11775-C). On February 19, 2026, the City received

09

Contracts for On-call Hardscape Installation and Repair Services CONSENT CALENDAR at PRW Facilities April 14, 2026
Statements of Proposals (SOPs) from three (3) separate construction and engineering firms. A panel of City staff reviewed the SOPs and determined that three (3) firms met the criteria described in the RFP.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
These on-call hardscape installation and repair contracts will help the City achieve Strategic Plan Long-term Goal Number 1 to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities. The proper maintenance of City facilities helps extend the life cycle of facilities and reduces the need for reconstruction that is more costly and has more impacts on the environment.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City has extensive needs for hardscape installation and repair at Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department facilities throughout the City. After conducting a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP) process, the City has determined that three contractors met the requirements described in the RFP.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront, 981-6700 Bruce Pratt, Parks Superintendent, Parks Recreations and Waterfront 981-6632 Walter Vandernald, Senior Building Maintenance Supervisor, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront 981-6727
Attachments:

1. Resolution: Redwood Engineering Construction

2. Resolution: Kerex Engineering, Inc.

3. Resolution: Calico California Constructores, Inc.

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

CONTRACT: REDWOOD ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the City contracts with private companies for large-scale hardscape installation and repair services that include concrete, stone, and asphalt surface work, sport court surfaces, pour-in-place for protection in playgrounds, and excavation for park repairs and improvements; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City published a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide on-call hardscape installation and repair services; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2026, the City received three (3) submissions, which were reviewed and rated; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that Redwood Engineering Construction met the criteria described in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the desired hardscape installation and repair service firm will be available on-call over a three-year period for an amount not to exceed $300,000; and WHEREAS, funding for the on-call painting and repair contracts is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138) and Marina Fund (608) minor maintenance budgets. Funding for FY 2027 through FY 2029 is subject to appropriation in the Parks Tax and Marina Fund and will be identified as needs arise.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Redwood Engineering Construction for on-call hardscape installation and repair services for the three-year contract period of April 30, 2026, through April 30, 2029, in an amount not to exceed $300,000. A recorded signature copy of the agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

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

CONTRACT: KEREX ENGINEERING, INC.

WHEREAS, the City contracts with private companies for large-scale hardscape installation and repair services that include concrete, stone, and asphalt surface work, sport court surfaces, pour-in-place for protection in playgrounds, and excavation for park repairs and improvements; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City published a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide on-call hardscape installation and repair services; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2026, the City received three (3) submissions, which were reviewed and rated; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that Kerex Engineering, Inc. met the criteria described in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the desired hardscape installation and repair service firm will be available on-call over a three-year period for an amount not to exceed $300,000; and WHEREAS, funding for the on-call painting and repair contracts is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138) and Marina Fund (608) minor maintenance budgets. Funding for FY 2027 through FY 2029 is subject to appropriation in the Parks Tax and Marina Fund and will be identified as needs arise.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Kerex Engineering, Inc. for on-call hardscape installation and repair services for the three-year contract period of April 30, 2026, through April 30, 2029, in an amount not to exceed $300,000. A recorded signature copy of the agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

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

CONTRACT: CALICO CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTORES, INC.

WHEREAS, the City contracts with private companies for large-scale hardscape installation and repair services that include concrete, stone, and asphalt surface work, sport court surfaces, pour-in-place for protection in playgrounds, and excavation for park repairs and improvements; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City published a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide on-call hardscape installation and repair services; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2026, the City received three (3) submissions, which were reviewed and rated; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that Calico California Constructores, Inc. met the criteria described in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the desired hardscape installation and repair service firm will be available on-call over a three-year period for an amount not to exceed $300,000; and WHEREAS, funding for the on-call painting and repair contracts is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138) and Marina Fund (608) minor maintenance budgets. Funding for FY 2027 through FY 2029 is subject to appropriation in the Parks Tax and Marina Fund and will be identified as needs arise.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Calico California Constructores, Inc. for on-call hardscape installation and repair services for the three-year contract period of April 30, 2026, through April 30, 2029, in an amount not to exceed $300,000. A recorded signature copy of the agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the 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/

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contracts for On-call Painting and Repair Services at Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Facilities

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt three (3) Resolutions authorizing the City Manager to execute on-call contracts and any amendments for painting and repair services for a period of three years each with the following:

1. Athen’s Painting & Commercial Coatings, Inc, for an amount not to exceed $300,000;

2. SDM Construction, for an amount not to exceed $300,000; and

3. Aiden’s Quality Painting, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $300,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for the on-call painting and repair contracts is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138) and Marina Fund (608) minor maintenance budgets.

Funding for FY 2027 through FY 2029 is subject to appropriation in the Parks Tax and Marina Fund and will be identified as needs arise.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On-call painting and repair services are needed from qualified contractors to perform large-scale painting and repair of park fixtures, park buildings, restroom buildings, docks, gates, sport courts, catwalks, pedestrian bridges, signage, road surfaces, utility boxes, and other park assets throughout the City.

BACKGROUND
The City contracts with private companies for large-scale painting and repair services that include pressure washing, dry rot repair, patching and sealing, cleaning and disposing of old painted surfaces, staining, priming, and painting. On January 20, 2026, the City published a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide on-call painting and repair services (Specification No. 26-11774-C). On February 19, 2026, the City received Statements of Proposals (SOPs) from four (4)

10

Contractors for On-call Painting and Repair Services at PRW Facilities CONSENT CALENDAR April 14, 2026
separate painting and construction firms. A panel of City staff reviewed the SOPs and determined that three (3) firms met the criteria described in the RFP.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
These on-call painting and repair contracts will help the City achieve Strategic Plan Long-term Goal Number 1 to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities. The proper maintenance of City facilities helps extend the life cycle of facilities and reduces the need for reconstruction that is more costly and has more impacts on the environment.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City has extensive needs for painting and repair at Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department facilities throughout the City. After conducting a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP) process, the City has determined that three contractors met the requirements described in the RFP.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront, 981-6700 Bruce Pratt, Parks Superintendent, Parks Recreations and Waterfront 981-6632 Walter Vandernald, Senior Building Maintenance Supervisor, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront 981-6727
Attachments:

1. Resolution: Athen’s Painting & Commercial Coatings, Inc.

2. Resolution: SDM Construction

3. Resolution: Aiden’s Quality Painting, Inc.

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

CONTRACT: ATHEN’S PAINTING & COMMERCIAL COATINGS, INC.

WHEREAS, the City contracts with private companies for large scale pressure washing, dry rot repair, patching and sealing, cleaning and disposing of old painted surfaces, priming, staining, and painting; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City published a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide on-call painting and repair services; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2026, the City received four (4) submissions, which were reviewed and rated; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that Athen’s Painting & Commercial Coatings, Inc. met the criteria described in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the desired painting and repair service firm will be available on-call over a three-year period for a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000; and WHEREAS, funding for the on-call painting and repair contracts is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138) and Marina Fund (608) minor maintenance budgets. Funding for FY 2027 through FY 2029 is subject to appropriation in the Parks Tax and Marina Fund and will be identified as needs arise.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Athen’s Painting & Commercial Coatings, Inc. for on-call painting and repair services for the three-year contract period of April 30, 2026, through April 30, 2029, in an amount not to exceed $300,000. A recorded signature copy of the agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

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

CONTRACT: SDM CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the City contracts with private companies for large scale pressure washing, dry rot repair, patching and sealing, cleaning and disposing of old painted surfaces, priming, staining, and painting; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City published a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide on-call painting and repair services; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2026, the City received four (4) submissions, which were reviewed and rated; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that SDM Construction met the criteria described in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the desired painting and repair service firm will be available on-call over a three-year period for a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000; and WHEREAS, funding for the on-call painting and repair contracts is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138) and Marina Fund (608) minor maintenance budgets. Funding for FY 2027 through FY 2029 is subject to appropriation in the Parks Tax and Marina Fund and will be identified as needs arise.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with SDM Construction for on-call painting and repair services for the three-year contract period of April 30, 2026, through April 30, 2029, in an amount not to exceed $300,000. A recorded signature copy of the agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

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

CONTRACT: AIDEN’S QUALITY PAINTING, INC.

WHEREAS, the City contracts with private companies for large scale pressure washing, dry rot repair, patching and sealing, cleaning and disposing of old painted surfaces, priming, staining, and painting; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City published a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide on-call painting and repair services; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2026, the City received four (4) submissions, which were reviewed and rated; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that Aiden’s Quality Painting, Inc. met the criteria described in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the desired painting and repair service firm will be available on-call over a three-year period for a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000; and WHEREAS, funding for the on-call painting and repair contracts is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Parks Tax Fund (138) and Marina Fund (608) minor maintenance budgets. Funding for FY 2027 through FY 2029 is subject to appropriation in the Parks Tax and Marina Fund and will be identified as needs arise.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Aiden’s Quality Painting, Inc. for on-call painting and repair services for the three-year contract period of April 30, 2026, through April 30, 2029, in an amount not to exceed $300,000.

A recorded signature copy of the agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the 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: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contracts: Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management Consulting Services for Measure FF-funded Projects

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt eight Resolutions authorizing the City Manager to execute contracts and any amendments with NCE, Pavement Engineering, Inc., Kittleson & Associates, Sanbell, Bureau Veritas, Cordoba Corporation, Alta Planning + Design, Inc. and Mark Thomas for on-call professional services for Measure FF-funded projects for the amounts listed below, each for a period not to exceed three years:

1. NCE for an amount not to exceed $2,500,000

2. Pavement Engineering, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $2,500,000

3. Kittleson & Associates for an amount not to exceed $2,500,000

4. Sanbell for an amount not to exceed $2,000,000

5. Bureau Veritas for an amount not to exceed $1,500,000

6. Cordoba Corporation for an amount not to exceed $1,500,000

7. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000

8. Mark Thomas for an amount not to exceed $800,000

SUMMARY
In November 2024, Berkeley voters approved Measure FF, a parcel tax to fund sidewalk and street repairs and improvements. The measure provides dedicated infrastructure funding over a 14-year duration, beginning in Fiscal Year 2026 (July 1, 2025). Measure FF revenues are projected to generate $15 million per year and can be adjusted by the Council each year for inflation. Based on responses to the request for qualifications released in October 2025, staff recommend executing contracts, not to exceed three years, with eight consulting firms that are best qualified to provide services related to delivering Measure FF-funded projects.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Initial funding for these contracts in the amount of $750,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget in Fund 166 (Measure FF Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax). Ongoing funding for these services in FY 2027 and FY 2028 is subject to future budget appropriations of Measure FF revenues.

11

Contracts: Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management CONSENT CALENDAR Consulting Services for Measure FF-funded Projects April 14, 2026 The not-to-exceed amount for each contract does not correlate to any one existing project. The amounts are intended to reflect potential need within the contract period that would be directly associated with an approved budgeted scope of work. Work performed under these agreements would be managed through City purchase and task order processes, which provides for detailed accounting on a project basis.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued October 30, 2025 (Specification No. 26- 11765-C), seeking qualified firms or individuals to provide on-call civil engineering planning, design and construction management services for various infrastructure programs and projects related to the Measure FF parcel tax. The work may include design services, pavement rehabilitation, pavement plan public input, accountability reporting, commission meeting support, and Complete Streets and green infrastructure related services that support the implementation of Measure FF funded projects citywide.

On December 2, 2025, the City received ten Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from firms, which were evaluated by one or more review panels for each specialized service area. In each service area, the following firms (in alphabetical order) received the highest rankings of those evaluated, and after completing reference checks, were determined to be the best qualified to meet the City’s needs:

Infrastructure/Streets
 Bureau Veritas
 Cordoba Corporation
 Mark Thomas
 NCE
 Pavement Engineering, Inc.

Traffic/Transportation
 Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
 Cordoba Corporation
 Kittleson & Associates
 Mark Thomas
 Sanbell
The City does not have the expertise possessed by the firms outlined above nor are their adequate staff resources; therefore third-party support is necessary. This bench of consultants will allow the City to make timely progress on existing work plans and support the acceleration of Measure FF project delivery. Multiple contractor selections in each category ensure that the City will be able to secure competitive pricing among the best qualified contractors for each scope of work.

Contracts: Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management CONSENT CALENDAR Consulting Services for Measure FF-funded Projects April 14, 2026 The services provided support the Strategic Plan goal to provide state-of-the-art, well- maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

Effective January 1, 2026, local agencies are required to satisfy noticing requirements for certain contracts for services that meet the criteria outlined in Government Code Section 3204.1 as amended by AB 339. This project does not meet the criteria in Government Code Section 3504.1 and is exempt from the noticing requirement.

BACKGROUND
Over the next fourteen years, the Public Works Department is expecting to significantly increase its capital projects output with the implementation projects funded by the voter- approved Measure FF. The Measure is projected to generate approximately $15 million per year in new funding for street repair, sidewalks and pedestrian path repair, safety improvements for streets, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and pedestrian paths, and other environmental enhancements,
Public Works utilizes civil engineering and transportation consultants to design and manage projects. Particularly in situations where the nature of the work is highly specialized, such as assessment districts, paving, drainage, sanitary sewer, transportation engineering and planning, traffic engineering, green infrastructure design and permitting, construction administration and inspections. On-call contracts provide professional planning, design, engineering, and construction management services on as needed basis, reducing the City’s structural overhead.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
These contracts will help ensure successful completion of capital improvement and other projects that advance the City’s sustainability goals, including stormwater improvements to reduce flood potential and green infrastructure projects, sanitary sewer projects to minimize risk of Sanitary Sewer Overflows, as well as Complete Streets projects that promote walking, biking and transit use. There are no negative environmental effects of this action.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
These firms received the highest rankings of the firms evaluated and are the best qualified to meet the City’s needs. City staff recommend awarding contracts to these consultants to get the best value for the City, distribute the anticipated workload, and create an alternative source for services. NCE, Pavement Engineering, Inc., Kittleson & Associates, Sanbell, Bureau Veritas, Mark Thomas, Alta Planning + Design, Inc. and Cordoba Corporation have expertise in one or more areas of civil engineering & planning; transportation & safety; and infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council could choose not to move forward with these contracts; however, the progress of implementing Measure FF and its funded improvement projects would be significantly

Contracts: Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management CONSENT CALENDAR Consulting Services for Measure FF-funded Projects April 14, 2026 delayed. Existing staff do not have capacity to deliver the anticipated workload associated with these on-call contracts. The City does not have the expertise or staff resources to design, manage and inspect construction of the number of projects in this program. If these contracts are not awarded, the City will not have the technical resources to deliver Measure FF improvement projects.

CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Interim Director of Public Works, Public Works (510) 981-6396 Attachments:

1. Resolution – Contract with NCE

2. Resolution – Contract with Pavement Engineering, Inc.

3. Resolution – Contract with Kittleson & Associates

4. Resolution – Contract with Sanbell

5. Resolution – Contract with Bureau Veritas

6. Resolution – Contract with Mark Thomas

7. Resolution – Contract with Alta Planning + Design, Inc.

8. Resolution – Contract with Cordoba Corporation

9. Bid Abstract

April 14, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: NCE CORPORATION FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of Measure FF-funded projects and programs, and
WHEREAS, initial funding in the amount of $100,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget in Fund 166 (Measure FF Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax).

Additional funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of each contract is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s needs for professional services, and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management Consulting Services (Specification No. 26-11765-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, ten Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to provide on-call civil engineering planning, design and construction management services for various infrastructure programs and projects related to the Measure FF parcel tax; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined that NCE is highly qualified to provide infrastructure/streets services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with NCE for on- call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

April 14, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: PAVEMENT ENGINEERING, INC. FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of Measure FF-funded projects and programs, and
WHEREAS, initial funding in the amount of $100,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget in Fund 166 (Measure FF Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax).

Additional funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of each contract is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s needs for professional services, and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management Consulting Services (Specification No. 26-11765-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, ten Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to provide on-call civil engineering planning, design and construction management services for various infrastructure programs and projects related to the Measure FF parcel tax; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined that Pavement Engineering, Inc. is highly qualified to provide infrastructure/streets services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Pavement Engineering, Inc. for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

April 14, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: KITTLESON & ASSOCIATES FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of Measure FF-funded projects and programs, and
WHEREAS, initial funding in the amount of $100,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget in Fund 166 (Measure FF Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax).

Additional funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of each contract is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s needs for professional services, and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management Consulting Services (Specification No. 26-11765-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, ten Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to provide on-call civil engineering planning, design and construction management services for various infrastructure programs and projects related to the Measure FF parcel tax; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined that Kittleson & Associates is highly qualified to provide traffic/transportation services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Kittleson & Associates for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

April 14, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: SANBELL FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of Measure FF-funded projects and programs, and
WHEREAS, initial funding in the amount of $100,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget in Fund 166 (Measure FF Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax).

Additional funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of each contract is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s needs for professional services, and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management Consulting Services (Specification No. 26-11765-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, ten Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to provide on-call civil engineering planning, design and construction management services for various infrastructure programs and projects related to the Measure FF parcel tax; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined that Sanbell is highly qualified to provide traffic/transportation services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Sanbell for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

April 14, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: BUREAU VERITAS FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of Measure FF-funded projects and programs, and
WHEREAS, initial funding in the amount of $100,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget in Fund 166 (Measure FF Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax).

Additional funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of each contract is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s needs for professional services, and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management Consulting Services (Specification No. 26-11765-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, ten Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to provide on-call civil engineering planning, design and construction management services for various infrastructure programs and projects related to the Measure FF parcel tax; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined that Bureau Veritas is highly qualified to provide traffic/transportation services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Bureau Veritas for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

April 14, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: CORDOBA CORPORATION FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of Measure FF-funded projects and programs, and
WHEREAS, initial funding in the amount of $100,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget in Fund 166 (Measure FF Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax).

Additional funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of each contract is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s needs for professional services, and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management Consulting Services (Specification No. 26-11765-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, ten Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to provide on-call civil engineering planning, design and construction management services for various infrastructure programs and projects related to the Measure FF parcel tax; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined that Cordoba Corporation is highly qualified to provide infrastructure/streets and traffic/transportation services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Cordoba Corporation for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

April 14, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN, INC. FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of Measure FF-funded projects and programs, and
WHEREAS, initial funding in the amount of $100,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget in Fund 166 (Measure FF Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax).

Additional funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of each contract is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s needs for professional services, and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management Consulting Services (Specification No. 26-11765-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, ten Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to provide on-call civil engineering planning, design and construction management services for various infrastructure programs and projects related to the Measure FF parcel tax; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined that Alta Planning + Design, Inc. is highly qualified to provide traffic/transportation services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

April 14, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: MARK THOMAS FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHEREAS, Public Works requires on-call professional services for the implementation of Measure FF-funded projects and programs, and
WHEREAS, initial funding in the amount of $50,000 is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget in Fund 166 (Measure FF Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax).

Additional funding for FY 2027 and FY 2028 of each contract is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s needs for professional services, and
WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City issued a Request For Qualifications for Pavement and Safety Improvement/Program Management Consulting Services (Specification No. 26-11765-C) soliciting proposals from qualified firms; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, ten Statements of Qualifications were received from firms specializing in a variety of professional services necessary to provide on-call civil engineering planning, design and construction management services for various infrastructure programs and projects related to the Measure FF parcel tax; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the proposals and determined that Mark Thomas is highly qualified to provide infrastructure/streets and traffic/transportation services.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Mark Thomas for on-call professional services for a total contract period of three years in an amount not to exceed $800,000. A record signature copy of said contracts and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Adena Ishii (Author), and Council Members Lunaparra, Humbert and O’Keefe (Co-Sponsors)
Subject: Referral to the City Manager and the Parks Commission the request to develop and implement a plan and identify budget to rename City of Berkeley locations, events, and the city holiday currently named for Cesar Chavez, and engage with the Chavez/Huerta Commemoration Period partners and Latinos Unidos de Berkeley to bring back to City Council recommendations for how the City of Berkeley may move forward with a name changes that will continue to honor the legacy of labor organizing and solidarity for farm workers and recognize farm workers as the backbone of America.

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager and the Parks Commission the request to develop and implement a plan and identify budget to rename City of Berkeley locations, events, and the city holiday currently named for Cesar Chavez and engage with the Chavez/Huerta Commemoration Period partners and Latinos Unidos de Berkeley to bring back to City Council recommendations for how the City of Berkeley, may move forward with a name changes that will continue to honor the legacy of labor organizing and solidarity for farm workers and recognize farm workers as the backbone of America.

BACKGROUND
Cesar Chavez, the late United Farm Workers (UFW) co-founder and labor leader has long been an icon and hero to communities across the country. Berkeley has a long history of honoring the legacy of Cesar Chavez dating back to 1996 by naming the City’s waterfront park after him and with an official city holiday that aligns with the State of California holiday. Over the years, the City has worked collaboratively with the Latinx community, local educational institutions, and community based organizations to organize commemorative activities that honor Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, and farm workers.

12

The following is an initial list of locations and events:
● Cesar Chavez Park (1996)
● Cesar Chavez Day -March 30/31 (2000 - aligned with the State Holiday) ● Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site and Solar Calendar (2011)
● Cesar Chavez-Dolores Huerta Commemorative Period (2021) ● Cesar Chavez Park Perimeter Trail Project (2024 -aka Olivia Stegman Trail) On March 18, 2026, the New York Times published an in-depth investigation documenting extensive evidence that Mr. Chavez groomed and sexually abused young girls who worked in the farmworker movement1. In the same story it was revealed that Mr. Chavez raped UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta. After 60 years of silence, Ms.

Huerta, a renowned labor leader and civil rights activist issued a statement with her personal story recounting how Chavez had raped her and how she stayed silent because she “believed that exposing the truth would hurt the farmworker movement I have spent my entire life fighting for.”2
The members of the Berkeley City Council condemns sexual violence and stands with the survivors who bravely told their story. In light of the in-depth reporting of credible accusations against Mr. Chavez the City must work on a path forward to remove Cesar Chavez’s name from city locations, events, and holidays.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No Impact

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff time to develop a plan and cost allocation to change the name.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No name change

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Adena Ishii
(510) 981-7100
1 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/18/us/cesar-chavez-sexual-abuse-allegations-ufw.html 2 https://medium.com/@dolores_huerta/march-18-2026-e74c20430555?

1 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: rkesarwani@cityofberkel
ey.info
Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember, District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author), Councilmember Igor Tregub, and Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Sponsors)
SUBJECT: Referral to Establish a Citywide Local Density Bonus Program to Facilitate Lower-Cost Ownership Homes (Condominiums)

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager to develop a citywide local density bonus modelled after the state density bonus that would incentivize new condominium development by allowing condo projects to take advantage of the same densities, bonuses, waivers, and concessions available under state density bonus law. Under the local density bonus, however, condo projects would be able to pay the current in-lieu affordable housing fee to the City’s Housing Trust Fund for all units, rather than create on-site for-sale below-market-rate condo units—a requirement under state density bonus law that renders larger-scale condo development infeasible. Further, the local density bonus shall consider concession rules that uphold the City's workforce standards.

The fiscal and policy goals of this proposed local density bonus are to help stalled rental residential projects in our downtown reach feasibility as condo projects, which will provide affordable housing in-lieu fee revenue, property tax revenue, serve as an economic force multiplier for our downtown, and provide much-needed ownership opportunities for young families seeking a starter home and aging residents seeking to downsize. Further, the local density bonus should apply citywide or downtown or on San Pablo Avenue, considering the area(s) that is most feasible, and provide language for at least two options for applicability:
1) Projects that have vested prior to Jan. 1, 2025 only; and 2) All projects regardless of vesting date—and to consider a sunset date, or a progress report to help determine an appropriate sunset date.

The reason for providing these two options is so that Council may consider economic conditions and the number of stalled projects at the time that the ordinance is under consideration.

13

2 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
And further, to consider removing the exemption on the first 5,000 square feet for the affordable housing in-lieu fee.

Further, request information from staff on whether it is financially feasible and operationally possible to provide Affordable Housing Trust funding to provide for below-market-rate condos on site.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On March 2, 2026 the Land Use Policy Committee took the following action:

Action: 15 speakers. M/S/C (Bartlett/Lunaparra) to send the item to the City Council with a qualified positive recommendation and with the recommendation revised to read as follows:

Refer to the City Manager to develop a citywide local density bonus modelled after the state density bonus that would incentivize new condominium development by allowing condo projects to take advantage of the same densities, bonuses, waivers, and concessions available under state density bonus law. Under the local density bonus, however, condo projects would be able to pay the current in-lieu affordable housing fee to the City’s Housing Trust Fund for all units, rather than create on-site for-sale below-market-rate condo units—a requirement under state density bonus law that renders larger-scale condo development infeasible. The fiscal and policy goals of this proposed citywide local density bonus are to help stalled rental residential projects in our downtown reach feasibility as condo projects, which will provide affordable housing in-lieu fee revenue, property tax revenue, serve as an economic force multiplier for our downtown, and provide much-needed ownership opportunities for young families seeking a starter home and aging residents seeking to downsize. Further, the local density bonus should apply citywide or downtown and provide language for at least two options for applicability:

1. Projects that have vested prior to January 1, 2025 only; and

2. All projects regardless of vesting date – and to consider a sunset date, or a progress report to help determine an appropriate sunset date. The reason for providing these two options is so that Council may consider economic conditions and the number of stalled projects at the time that the ordinance is under consideration.

And further, to consider removing the exemption on the first 5,000 square feet for the affordable housing in-lieu fee. Further, information from staff on whether it is financially feasible and operationally possible to provide Affordable Housing Trust funding to provide for below-market rate condos on site.

Vote: All Ayes.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS

3 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
At Least Nine Recent Rental Residential Development Projects Are Stalled in Berkeley’s Downtown, Sometimes Creating Blight. Currently, there are at least nine rental residential development projects that have received a zoning permit, the initial step that allows a project to apply for a building permit, as shown in Exhibit 1.

However, only five of these nine projects have received a building permit and none have broken ground due to unfavorable economic conditions. According to a May 2024 residential feasibility analysis for the City of Berkeley, most development prototypes cannot support the current cost of development in today’s market.1 The report states, “This is being driven by increased construction and financing costs that are outpacing projected rental revenue relative to the required rate of return developers must provide to finance a project.”
Exhibit 1: Nine Recent Proposed Rental Residential Development Projects in Downtown Have Received a Zoning Permit, But Have Not Broken Ground Address Date Zoning Permit Was
Received
Number of Proposed Units
2128 Oxford Oct. 4, 2024 456
2190 Shattuck April 28, 2023 325
2274 Shattuck April 22, 2025 277
2015 Blake Sept. 25, 2023 219
2100 Milvia July 1, 2025 205
2065 Kittredge1 Feb. 22, 2023 189
2037 Durant June 19, 2024 74
2138 Kittredge Oct. 20, 2025 66
2210 Harold Way Dec. 10, 2020 38
Total Number of Proposed Units Stalled 1,849
Source: City of Berkeley, https://berkeley.buildingeye.com/building 1Note: Harold Way Development at 2065 Kittredge has broken ground but is currently stalled.

For the nine proposed projects listed above that received a zoning permit, five projects went on to receive a building permit (2210 Harold Way, 2065 Kittredge, 2190 Shattuck, 2128 Oxford, and 2138 Kittredge) but have not broken ground for various reasons. We note that another three projects not listed above (2113 Kittredge, 1998 Shattuck, and 2450 Shattuck) submitted a pre-application but never received a zoning permit. Some of these stalled projects are creating blighted conditions in our downtown:
1 Ernst, Margot, “Residential Feasibility Analysis and In-Lieu Fee Recommendations,” City of Berkeley Worksession, May 21, 2024, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-02- 25%20Item%2014%20Inclusionary%20Housing%20Ordinance.pdf

4 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
 The 2128 Oxford Street stalled project has caused a once vibrant block of small businesses to remain shuttered, with boarded up storefronts and fencing for an extended period;
 2065 Kittredge project is the site of an unsightly pit of dirt; and  2274 Shattuck is the site of the shuttered United Artists Theatres.

Over Last Five Years, No Largescale Condo Projects Utilizing the State Density Bonus Have Been Built in Berkeley. While many multiunit rental housing developments have recently been added to Berkeley’s housing stock, that has not been the case with multiunit ownership developments. Nor have many rental units been converted to condominiums over the same period. In large part that can be attributed to affordable housing requirements compelling developers to either include below-market-rate housing on site, which costs would need to be offset by the construction of additional market rate units, or pay an in-lieu fee that until very recently was costly. 2 The City’s condominium conversion fees are also high which likely impacts the numbers of units converted to ownership opportunities. 3 Exhibit 2 shows the numbers of condominiums constructed and/or converted from rental units in Berkeley over the last five years.

Exhibit 2: Number of Condominium Units Constructed and Converted over the Last Five Years in Berkeley
Year
Project Addresses (New
Construction Only)
Number of
New
Construction
Units
Number of
Converted
Rental Units
Total Number
of Condo Units
1811 Sixty-Third St (3 units)
2020
1444 Fifth St (4 units)
7 14 21
1923 Ninth St (3 units)2021
1516 Carleton St (3 units)
6 3 9
2022 1157 Hearst Ave (4 units) 4 5 9
1519 Fairview St (1 units)2023
776 Page St (3 units)
4 10 14
2421 Ninth St (2 units)2024
2323 Eighth St (2 units)
4 2 6
2403 San Pablo Ave (36
units)*2025
805 Jones St (6 units)
42 0 42
TOTAL 67 34 101
2 Berkeley’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance In-Lieu Fee was amended February 2025:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-02- 25%20Item%2014%20Inclusionary%20Housing%20Ordinance.pdf#:~:text=SUMMARY%20The%20pr oposed%20updates%20to%20Berkeley's%20Inclusionary,development%20(2%E2%80%9319%20uni ts)%2C%20which%20face%20market%20constraints.
3 City of Berkeley Planning and Development Residential Condominium Conversion Packet:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Condo%20Packet%2007-01- 2022_Posted%20Online.pdf

5 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Source: Berkeley Planning Department
*Indicates a private development for the purpose of a group living/ownership situation.

Note: There are two developments (2025 Kala Bagai Way, constructing 48 units, and 3000 San Pablo Avenue constructing 78 units) that have put a condo map on their projects but are being advertised as rental units; they are using a density bonus for those developments though will not be providing ownership units.

A Local Density Bonus Would Alter the Financial Feasibility of Larger-Scale Condominium Development, Allowing Stalled Rental Projects to Move Forward as Condominium Projects. Establishing a local density bonus for stalled rental residential projects that received a zoning permit since Jan. 1, 2024 could enable these projects to move forward as condo projects. A local density bonus can provide the benefits of the state density bonus (in terms of densities, bonuses, concessions, and waivers) that helps projects reach economic feasibility, while also providing the option to pay the in-lieu affordable housing fee for all condo units on site. These funds can then be used to fund 100 percent below-market-rate affordable housing elsewhere in Berkeley, such as at the Ashby East Parking Lot that is now owned by the City. The requirement under the state density bonus to provide below-market-rate units on site for condo developments currently renders these types of projects infeasible, as the for-sale price for below-market-rate condos is too low to be absorbed by the project’s market-rate units. Costs for purchasing a condo unit can be considerable as they include mortgage loan payments, homeowner’s insurance payments, property taxes and assessments, homeowner’s association fees, utilities allowances, insurance premiums, etc., making ownership units much more costly to subsidize than rental units.4 A local density bonus exclusively for condo projects could allow some of the stalled rental projects to convert to condo developments, providing the City with affordable housing in-lieu fee revenue that it cannot otherwise realize for stalled rental projects under current economic conditions.

Creating a Local Density Bonus to Jumpstart Stalled Residential Development Provides Fiscal Benefits to City and Economic Development in Downtown. By developing a citywide local density bonus, the City of Berkeley can help to ensure that some of the stalled rental projects can move forward as condo projects, providing significant fiscal benefits to the City. The City would realize affordable housing in-lieu fee revenue to fund 100 percent affordable housing as well as property tax revenue to support baseline City services. Further, new condominiums will bring new residents to our downtown who will patronize downtown small businesses, restaurants, and arts venues—acting as an economic force multiplier.

Condo Development in Downtown Offers Starter Homeownership Opportunities for Young Families and Downsizing Opportunities for Empty Nesters That’s 4 Meyers|Nave 2024 California Developers’ Toolkit: Density Bonus Law, Housing Laws, & Strategies for Success, p. 4: https://www.meyersnave.com/wp-content/uploads/2024.10-California-Developers- Toolkit_Density-Bonus-Law.pdf

6 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Walkable to Amenities and Public Transit. The City’s median home price of $1.3 to $1.5 million remains out of reach for all but the wealthiest families. This is an issue of public concern because our community must be able to provide long-term viable home options for the families of middle-class workers who serve our community, including police officers, firefighters, teachers, and health care workers. For aging empty nesters living in larger homes in the hills, there are virtually no opportunities to remain in the community and downsize to a smaller home that is walkable to amenities like grocery stores and public transit. A local density bonus for stalled rental projects seeking to convert to condo projects addresses the need to create smaller and more affordable ownership units for those seeking more affordable homeownership opportunities than a single-family home.

BACKGROUND
The State Density Bonus Is a Powerful Tool to Help Residential Development Reach Feasibility. The state density bonus law allows developers to build more housing units than normally permitted by local zoning standards in exchange for including affordable deed-restricted units on site. Depending on the number of below- market-rate units and the affordability level, developers can increase the project’s density. For example, providing 20 percent of units at a very low-income level allows a developer to utilize a 50 percent density bonus. The goal of the state density bonus law is to incentivize the creation of affordable housing by helping a project reach economic feasibility. For each project that utilize a density bonus, local jurisdictions are required to provide up to four concessions to achieve an “identifiable and actual cost reduction” per State Government Code Section 65915(k) as well as an unlimited number of waivers as long as the developer can prove that the project cannot be built without them.

Berkeley Has a Significant Aging Population of Homeowners. Slightly over a quarter of all Berkeley residents are 55 and older.5 A high concentration of these older residents live in the Berkeley Hills, as shown in Exhibit 2 below. For aging residents wishing to remain in the community and downsize to a home they can own that is walkable to amenities and public transit, there are few options. Some new senior housing has been developed in recent years, such as Jordan Court for low-income seniors (corner of Oxford and Cedar), The Ivy at Berkeley assisted living and memory care home (corner of Dwight and Milvia), and Elegance Berkeley assisted living (corner of San Pablo Avenue and Addison). However, given the City’s significant aging population, more ownership opportunities are needed for seniors seeking to downsize and relocate to a walkable neighborhood as they age.
5 State of Public Health in Berkeley Summary Report, Information Report presented at the June 24, 2025 City Council meeting: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-06- 24%20Item%2030%20State%20of%20Public%20Health%20in%20Berkeley%20Summary%20Report .pdf

7 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 2: Aging Berkeley Residents Are Concentrated In Berkeley Hills Source: Age-Friendly Berkeley Action Plan, 2018, : https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 01/Age-Friendly-Berkeley-Action-Plan.pdf
Condo Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Has Been Lowered To Be Equal to Rental Affordable Housing Fee, With Potential to Encourage New Condo Development. Historically, the affordable housing in-lieu fee for condo developments has been much higher than the fee imposed on rental projects; it was calculated as 62.5 percent of the difference between the market price for each unit and the below-market-rate price for each inclusionary unit.6 In January 2023, the Berkeley City Council modified the affordable housing in-lieu fee to be applied on a square-foot basis, and to be applied equally to rental and ownership units.7 Effective July 1, 2025, the current in lieu fee is $62.83 per square foot, with all projects receiving a discount on the first 5,000 square feet. 8
6 Klein, Jordan and Warhuus, Lisa. “Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements,” Jan. 17, 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-01- 17%20Item%2021%20Citywide%20Affordable%20Housing%20Requirements.pdf 7 Klein, Jordan and Warhuus, Lisa. “Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements,” Jan. 17, 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-01- 17%20Item%2021%20Citywide%20Affordable%20Housing%20Requirements.pdf 8 Affordable Housing Requirements for Developers, City of Berkeley, https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/permits-design-parameters/design-

8 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Oakland, San Francisco, and Hayward Have Implemented a Local Density Bonus To Further Policy Goals. Neighboring jurisdictions have adopted their own local density programs going beyond state requirements to further their own specific policy goals. In Oakland, the Zoning Incentive Program allows additional density beyond what is allowed by the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan Base Zoning in exchange for a variety of community benefits, on-site affordable housing and with the option of paying in-lieu fees.9 San Francisco’s local density program, HOME-SF,10 allows more height than the state’s density bonus in exchange for 20 to 30 percent of the units being affordable to low and moderate-income families, with 40 percent of the total units being two-bedrooms or larger, in an effort to provide more family-friendly housing. The City of Hayward allows an additional density bonus, incentives, and concessions for housing targeted to special populations, such as large families (3+ bedrooms), projects including universal design features for people with disabilities, seniors, college students, and foster youth to name several examples. 11 While this item is somewhat novel in allowing condominium projects to pay an in-lieu fee into our Housing Trust Fund only and not build affordable units on site, these other examples illustrate the flexibility that a local density bonus can provide to address local concerns.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impacts of this referral would be staff time to draft municipal code updates and implement the referral. The overall fiscal benefits to the City could be notable if we are able to incentivize stalled rental projects to move forward as condo developments.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Implementing a local density bonus for condo development will help create more infill housing in closer proximity to public transit. Studies show that infill development is an effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles travelled when compared to homes created in outlying undeveloped areas.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, District 1 (510) 981-7110 parameters/affordable-
housing#:~:text=Effective%20July%201%2C%202025%2C%20the%20rental%20or,from%20the%20 Residential%20Unit%20Floor%20Area%20calculation
9 Hausrath Economics Group Memorandum: Comparative Analysis of Housing Outcomes: Downtown Oakland Specific Plan Zoning Incentive Program and California Density Bonus Law, March 10, 2023:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/public-meetings/zoning-update-committee/2023/b- comparing-zip-and-sdb-housing-outcomes.pdf
10 San Francisco Planning Department: HOME-SF: https://sfplanning.org/home-sf 11 City of Hayward, Hayward Density Bonus User Guide, June 2025: https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/City-of-Hayward-Density-Bonus-User-Guide-2506.pdf

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14th, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin
Subject: Kala Art 2026: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Taplin, to support Art Institute 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impacts. Up to $500 is available from contributing Councilmember’s Council Office Budget discretionary accounts.

BACKGROUND
Founded in 1974, by Archana Horsting and Yuzo Nakano, as an international residency program rooted in the local community and a forum for ideas, Kala Art Institute encourages artistic experimentation. Over four decades -- from a garage studio with one etching press and a single hot plate to a 15,200 sq. ft. facility in the historic West Berkeley Heinz building -- Kala has grown steadily in the breadth of its offerings and in the size of its operation, yet remains true to its mission to be a workshop of ideas and to engage the community through exhibitions, education, and public programs.

In 2009, Kala dynamically expanded its facility providing new opportunities for artists and the community. With improved studios, project rooms, classrooms, and a 2,200 sq. ft. light-filled gallery with an accessible street level location, Kala is working to maximize its capacity to serve the community as a vital center for artistic experimentation. Kala serves 35,000 individuals yearly through artist residencies, exhibitions, and community workshops. In addition, Kala’s Artists-in-Schools program provides curriculum-based visual arts education to children in neighboring public schools in Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland. Overall, their constituents range from 5 to 95 years old and represent a diverse group of participants including local residents, visiting artists from all state, country, and abroad – representing an international spectrum of backgrounds and experience. Bay Area artists represent 85% of participants in Kala’s artist residencies.

14

Kala Arts Institute CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14th, 2026
Kala Art Institute’s mission is to help artists sustain their creative work overtime through its Artist-in-Residence and Fellowship Programs, and to engage the community through exhibitions, public programs, and education.

The heart of Kala’s mission as a vital California art-making hub is supporting artists and engaging the community. Kala offers professional facilities to those working in and across print and digital media, new media, and performance. Artists at Kala are encouraged to work across disciplines, produce innovative artwork of the highest quality, and are given total freedom to realize their artistic vision using media that span the Gutenberg to digital eras. Kala offers access to equipment, time, and space to cultivate creative projects. Kala’s studios provide tools for printmaking, photography, video, installation, and digital media. Kala fosters a fresh approach to experimentation, as artists investigate the interface of digital work, work made by hand, work made in the studio, performance-based work that engages the community and everything in between. A spirit of exchange and education is nurtured through all Kala’s community programs.

Kala’s creative community builds bridges between the intense art-making environment of the Kala studios, located in the historic Heinz ketchup factory in Berkeley and life outside the studio in Kala’s immediate neighborhood and far beyond. Additionally, Kala is committed to offering quality art education to the general public and public school children through its on-site and online program of classes and workshops, summer programs and its Artists-in-Schools program, established in 1991, providing multiple week artist-led instruction to students in neighboring East Bay public schools.

Celebrating Kala’s 52nd year, Art Kala 2026 brings together Kala’s creative community and features the inventive and meaningful art being made in the Bay Area. Art Kala 52nd Anniversary Party with Honorary Auction Chair Doree Friedman will take place April 25th 2026, honoring Gale Antokal, Cathy Lu, and Adia Millett. Art Kala 52ndf Anniversary Party will take place at: Kala Gallery, 2990 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, California 94702.

More information can be found at:
http://www.kala.org/gallery/spring-gala-and-auction/.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
This item is consistent with the city’s vision on sustainability.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Terry Taplin, Council District 2 - 510-981-7120 Attachments:
1: Resolution

Kala Arts Institute CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14th, 2026

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE EXPENSE

ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO PROVIDE

PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE

WHEREAS, Councilmember Taplin has surplus funds in his office expenditure account (budget code 011-11-102-100-0000-000-411); and

WHEREAS, a private 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt corporation Kala Arts Institute seeks funds to support their continued fundraising; and

WHEREAS, Kala Art Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping artists sustain their creative work overtime through its Artist-in-Residence and Fellowship Programs, and to engaging the community through exhibitions, public programs, and education; and

WHEREAS, since 1974, Kala has grown steadily in the breadth of its offerings and in the size of its operation, yet remains true to its mission to be a workshop of ideas and to engage the community through exhibitions, education, and public programs; and

WHEREAS, Kala serves 35,000 individuals yearly through artist residencies, exhibitions, and community workshops, and through its Artists-in-Schools program provides curriculum-based visual arts education to children in neighboring public schools in Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland; and

WHEREAS, Kala’s constituents range from 5 to 95 years old and represent a diverse group of participants including local residents, visiting artists from all state, country, and abroad – representing an international spectrum of backgrounds and experience – with Bay Area artists representing 85% of participants in Kala’s artist residencies; and

WHEREAS, Art Kala 2025 brings together Kala’s creative community and features the inventive and meaningful art being made in the Bay Area, honoring Gale Antokal, Cathy Lu, and Adia Millett; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by $500 from Councilmember Taplin and any funds, up to $500 per Council Office Budget, from the Mayor and other Councilmembers shall be granted to the Kala Art Institute to support Art Kala 2026 and to celebrate Kala’s 52nd year helping artists sustain their creative work in Berkeley and beyond.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 1 CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author)
Subject: Celebración Cultural Sylvia Mendez (Spring Cultural Celebration) by the Sylvia Mendez School PTA: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of funds, including $1,000 from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett, to the Sylvia Mendez Elementary School PTA to host a Spring Cultural Celebration event on April 26, 2026, on campus. The funds will be relinquished to the City’s General Fund from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett and the discretionary council office budgets of any other City Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND
This year, the Berkeley Unified School District’s (BUSD) only Two-Way Immersion school, Sylvia Mendez Elementary (Sylvia Mendez), will host a Cultural Celebration to celebrate the global heritage, various nationalities, and other cultures important to its community. Community members are creating teams to determine the information, tastes, crafts, dress, music, and performances they want to share at the event.

This is the fourth year of the event. In previous years, teams were formed to represent the following cultures: Eritrea, Mexico, Chile, Cuba, Canada, African American, Croatia, Farm & Garden, Rainbow Families, Finland, Germany, and Venezuela. Meals were catered by different local ethnic restaurants and supplemented by some of the teams with homemade foods. In addition, the tables shared cultural music in a community playlist, and there was live music. The participants shaped the events, which were well received by the community, which hopes to build off of last year’s great success, which included a national parade featuring traditional clothing, a third-grade dance, and a traditional guitar performance.

With such great success, the Sylvia Mendez PTA is hosting this event for the fourth consecutive time, maintaining the same goal of contextualizing our students' cultural influences, backgrounds, and much more. The funds requested are intended to offset some costs associated with the event. Therefore, they should be sent to the Sylvia Mendez PTA organization to distribute accordingly.

15

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 2 This parent-led committee is already funding most of the event's costs and has been a reliable resource for offsetting budget shortfalls. The donations ultimately support the program guidelines laid out by BUSD (on the
Sylvia Mendez Elementary website1), which is to “develop long-lasting relationships and cultural appreciation for peers who are often separated by race and language.” This is further defined on the school's website as “to seek to honor and understand families.”
Since the pandemic restrictions were lifted in 2022, Sylvia Mendez Elementary has hosted well- attended Spring Events. Scheduled late in the school year, they have proven crucial for the community. Facing heightened challenges this year due to on-site construction that began last summer and will continue at least through next school year, fostering relationships by building a greater understanding of families within and the development of our community is fundamental in uplifting morale.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No negative impact.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact; $1,000 is available from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett.

The cost is Sylvia Mendez School PTA: Celebración Cultural (Spring Cultural Celebration).

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected] James Chang [email protected]

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution
1 https://www.berkeleyschools.net/schools/elementary-schools/sylviamendez-elementary/

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 3 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE EXPENSE

ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A DONATION TO THE SYLVIA

MENDEZ SCHOOL PTA TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR A SPRING CULTURAL CELEBRATION EVENT.

WHEREAS, Councilmember Ben Bartlett has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, Sylvia Mendez School PTA, a California non-profit organization, will receive funds in the amount of $1,000 from Councilmember Ben Bartlett’s office expenditure account; and WHEREAS, the Sylvia Mendez School PTA supports equitable public education for students, families, and our community through grants and volunteer programs; and WHEREAS, the provisions of such services would fulfill the municipal public purpose of providing students and the youth with opportunities through educational programs and activities to encourage them to learn and embrace cultural diversity; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their office budgets, of an amount to be determined by each Councilmember, shall be granted to Sylvia Mendez School PTA for the purpose of supporting students and the youth in highlighting cultural heritage that forms the community of the student body.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 1 CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Subject: Recommendation to Parks and Waterfront Commission to Explore the Naming of a Public Plaza in South Berkeley as Delores Cooper Plaza

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission to explore naming of the public plaza located at the intersection of Adeline Street and Fairview Street within the Lorin District corridor in South Berkeley as Delores Cooper Plaza; including process and directive of coordinating implementation, historical preservation, such as signage, universal design, and public engagement with community partners to document Delores Cooper’s historic contributions to the City of Berkeley.

CURRENT SITUATION
The City of Berkeley has continuously recognized individuals whose leadership and service have shaped the City’s cultural and civic identity. Public space naming is an important tool that honors community legacy by strengthening neighborhood identity and civic pride.

Delores Nochi Cooper is a founding board member and Executive Manager of Berkeley Juneteenth Cultural Celebrations, a 35-year-old non-profit organization located in Berkeley, California. A retired peace officer with 25 years of experience, Ms. Cooper’s professional background includes legal compliance monitoring, investigations, needs assessments, report writing, and drug intervention education. Ms. Cooper’s five years as a departmental training manager provided her with experience in strategic planning, policy development, contract negotiation, and production management. Ms. Cooper holds an MA in Legal Analysis and a BA in History from Lone Mountain College in San Francisco.

Ms. Cooper has used her professional expertise to empower and strengthen the community through events such as Juneteenth and Black History Month. Since taking over the helm of Berkeley Juneteenth as its Production Manager ten years ago, the festival has grown in its scope and influence and is hailed as the longest-running Juneteenth event in California. Ms. Cooper’s portfolio includes serving as a historical exhibits curator, Vision magazine editor, and graphic designer in charge of web and social media content,

16

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 2 event images, marketing materials, fundraising and proposal writing, budget management, and as the single point of contact for the City, press, and service providers.

Ms. Cooper played a central role in the successful effort to rename Grove Street as Martin Luther King Jr.

Way, serving as a member of the Martin Luther King Ad Hoc Committee. She is an active participant in her community and has volunteered her services as a writing coach at Berkeley and Richmond schools through Writer Coach Connection; as a program consultant with the South Berkeley Legacy Project; and as a Police Review Commissioner with the City of Berkeley. In 2021, Ms. Cooper was appointed to serve on the City of Berkeley’s Independent Redistricting Commission. In 2024, she published a collection of poetry, “A Sweating Body That is Cooled By A Sometimey Breeze.” South Berkeley, and specifically the Lorin District corridor, is widely recognized as the historic and contemporary epicenter of culture in Berkeley. As displacement pressures continue, it is increasingly important for the City to preserve and affirm Berkeley’s legacy through intentional placemaking and cultural recognition.

The proposed Delores Cooper Plaza, located at the intersection of Adeline Street and Fairview Street within the Lorin District corridor in South Berkeley, reflects Ms. Cooper’s deep connection to Berkeley and its ongoing cultural and historical significance. The naming has received unanimous support from the Lorin Business Association of South Berkeley and strong support from numerous members of the broader Berkeley community.

BACKGROUND
Delores Cooper’s legacy as an educator, advocate, and cultural leader spans decades of service to Berkeley residents, particularly Black youth and families. Born in Oakland, nurtured in Compton, and raised in Berkeley, she believes art, music, and history can serve as vehicles for channeling creative expression and building self-esteem, ultimately addressing the generational emotional trauma of slavery and systemic racism. Her passion is event programming with a community-healing component that builds community, with “ME and WE” as essential participants in a healthy, diverse community.

Cooper’s leadership and her continued involvement in cultural institutions, such as the Berkeley Juneteenth Festival, demonstrate her enduring commitment to building the Berkeley community.

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 3 This proposal is further supported by Inter-City Services Inc. (ICS), a Bay Area organization that has served marginalized and underserved communities since 1984, which has formally expressed its support for establishing Delores Cooper Plaza and highlighted the appropriateness of the proposed location.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
This action is consistent with the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan’s placemaking goals, which emphasize improvements to the public realm, corridor identity, and pedestrian-oriented retail and cultural activity.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No negative impact.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Community outreach for this proposal included engagement with the Lorin Business Association, community organizations, and South Berkeley residents. The proposal received unanimous support from the Lorin Business Association and broad endorsement from members of the Berkeley community.

In addition, outreach and consultation were conducted with Kieron Slaughter, former City of Berkeley Office of Economic Development staff member and former Liaison to the Lorin Business Association of South Berkeley. Mr. Slaughter brings extensive experience in public-space renaming and placemaking in Berkeley, as well as several other successful renaming efforts and placemaking installations in Oakland and Richmond. His expertise helped inform the proposed process and community-centered approach for this initiative.

The Commission is asked to review this proposal and, if appropriate, recommend a plan and approval to the City Council.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Costs associated with the fabrication and installation of plaza signage and interpretive elements are anticipated to be modest and may be covered by existing departmental budgets or through partnerships and donations.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected]
James Chang [email protected]

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 4 Artemisia Spencer Mace [email protected]

ATTACHMENTS AND MATERIALS

1. Delores Cooper Plaza Proposed Location Map

2. Inter-City Services Inc. Letter of Support

3. The Lorin Business Association Letter of Support

4. Delores Nochi Cooper Biography

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 5 Attachment 1:

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 6 Attachment 2:

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 7 Attachment 3:

2180 Milvia Street, Floor 5, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● Email: [email protected] 8 Attachment 4:

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Igor Tregub (Author), Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Referral to the City Manager: Amendments to the Berkeley Green Code for Newly Constructed Buildings and Existing Construction

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager the following:
(1) Continued development of a Single Source Energy Margin (Single Margin) reach code for adoption;
(2) Further analysis, for future consideration, of additional Green Building policy and operational measures, such as Flexible Path (FlexPath) and Air Conditioner to Heat Pump (AC2HP) provisions, and/or other applicable pathways; and (3) Further streamlining, as feasible and appropriate, of the approval of certain Green Building equipment, systems, features, and processes for residential and residential-over-ground-floor-commercial construction. Consideration should be given to the establishment of an expedited permitting pathway for installations performed by contractors that participate in a California Division of Apprenticeship Standards-approved apprenticeship program in the applicable trade.

As part of this ongoing work, the City Manager shall continue to examine the projected costs and potential savings, as applicable, associated with the referral; evaluate the complexity of compliance; and develop options to simplify requirements and reduce friction, particularly for smaller builders, developers, and homeowners.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On March 18, 2026, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Taplin/Humbert) To send the item to council with a qualified positive recommendation with the provisions that the ongoing work reexamine projected costs, evaluate the complexity of compliance, and offer options for making it simpler and as low friction as possible particularly for smaller builders, developers, and homeowners. Vote: All Ayes.

17

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Ordinance may modestly or moderately increase the plan check and inspection workload. Costs would be offset by existing fees paid by permit applicants.

Staff time associated with Recommendation 1 is already budgeted for and underway.

CURRENT SITUATON AND ITS EFFECTS
City of Berkeley staff is in the process of responding to a May 2025 referral by the City Council to evaluate policies that accelerate building decarbonization.1 Recommendations 1 and 2 align with the existing proposal for staff’s current work plan.2 3 Recommendation 3 aligns with the City of Berkeley’s ongoing efforts to streamline the permitting process for green building systems and equipment and reduce “soft costs” associated with their permitting process.4
Single-Margin Energy Reach Code
The single margin approach would require the proposed building to meet a higher source energy compliance margin for all occupancies than currently required by the California Energy Code. Although “source energy” is not defined in the state Energy Code, a Code manual explains it generally measures the marginal greenhouse gas emissions of energy used to supply electricity (2022 Single Family Residential Compliance Manual at

1.6.4). The metric accounts for the system delivering energy to the building, as well as the time of day the energy is delivered.

By requiring that a proposed building achieve a certain compliance margin below the source energy requirement for a standard design building, such an ordinance would require that a building improve upon the state code’s performance metric. Each building type would have a respective single margin it would need to comply with. This approach gives builders flexibility in how to meet these standards and allows and applies to both electric and mixed-use fuel designs. Methods to achieve a particular source energy compliance margin include electrifying appliances, or, if a building uses gas appliances, adding efficiency improvements such as insulation, and/or utilizing solar photovoltaic (PV) or a battery.

Air Conditioning (AC) to Heat Pump
As the federal government is rolling back climate progress, local governments such as Berkeley have the opportunity to step up to sustain and accelerate emissions reductions.

Under an “AC to Heat Pump” (AC2HP) policy, any new installation of an air conditioner 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-05- 20%20Item%2025%20Authorization%20for%20City%20Manager%20to%20evaluate%20policies.pdf 2 2025-12-03_ECC_Item 8_Reach Code Memo.pdf
3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting- attachments/2025%20Reach%20Codes%20for%20FITES%2003-04-26.pdf 4 2023-10-30 Online Standardized Plan Review and Permitting for Rooftop Solar Systems.pdf

would instead be required to use a heat pump, which provides both heating and cooling through a two-way valve, or, alternatively, to install a suite of energy efficiency measures. An AC2HP ordinance was produced in collaboration with the Statewide Reach Codes Program5, and establishes a “Time of Replacement” policy. The model code language proposes a reach code requiring that any existing single-family home involving replacement or alteration of an existing air conditioning system or installation of a new air conditioning must either include a heat pump space heater as the primary heating system or install other energy conservation measures. This approach targets a natural point of intervention in a building’s lifecycle. By focusing on equipment replacement events, this policy minimizes disruption to property owners while ensuring progress toward decarbonization.6 Several other California jurisdictions (e.g., Mill Valley7, Glendale8, Oakland9, Menlo Park10, San Jose11, Sunnyvale12, Los Altos Hills13, Saratoga14, Campbell15, et al16 have passed or are on track to pass an AC2HP measure by the end of 2026.

BACKGROUND
The Berkeley City Council adopted the California Green Building Standards Code with local amendments on November 29, 2022, and readopted this code on June 4, 2024, with State Mid-Cycle Supplements and further local amendments (effective July 1, 2024).17
Proposed amendments to the Berkeley Green Code were discussed by the Environment and Climate Commission (ECC) at its April and May 2024 meetings. ECC considered 5 https://localenergycodes.com/
6 https://bayareareachcodes.org/model-reach-codes/
7 https://cityofmillvalley.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2073&meta_id=100851 8 https://glendaleca.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId=db90 9199-b056-4790-90ff-994bc0f6b172
9 Draft not publicly available as of the date of this report’s publication. 10 https://menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2025- meetings/20250812/h1-ordinance-amend-chapter-12-muni-code.pdf 11 https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14574069&GUID=051302E5-52A2-4958-9CEB- 6AEDF6C0CAF8
12 https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=AO&ID=164851&GUID=16d2e642-ad7e-485a-ac75- 599a0d0b0f19&N=Q291bmNpbCBBZ2VuZGEgSXRlbSB1cGRhdGVkIGZvbGxvd2luZyBwdWJsaWNhdGl vbiAocG9zdGVkIDIwMjUwODEyKQ%3d%3d
13 https://losaltoshills.ca.gov/571/Reach-Codes
14 Draft not publicly available as of the date of this report’s publication. 15 Draft not publicly available as of the date of this report’s publication. 16 https://bayareareachcodes.org
17 On October 28, 2025, the Berkeley City Council adopted the first reading of an Ordinance repealing and reenacting the Berkeley Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, and Green Building Standards Codes in BMC Chapters 19.28, 19.29, 19.30, 19.32, 19.34, 19.36 and 19.37, and adopting related procedural and stricter provisions and scheduled a Public Hearing, pursuant to state law, for the second reading on November 18, 2025. While the adoption of these codes constitutes an update from the 2022 to the 2025 Building Standards Code, with certain local amendments, the Green Building reach codes under discussion were not included in the ordinance. Staff anticipates advancing those codes for City Council review in early 2026.

options including a Zero NOx CALGreen reach code and a Single Margin Energy reach code. Several commissioners indicated support for a Zero NOx CALGreen reach code, without an exception for cooking equipment used in commercial kitchens, citing potential benefits including alignment with BAAD’s Zero NOx appliance rules, appreciation of future preparedness that a reach code brings, and facilitation of neighborhood decarbonization efforts tied to seismic safety and other health and safety benefits.

On May 7, 2024, City Council referred to the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community (HLEEC) Policy Committee to consider local amendments to CALGreen to require all newly constructed buildings to be Zero NOx Emission Buildings. On July 29, 2024, the HLEEC Policy Committee unanimously voted to send Council a qualified, positive recommendation for the Zero NOx CALGreen reach code, noting also that Council should consider a commercial kitchen exemption, or as an alternative, consider a single margin energy reach code.

The item was removed from the October 15, 2024, Council agenda in order to evaluate recommendations submitted by several environmental organizations to adopt a single margin energy reach code.

CODE AMENDMENTS
The California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the State of California Code of Regulations) is updated and published on a three-year cycle. After the California Building Standards Commission publishes the triennial codes, they become effective statewide.

The current (2022) cycle of State building codes became effective on January 1, 2023.

Local jurisdictions may amend the published codes to address local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

The current three-year building code cycle and any effective amendments thereto are effective through December 31, 2025. The local amendments proposed with a green building reach code ordinance would not negate or otherwise affect previously adopted amendments; they introduce new amendments to the 2022 and California Green Building Standards Code. Under state law local jurisdictions may adopt stricter building code provisions if justified by findings of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.

In Fall 2025, the Berkeley City Council adopted an Ordinance repealing and reenacting the Berkeley Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, and Green Building Standards Codes in BMC Chapters 19.28, 19.29, 19.30, 19.32, 19.34, 19.36 and 19.37, and adopting related procedural and stricter provisions and scheduled a Public Hearing, pursuant to state law, for the second reading on November 18, 2025.

While the adoption of these codes constitutes an update from the 2022 to the 2025 Building Standards Code, with certain local amendments, the Green Building reach codes under discussion were not included in the ordinance.

A green building reach code ordinance supports the City’s Strategic Plan Goals to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city, and to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment. The

ordinance also supports City Council directives and policies related to fire and life safety, resilience, and climate protection, and is supported by the resolution adopting findings of local conditions.

RECENT STATE LAW DEVELOPMENTS
On June 30, 2025, Governor Newsom signed AB 130 (Committee on Budget, 2025), which enacted into statute provisions that limited the ability of local jurisdictions to adopt certain performance standards that are higher than those prescribed in the California Building Standards Code, with certain stated exceptions.18 Per discussion with the Berkeley City Attorney’s Office and the solicitation of other professional opinions as well as dialogue with applicable state legislative offices as to AB 130’s intent, AB 130 either does not apply or one of AB 130’s exemptions is likely to apply to the recommendations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The recommendations contemplated through this referral align with Berkeley’s health, safety, and climate goals. It supports the Climate Action Plan, Berkeley Resilience Strategy, and Fossil Fuel Free Berkeley goals. Green building reach codes reduce the human health, environmental, and climate impacts of emissions associated with occupying and using the new and existing buildings.

This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because there is no possibility that this action may have a significant effect on the environment; the referral will result in standards that are more protective of the environment than existing state standards. Further, the referral will result in standards that are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308 as an action by a regulatory agency taken to protect the environment and natural resources.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Local green building reach codes provide a higher level of safety than are achieved through the State’s Building Codes and Energy Codes. Fire risk, risks to the health of building occupants, the accumulating and compounding risks of climate change to the San Francisco Bay Area, its residents, its coastal and littoral zones, and broader risks of degraded air quality justify adoption of Berkeley code amendments that are stricter than the California Building Standards Code and Energy Code.

In addition to the climate benefits discussed elsewhere in the report, the recommendations would align with Berkeley’s Building Emissions Savings Ordinance, which provides a compliance pathway for properties with heat pumps. “Time-of- replacement” policies such as AC2HP are considered among the most cost-effective policies for decarbonizing buildings. According to the Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy (BEBES), adopted by Council in 2021, “the marginal cost—[the] difference between installing electric equipment and replacing with new gas equipment— 18 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130

at this time is smaller than the full cost of installing electric equipment.” Yet the economics of AC2HP are even more favorable than gas-to-electric conversions.

While furnace-to-heat pump conversions typically incur added costs due to electrical work, the electrical and ducting requirements of an air conditioner are typically identical to those of a heat pump. For this reason, BEBES lists AC2HP as a Phase 1 strategy for implementation by 2025.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A wide array of other green building reach code types (e.g., Zero NOx, Ultra-Low NOx, and Flex Path and electric readiness reach codes) and scope of applicability (e.g., industrial and mixed-use buildings beyond residential-over-ground-floor-commercial) were considered by the District 4 Council office but were ultimately deemed to be less feasible than the recommended approaches, potentially preempted by federal and/or state law, less applicable to Berkeley’s climatological characteristics, or potentially already accomplished through prior adoption of other ordinances.19 As such, the office supports the ongoing efforts of City of Berkeley staff under recommendations 1 and 2 as bolstered by recommendation 3.

CONTACT PERSON
Igor Tregub, Councilmember, District 4, 510-981-7140
[email protected]
Olga Bolotina, Chief of Staff, District 4
[email protected]
19 For example, Berkeley’s recently updated Building Emissions Savings Ordinance already may accomplish certain Flex Path objectives through a similar mechanism for certain types of existing residential construction prior to or shortly following time of sale. See https://berkeleyca.gov/construction- development/green-building/building-emissions-saving-ordinance-beso

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/

CONSENT CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
(Continued from March 24, 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: Mills Act Contract – 2845 Woolsey Street

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act contract with Michael Pearson and Annette Blum Pearson for the maintenance and restoration of a City Landmark property at 2845 Woolsey Street.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Mills Act tax relief is calculated by valuing the income producing potential through a review of market rents, and a capitalization rate that is provided annually by the Board of Equalization. The capitalization rate is the same as the established mortgage interest rates through the Federal Reserve, rounded to the nearest quarter percent for calculation purposes. There is variability each year in the tax reduction depending on the interest rate and market rate rents.

The estimated decrease in City property tax revenue in the first year will be $6,558.

Final amounts are determined by the Alameda County Assessor’s Office after contract execution. This will be an annual impact to the City’s tax revenue, as the contract runs for ten years, in comparable annual amounts.

Council approval will allow property tax reduction for this property to begin in the 2027- 2028 fiscal year.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On April 3, 2025, the property 2845 Woolsey Street was designated as a Structure of Merit allowing the property to be eligible for the Mills Act (see Attachment 2).

On September 4, 2025, the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) reviewed the proposal by the present owners and continued the matter to a date certain of October 6, 2025, pending the resubmittal of a corrected work sheet.

18

Mills Act Contract – 2845 Woolsey Street CONSENT CALENDAR April 14, 2026
(Continued from March 24, 2026)

On October 6, 2025, the LPC continued the matter to a date certain of November 6, 2025.

On November 6, 2025, the LPC continued the matter to a date certain of December 4, 2025.

On December 4, 2025, the LPC reviewed the proposal by the present owners, Michael Pearson and Annette Blum Pearson, to enter into a Mills Act contract for 2845 Woolsey, including a proposed scope of work and maintenance schedule, and failed to approve the Mills Act Contract by a 3-1-2-1 vote (Moved/Second: Finacom/Orbuch; Yes:

Finacom, Orbuch, Montgomery; No: Schwartz; Abstain: Montilla, Leuschner; Absent:

Crandall). After the motion failed, the LPC did not reconsider the motion, nor did LPC make any findings for denial of the contract. Any contract for the Mills Act program is subject to review and approval of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the City Manager, and City Council. Therefore, the City Council can act to approve or deny the contract. Since there are no findings for denial, staff recommends the City Council act to approve the Mills Act contract.

BACKGROUND
The Mills Act allows owners of historic properties to voluntarily enter into individual contracts with the City to obtain limited ad valorem tax relief, at the discretion of the host jurisdiction, in exchange for maintaining and restoring their historic property. These property tax savings are offered as an incentive for owners to maintain their historic properties, designate currently unprotected historic properties, and purchase and rehabilitate dilapidated historic properties. In Berkeley, owners of properties designated by the LPC as a Landmark or a Structure of Merit may apply for a Mills Act contract.

The Mills Act application includes a ten-year work plan to restore and maintain the subject property. The total investment in the work plan is intended to equal or exceed the total amount of the property tax relief over the contract period.

On February 24, 1998, the Berkeley City Council passed Resolution No. 59,355-N.S., which authorizes the local use of the Mills Act of 1972, as amended, which is codified in California Government Code Section 50280-90 and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 439.

In 2011, the Mills Act was amended to include more specific requirements regarding fees, inspections, and cancellation. The amendments clarified that the local legislative body may require fees for providing services pursuant to the Mills Act; shall inspect the property prior to a new agreement and then every five years thereafter; and shall cancel the contract if it determines that the owner has breached the conditions of the contract.

As a result of these amendments, Land Use Planning fees for the approval and monitoring of Mills Act contracts were added in July 2012, with fee rates periodically adjusted to keep up with staff costs.

Mills Act Contract – 2845 Woolsey Street CONSENT CALENDAR April 14, 2026
(Continued from March 24, 2026)

On November 18, 2025, the Berkeley City Council adopted Resolution No. 72,048-N.S., which paused the City of Berkeley’s Mills Act program including the processing of new contract applications submitted after November 19, 2025. This application was filed prior to the enaction date of November 19, 2025.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
In order to qualify for Mills Act consideration, 1) the property must qualify as historic; 2) the contract must adequately meet the requirements for Mills Act contracts; and 3) the type of improvements outlined in the work plan must meet the City standards, which require that tax savings be used according to the rules and regulations outlined in the Act.

The property located at 2845 Woolsey Street is eligible for the Mills Act contract because it was designated as Structure of Merit on April 3, 2025.

The contract
template has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office for conformance to all relevant City and State
regulations. The contract includes a comprehensive work plan that the property owner has agreed to complete within the ten-year contract period (see Attachment 3). The work plan provides for the “preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary, restoration and rehabilitation of the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code” (California Government Code Section 50281(b)(1)).

After contracts are recorded, monitoring is required to occur at least every five years to verify progress on the approved work plan. Monitoring includes an examination of the exterior and interior (if necessary based on the work plan) of the property.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE IMPACTS
Approval of the contract would encourage historic resource rehabilitation, materials conservation, and construction and demolition waste diversion.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Council may choose to approve the contract or deny the contract approval if it determined that it did not satisfy the requirements of the Mills Act.

CONTACT PERSON
Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7534 Sarah Price, Principal Planner/LPC Interim-Secretary, 510-981-7414

Mills Act Contract – 2845 Woolsey Street CONSENT CALENDAR April 14, 2026
(Continued from March 24, 2026)

Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Notice of Decision, Landmark Designation for 2845 Woolsey Street, effective date June 18, 2025

3. Rehabilitation Plan, dated May 30, 2025

4. LPC Staff Report, September 4, 2025

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MILLS ACT CONTRACT AND

ANY NECESSARY AMENDMENTS WITH MICHAEL PEARSON AND ANNETTE

BLUM PEARSON, FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF A HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2845 WOOLSEY, IN RETURN FOR THE OWNER TO

OBTAIN A PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION
WHEREAS, on February 24, 1998, the Berkeley City Council adopted Resolution No. 59,355-N.S. which authorized the use of Mills Act contracts; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2025, the property at 2845 Woolsey was designated as a City of Berkeley Structure of Merit, which renders it eligible to take advantage of the Mills Act; and WHEREAS, on September 4, October 6, and November 6, 2025, the Landmarks Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed projects listed in the Mills Act Contract Application for 2845 Woolsey, and failed to make a motion recommending that the City Council enter into a Mills Act contract with the property owner; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Mills Act program requires each contract to receive final approval of the City Council and signed by the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the City Council, in light of all evidence, finds that the contract is consistent with the purposes of the Mills Act program.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a Mills Act Contract and any necessary amendments with Michael Pearson and Annette Blum Pearson for the maintenance and restoration of the historic property located at 2845 Woolsey and in return offer a property tax reduction for a period of at least ten years, with a recorded copy of such contract and amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk and Alameda County Clerk- Recorder.

L ANDMARKS

P RESERVATIO N

C OMMISSIO N
Notice of Decision
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: April 3, 2025

DATE NOTICE M
AILED: June 2, 2025
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: June 17, 2025
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): June 18, 20251 2845 Woolsey Street – Norton Family House
Landmark application #LMIN2024-0008 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a residential property constructed in 1908 (APN 052-1563-006-00).

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the following designation:

• Structure of Merit designation
• Applicant: Ca
itlin Hibma
Left Coast Architectural History
P
.O. Box 70415
Richmond, CA 94807
• Property Owner: Michael Pearson
2169 Folsom Street M301
S
an Francisco, CA 94110
ZONING DISTRICT: Restricted Two-F
amily Residential District (R-2)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.(b)(3) Review f or Exemptions.
1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 14-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.

ATTACHMENT 2

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2025-0001
2845 Woolsey Street
June 2, 2025

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

FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPLICATION MATERIALS ARE

ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE

COMMISSION V
OTE: 7-0-0-1 (Note: one vacancy)

YES: CRANDALL, ENCHILL, FINACOM, GREENE, MONTGOMERY, ORBUCH,

SCHWARTZ

NO: NONE

ABSTAIN: NONE

ABSENT: PLESE

TO APPEAL THIS DECISION (see Section 3.24.300 of the Berkeley Municipal Code):

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

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

2. Submit the required fee (checks and money orders must be payable to ‘City of Berkeley’):
a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $1,500. This fee may be reduced to $500 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less. Signatures collected per the filing requirement in BMC Section 3.24.300.A may be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee, so long as the signers are qualified. The individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.
b. The fee for appeals of affordable housing projects (defined as projects which provide 50 percent or more affordable units for households earning 80% or less of Area Median Income) is $500, which may not be reduced.
c. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $6,000.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2025-0001
2845 Woolsey Street
June 2, 2025

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

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

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMIN2025-0001
2845 Woolsey Street
June 2, 2025

PUBLIC COMMENT:

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

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

F
URTHER INFORMATION:

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings for Approval

2. A pplication Materials

ATTEST:

Anne Hersch, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission

cc: City Clerk
Caitlin Hibma, Left Coast Architectural History, P.O. Box 70415, Richmond, CA 94807 Michael Pearson, 2169 Folsom Street M301, San Francisco, CA 94110

Attachment 1 , Part 2
Findings for Designation
APRIL 3, 2025
2845 Woolsey Street – Norton Family House
Landmark application #LMIN2025-0001 for the consideration of City Landmark or Structure of Merit designation status for a residential property constructed in 1908 (APN 052-1563-006-00)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Structure of Merit designation of the property at 2845 Woolsey Street.

CEQA FINDINGS

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

LANDMARK PRESERVATION ORIDNANCE FINDINGS

1. P ursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.110(B)(2)(c) of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO), the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley (Commission) finds that the property at 2845 Woolsey Street meets the designation criterion for Structure of Merit because it is a good example of architectural design in the First Bay Tradition style. It also exemplifies one of the best surviving examples of the prominent Bay Area architecture firm Newsom & Newsom.

The house retains a sufficient degree of architectural features representative of its historical design including: plan, form, exterior materials, detailing, and fenestration pattern that represent distinctive aspects of First Bay Tradition architecture and the work of Newsom & Newsom.

FEATURES TO BE PRESERVED

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

Property
• Location at northwest corner of Woolsey Street and Claremont Avenue. • Cast stone (concrete) perimeter retaining wall.

Residence
• Large front setback at northeast corner of the lot.
• Two-story height.
• Hip roof with flared, overhanging eaves.

FINDINGS for DESIGNATION 2845 Woolsey Street

• Second story overhang with sloped profile.
• Wood architectural features expressing structure:
o Rafter tails;
o M olded rafter ends;
o M olded modillions beneath eaves.
• W ood architectural details:
o W ood trim at second story and cornice line;
o E xterior wood trim at windows.
• Original window openings on south, east, and elevations. • Original leaded-glass windows.
• Projecting bays and associated three-part window openings. • Wood planter boxes at second-story windows fronting Woolsey Street.

DATE STAMP HERE
Land Use Planning 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420 Email:

[email protected]

Land Use Planning 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7420 Email: [email protected]

Project Address: ___________________________________________Zone: ___________________

Project Description: ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________ Date Use Permit or Zoning Permit was applied for: _________________ Associated Permit number: _____________________

Property Owner Name (Print) ____________________________________________________________ Owner's Mailing Address: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Daytime Phone # ___________________________________ E-mail: _____________________________ Applicant Name (Print)  SAME as Above: ________________________________________________ Applicant's Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Daytime Phone # __________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________

Under penalties of perjury, I certify that the information above and in any attachments hereto, is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Applicant Signature: Date:

Owner’s Signature: Date:

Does the project include: No Yes Handout / Application Requirement

1. Demolition of, or exterior modifications to, a designated City of Berkeley landmark, structure of merit, or structure in a historic district?
  Refer to the “Landmark Preservation
Commission: Structural Alteration Permit
and Design Review Submittal
Requirements”

2. Application to designate a landmark, structure of merit or historic district?
  Refer to the “Landmark, Structure of Merit
or Historic District Designation Form”
Landmarks
Application Form

Effective April 3, 2013

For: ____ Alteration / Sign Permit
____ Landmark Designation

Intake Planner ____________________

X
2845 Woolsey Street
Caitlin Hibma, Left Coast Architectural History
PO Box 70415
Richmond, CA. 94807
(415) 745-1906 [email protected] n/a
n/a
12/16/2024
X
X
Application for Landmark designation.

Attachment 1, Part 3

City of Berkeley
Ordinance #4694 N.S.

LANDMARK APPLICATION
________________________________________________________________

1. Street Address 2845 Woolsey Street
City Berkeley
County Alameda
Zip 94705

2. Assessor's Parcel Number: 52-1563-15
Block and Lot: Block 1563, Lot 15
Tract: Parkside Claremont
Dimensions: 100' (southwest) x 95' (southeast) x 113' (northeast) x 99.65' (northwest) Cross Streets: Woolsey Street and Claremont Avenue

3. Is property on the State Historic Resource Inventory? No Is property on the Berkeley Urban Conservation Survey? Yes Form # 11425

4. Application for Landmark includes:
a. Building: Yes (1) Garden: No Other features: No
b. Landscape or Open Space: No
c. Historic Site: No
d. District: No
e. Other: No

5. Historic Name: F.B. Norton House
Commonly Known Name: None

6. Date of Construction: 1908
a. Factual: Yes
Source of Information: Daily Pacific Builder, 18 May 1908

7. Architects: Newsom & Newsom (Samuel, Sidney, and Noble Newsom) Architecture was the Newsom family trade, with two generations of brothers and sons collaborating on some of the Bay Area's, and California's, best know architecture of the late-19th and early-20th centuries.

The Newsom family came to Oakland from Canada in 1860; a horticultural nurseryman, his wife, and eight children. Eldest son, John, was apprenticed to an architect by 18701 and, eventually, four of the five Newsom sons gravitated toward that profession. By 1880, Thomas, Samuel, and Joseph C. Newsom were all listed as architects in census records.

None of the Newsom brothers appear to have been formally educated as architects, but gained their training through apprenticeships and from each other.

The four Newsom brothers initially worked together, but in 1878, Samuel and Joseph went out on their own, naming their practice Newsom & Newsom, which became a much better- known and widely-respected firm than that of their brothers'.2 They began in San Francisco, but by 1884, had moved their practice back to their hometown of Oakland. A few years later, they opened an office in Los Angeles and Joseph C. Newsom relocated to Southern California to lead it.

Newsom & Newsom's work initially focused on Victorian architectural styles, especially Queen Anne, and was known for being elaborately decorative, although it was primarily designed for middle-class clients. They designed around 650 buildings ranging from single- family houses to apartments and hotels. They designed the iconic Carson Mansion in Eureka, California (1884-1886), the original Berkeley City Hall (1884), the T.H. Boyd House in Eureka (1884), the 30-room Pinney House hotel in Sierra Madre (1887), and the Sessions House in Los Angeles (1888).3 A number of their works are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or otherwise designated as significant historical landmarks.

Maintaining offices at opposite ends of the state ultimately resulted in Samuel and Joseph parting ways professionally in 1888, with Joseph continuing his own solo-practice in Los Angeles. For a time, from 1889 to 1901, Samuel partnered with Frederick Herman Meyer, under the name of Newsom & Meyer. During that time, in 1893, Samuel's son Sidney joined his father's practice, becoming the second generation of Newsoms in architecture.

He was 16 years old at the time and the initial arrangement was likely an apprenticeship of sorts, as he also trained with various architecture firms on the East Coast before returning to the Newsom firm full-time.4 In 1906, after graduating from U.C. Berkeley's school of architecture, Samuel's second son, Noble Newsom, joined the firm, which had returned to being known as Newsom & Newsom.

As father and sons worked together around the turn of the twentieth century, the firm's design aesthetics evolved along with prevailing architectural fashions, away from the Victorian and toward newly popular styles like Spanish Colonial and Mediterranean Revival, French Provincial, Tudor Revival, Colonial Revival, and Craftsman. In 1905, their wildly fanciful and overstated design of Gilroy City Hall seems to illustrate this transition, while also symbolizing a “last hurrah” as they moved away from the decorative exuberance of the Victorian period and toward more quietly understated houses of high quality and 1 U.S. Federal Census, 1870.
2 Daniella Thompson, “Berkeley’s City Hall Was Inspired by a Mairie on the Loire,” http://www.berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/city_hall.html. 3 Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD), “Newsom and Newsom, Architects,” https://digital.lib.washington.edu/architect/partners/446/. 4 David Weinstein, “Quiet Pleasures, Newsom brothers created homes with a timeless appeal,” San Francisco Chronicle, 5 February 2005.

highly-livable designs. By then, the Newsom & Newsom name had become prominent and popular. Their clients included the affluent as much as the middle-class.5 Samuel Newsom died of a coronary while onboard a ferry from San Francisco to Alameda on the first of September 1908; just three and a half months after the building contract for the house at 2845 Woolsey Street was published.6 Presumably, he never saw the finished house. Sidney and Noble continued in business without their father and Newsom & Newsom continued to be known for high-quality residential design that followed current architectural tastes, but often playfully mixed styles while using restraint in applying historical details. Later Newsom & Newsom buildings were noted to have relatively symmetrical forms and simple rooflines, lending to the sense of understated luxury that became the firm's signature aesthetic.7
In 1911, Newsom & Newsom designed the Berkeley Inn at 2501 Haste Street, a four-story brick Classical Revival building, which was damaged by fires and eventually demolished in 1990. Prior to its destruction it was the only Newsom & Newsom building to be designated as a City of Berkeley Landmark (#118).

Both Newsom brothers served in World War I, applying their building expertise in the Army Corps of Engineers. Like many other architects and builders, they brought back a new appreciation for Old World architecture that inspired further design work in European- influenced revival styles. Post-War, Archie Newsom (no relation) joined the firm as an interior architect and designer. With skyrocketing reputations, the Newsoms were in demand by clients like the Ghirardellis (of chocolate fame) and the Hills (of Hills Coffee), many of whom commissioned houses in wealthy enclaves like Piedmont. Both brothers eventually designed houses for themselves in or near Piedmont.8 Sidney was a partner in the firm until the Depression, when business slowed drastically and he retired to Walnut Creek. Noble and Archie Newsom continued the firm, designing some grand houses that belied the economic hardships of the 1930s. In 1933, Noble fractured his skull in a car accident, but survived. When World War II erupted, he joined the war effort as a designer at the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond. During the war years, Sidney died of a stroke at the age of 65. Noble had hopes of reopening a Newsom & Newsom office in San Francisco after the war, but died only a few short days after the Kaiser Shipyards closed in 1945 and never got back to private practice. He was 58.9 The house at 2845 Woolsey Street, built in 1908, was designed during a brief period when the Newsom & Newsom firm consisted of both generations of the Newsom family (from 1893 to 1908); father Samuel, and sons Sidney and Noble. One or all three of the Newsoms may have had input in the house's design.

Other Berkeley residential buildings designed by Newsom & Newsom during that period or later (when Sidney and Noble made up the partnership, 1908 to the 1930s), include:
 45 El Camino Real; 1907, First Bay Tradition
 2540 (2538) Ellsworth; 1908, First Bay Tradition
 2241 Parker Street; 1908, First Bay Tradition
 2815 Benvenue Ave.; 1908, Craftsman Bungalow
5 David Weinstein.
6 Daily Pacific Builder, 18 May 1908.
7 David Weinstein.
8 David Weinstein.
9 David Weinstein. Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD).

 3121 Claremont Ave.; 1909, First Bay Tradition
 20 Hillcrest Road; 1909, First Bay Tradition/Craftsman  1749 Allston Way; 1912, Craftsman
 2610-1612 Parker St.; 1913, altered, possibly First Bay Tradition  3201 Claremont Ave.; 1914, Classical Revival
 1924 Yosemite Road; 1916, Tudor Revival
 1923 Thousand Oaks Blvd.; 1922, Classical Revival
 1963 Yosemite Road; 1925, Tudor Revival, altered
 38 Somerset Place; 1925, Spanish Colonial Revival
 1430 Le Roy Ave.; 1928, Spanish Colonial/Monterey Colonial Revival  686 San Fernando Ave.; 1930, Tudor Revival
 702 San Luis Road; 1931, style unknown10
Three of these houses were built the same year as the house at 2845 Woolsey Street and in the First Bay Tradition style, but with markedly different character. The following year and in 1914, Newsom & Newsom designed three houses within the same neighborhood as the subject house; two in a First Bay Tradition aesthetic, the latter in the Classical Revival style. This suggests that the house at 2845 Woolsey Street could have influenced some nearby neighbors to commission Newsom & Newsom for their Parkside Claremont or Uplands neighborhood homes. From 1913 onward, Newsom & Newsom's designs began a marked move away from the First Bay Tradition and Craftsman aesthetics, toward Revival styles of later popularity.

8. Builder: Henry Newton
In addition to identifying the house's architects, the Daily Pacific Builder building contract notice for the property identifies the builder; Henry Newton. The notice and a 1909 Oakland city directory indicate that Newton was based in downtown Oakland, with an office in the Bacon Building. A city directory from 1908 specifies that he was employed as the manager of the Newton-Sanford Construction Company. No census records or other vital information were found to provide a biographical account of Newton.

Around the time that he was building the house at 2845 Woolsey Street, the Daily Pacific Builder notes a few other projects that the Newton-Sanford Construction Company completed, including two four- and five-room bungalows in Berkeley (10 January 1907); a 24 bungalow tract in Fruitvale (11 April 1908); and a two-story mixed use building containing three shops and 15-room flats on San Pablo Avenue in Oakland (1 June 1908).

In February 1908, they built a house at 81 Hillcrest Road, nearby the subject house.

9. Style: First Bay Tradition
Stylistically, the house at 2845 Woolsey Street can be classified as First Bay Tradition. The 10 This list represents a sampling of properties designed by Newsom & Newsom, as identified on Berkeley Architectural Heritage's “41 Walking Tours” (2009) index; https://berkeleyheritage.com/docs/41_Walking_Tours.index.pdf Other Newsom & Newsom designs likely exist in Berkeley beyond what is listed here.

Bay Tradition was an ongoing regional architectural trend spanning from around 1880 through the 1960s, and was the only dominant regional style of architecture to emerge in the San Francisco Bay Area. Buildings of the Bay Tradition can be classified within three different periods, but the designs of each period tended to perpetuate the common characteristics of modest, straightforward, distinctive design that responded to the Bay Area's climate, geography, and relatively informal cultural attitudes. The First Bay Tradition style was a derivation of the East Coast's Shingle style, while the Second Bay Tradition style was inspired by the International and Ranch styles, and the Third Bay Tradition style was a synthesis of the earlier two that combined rustic materials with strikingly modern forms. The stylistic trend as a whole was noted and perpetuated by publications of the day, such as Architect and Engineer, Sunset magazine, California's Arts & Architecture, Magazine of Art, and Pencil Points.11
The First Bay Tradition style was popular around the turn of the twentieth century, between about 1880 and 1917. “The houses of the Eastern Shingle Style with their large living areas and wide openings between rooms, when mixed with the Craftsmen [sic], Swiss Chalet, some Queen Anne and Art Nouveau Styles with a Japanese influence in detailing, formed the basis of the work of early practitioners in the San Francisco Bay region.” 12 Bay Area architects such as Ernest Coxhead, Willis Polk, John Galen Howard, Bernard Maybeck, and Julia Morgan were known for honing the style. The aesthetic is in great evidence and beloved in Berkeley, where it is commonly referred to using the “brown shingle” moniker, which simply referenced the often unpainted wood shingle cladding, although painted shingle can also qualify for the First Bay Tradition classification. Houses of the First Bay Tradition style are characterized by:
 Tall narrow profiles of 2-3 stories
 Asymmetrical plans and facade organization that includes projecting and recessed bays and porches
 Prominent porches
 Steeply pitched roofs with gable and gambrel forms, often with cross-gables and dormers  Wood windows with small divided lights and double-hung or casement sashes  Wood shingle cladding, sometimes incorporating wavy patterns or diamonds  Wall planes that flare and/or overhang at the bottom, especially between stories; or that bulge or bow above windows
 Tall, prominent brick chimneys and other brick elements; brick is often of the clinker variety  Ornamentation that tends toward the Classical or Gothic, applied in an eclectic way that referenced no style directly but created an overarching historical sense At 2845 Woolsey Street, the house's mixture of shingled aesthetics dating to 1908, places it within the appropriate time period and stylistic genres to be considered First Bay Tradition. As is said of Bay Tradition buildings of all sub-types, “although they have certain common characteristics... every good Bay Region house is unique in design. This is because each one, unlike most U.S. homes, represents a tailor-made solution to the particular living problems of the owner.”13 Therefore, a wide range of aesthetic influences are typically present in Bay Tradition buildings and can account for the subject house's mixture of Shingle, Craftsman, Tudor, Classical Revival, American Four Square, even 11 San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970, Context Statement (2010)
12 Lester Walker, American Shelter (New York: Overlook Press, 1996) 192. 13 “San Francisco Houses: They embody a new U.S. Regional architecture,” Life Magazine, 5 September 1949.

Prairie styles, all of which amount to an eclectic and unique First Bay Tradition design that Newsom & Newsom likely crafted with strong input of the Norton family who would live in it.

The form of the house differs somewhat from the identified tall narrow profile, but does not detract substantially from the overall aesthetic. It is two stories high and has a regular, rectangular plan that results in a less asymmetrical plan and less articulated facades. The more boxy massing can be attributed to Classical and American Four Square influences, however. Projecting bays, bay windows, the (original but currently not-extant) recessed second story balcony/porch at the northeast corner, and the main entry porch all lend to subtle articulations that are typical to the First Bay Tradition style. The entry porch's prominent and obvious visual indication of a formal entrance to the house is also characteristically First Bay Tradition.

The hip roof, though relatively shallowly pitched, has distinctly flared eaves that make strong reference to the Japanese influences described, and the prominent, decoratively shaped, exposed rafter tails at the eaves are either – or both – distinctly Craftsman and referential to Classical modillions, as are the projecting shaped beam ends between stories.

Most of the current windows are not original, but maintain a double-hung configuration typical of the style. Original windows are known to have been multi-lite-over-one double hung sashes with vertical muntins, extremely appropriate to the First Bay Tradition style.

Also extremely appropriate to the aesthetic is the three-part, diamond pattern, leaded glass feature window on the rear (west) facade that relates to the interior stair.

Of course, the house's wood shingle siding is a strong indicator its First Bay Tradition identity, and includes the characteristic flared shingle-work at the base of the second story walls. Other typical ornamental elements include traditional wood moldings; pronounced trim around openings, especially with prominent hoods and projecting sills; decorative flower boxes, which were an often-borrowed signature of Maybeck's work; and original but no longer extant Classical balustrades and diamond pattern railings at the porch. A clinker brick chimney is also present, tall and slender, and although placed less prominently on the rear facade, is quite visible from the street.

10. Original Owners: F.B. Norton
Original Use: Single-family residence

11. Present Owners: Michael A. Pearson & Annette Blum

12. Present Use: Single-family residence
Current Zoning: R-2
Adjacent Property Zoning: C-N (to northeast), and R-2 (to northwest, west, and southwest), RH-1 (across Claremont Ave. to east)

13. Present Condition of Property:

Exterior: Good
Interior: Good
Grounds: Good
Has the property's exterior been altered? Yes
Building permit records indicate the following exterior alterations:

Date Permit # Description of Work/Notes
10/10/1945 57983 Reroof entire house with composition shingles. 12/31/1958 85721 Replace front steps (4) with brick steps on 8” slab. [Altered again at a later date; steps now concrete and
located on east side of porch.]
1/22/1969 113371 Add new stairway and exit door, close front porch. [Stairway and exit may refer to western portion of
northern addition.]
5/30/1973 ID# 053073839 Deck addition for exiting door, 6 x 14. [Located at second story, east side of north facade; associated with the two- story addition already located on west side of north
facade. All since removed.]
12/30/1980 0130807340/
UP# 9109
Close in porch.
7/20/1987 720874645 Repair rear stairway.
11/30/2000 00-00005015 Reroof with composition shingle. 7/14/2021 B2021-03100 Removal of dry-rot shingles, installation of vapor barrier, and installation of new cedar shingles.
12/1/2021 B2021-04972 Dry rot repair. Roofing repair, shingles, and chimney removal. [Main chimney remains, may have referred to a
secondary kitchen chimney.]
1/04/2022 B2022-00014 Replace windows in like kind (26). [Current vinyl sash] Other substantial alterations that have been observed, but which are not reflected or fully elaborated upon by above records, include:
 The house originally had an integral open balcony at the northeast corner of second story. At some point, a large opening related to the balcony, at the right side of the second story of the primary facade, was fitted with an aluminum sliding sash window.

Openings on the left side of north facade were also altered by an addition to the north facade. In 2021-2022, the opening on the primary facade was infilled entirely.  A shallow, shed-roofed, two-story addition with a substantial exterior stair, was made to the north facade, possibly in 1969. In 1973, an additional deck was added to the east side of the addition, which itself was, or became, enclosed. The entire addition was

removed in 2021-2022, but all fenestration on the north facade remains altered and non-original.
 The front porch was originally open with brick entry steps oriented toward Woolsey Street to the south. There were three thick square porch posts along the east side and the railings in between were Classical balustrades. A diamond-patterned railing surrounded the roof deck. The porch was later enclosed, in 1969 and/or 1980, new brick steps and an exterior door were installed on the south side, while the rest was enclosed with glazing. The roof deck railing remained. In 2021-2022, the porch was reopened, but oriented to the east. Three original porch posts were replaced with four of somewhat smaller dimension, while concrete steps, non-original railings, interior finishing, and a new entry door were added (original leaded glass sidelights appear to remain). The roof deck railing was removed and the integral hip roof over the projecting bay to the right of the porch appears to have been extended across the width of the porch. Structural beams may have been altered, as the porch roof now exhibits a distinct slope to one side.

14. Description:

The parcel and house are oriented on a diagonal axis, with Woolsey Street to the southwest and Claremont Avenue to the southeast. For the purposes of this report, the primary facade, which faces Claremont Avenue will be referred to as facing east, the rear facade facing west, etc.

Site
The property is located in a densely developed residential setting of large-scale houses, with a row of commercial buildings located to the immediate north, along Claremont Avenue. It is set in close proximity to neighboring buildings on an almost square lot, measuring 100 feet along Woolsey Street and 95 feet along Claremont Avenue. The lot is flat and elevated slightly above street level, with a cast stone site wall bordering it on the south and east. The house is set back from Claremont Avenue with a large front yard, and sits very close to the western lot line, resulting in no rear yard. Narrow margins exist between the house and the north and south lot lines. The lot is landscaped with hardscaping and small plantings. Four mature trees stand at the eastern edge of the lot, while others surround the house but are not located on the property, itself.

House
The house has a rectangular plan, sits on a concrete foundation, is two stories high, and topped by a hip roof. The roof is clad with composition shingle and features broad flared eaves with closely-spaced, decoratively shaped rafter tails on all sides. Exterior wall cladding is wood shingle that flares out at the base of the second story wall, creating a small overhang that is ornamented with a horizontal wood molding and/or block modillions in most locations. Current fenestration consists of vinyl-sash, double-hung windows with vertical faux muntins in the upper sashes. Most windows and other openings have wide flat wood trim, projecting sills, and simply molded hoods.

The primary facade faces east toward Claremont Avenue and represents the long side of the house's rectangular plan. It features an entry porch to the left of center and a projecting bay to its immediate right. Both are topped by an intermediate hip roof with slightly flaring eaves, while a flat roof projects to cover the balance of the porch. The porch is accessed from the east by concrete steps. It has a shingled base, metal railings with solid shingled

railings at the sides, and thick square wood posts that support the flat roof that extends from the intermediate hip roof. The flat porch roof features decorative rafter tails with shaped ends, supported in turn by cross beams with shaped ends. Within the porch, the ceiling, back wall, and interior of the solid side railings are clad with simple wood paneling and battens. The entry door is paneled and has a leaded glass oval window at its center. It is flanked by partial height, diamond-pattern, leaded glass sidelights. The projecting bay to the right of the porch features a three-part window, with a narrow middle sash flanked by wider sashes, all separated by wood mullions. Standard windows are located at the far left and right sides of the facade and at the second story level, where a three-part window (wide sash flanked by narrower sashes) is flanked by single windows. These three openings are regularly spaced from one another, but set off-center to the left, leaving a blank wall plane at the far right side of the second story.

The south facade, facing Woolsey Street, represents the short side of the rectangular plan.

It features a shallow projecting square bay fenestrated with a pair of standard windows at the far left side, while a shallow angled bay window with three standard sashes is located on the right side. Two symmetrically placed standard windows at the second story have decorative paneled wood flower boxes beneath that are supported by projecting beams and short cross beams.

The north facade also represents the short side of the rectangular plan and faces a small side yard and neighboring property. It features two fully-glazed wood doors spaced widely at the first story. At the second story there is one large window on the right side that has a single-lite, fixed sash.

The east facade represents the long side of the rectangular plan and faces a narrow passage between the house and the neighboring property. There are three irregularly placed windows on the first story, one of which has a sliding aluminum sash. The second story features a shallow, flat topped, projecting rectangular bay that is located to the right of center. The bay is supported by decoratively shaped projecting beam ends and is fenestrated with a large three-part window that has diamond-pattern leaded glass.

Elsewhere on the second story are three standard windows. A narrow clinker brick chimney rises up the right side of the facade and projects through the eaves to rise above the roofline.

15. History:

The first owners and residents of the house at 2845 Woolsey Street were the Frank Butler Norton family. Frank Norton was born in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, in 1849, the son of a New Bedford whaling ship captain. In 1870, he went west to San Francisco at the age of 21, where he found work as a bookkeeper in the offices of a provisions wholesaler.

By 1884, he had started his own provisions wholesale business and had a number of partners over the years, until the the firm finally became known as Norton, Teller & Company. The company sold wholesale produce, meat, and dairy products and acted as a commission merchant, selling goods for other purveyors. Its offices were in San Francisco.14
In July 1877, Frank married Eliza J. Mayhew in Santa Barbara.15 They had three children:

Mayhew, Frances Amelia, and Charles Worth. Eliza died in 1886 at the age of 31, and the 14 “F.B. Norton, Pioneer, Dies,” San Francisco Examiner, 9 December 1931. San Francisco city directories. 15 Ancestry.com; California, U.S., County Birth, Marriage, and Death Records, 1849-1980.

following year Frank remarried. His second wife was Cora B. Wightman of Sonoma.16 Cora was born in Plainfield, Illinois in 1862 and grew up in Sebastapol, where her father was a bank president. The couple had three children of their own: May Elizabeth, Frank B. Jr., and William Wightman (often known as Wightman). Frank's three oldest children were grown and living on their own by the time that Frank and Cora built and moved into the house on Woolsey Street. Prior to living at 2845 Woolsey Street, the family had lived only a few blocks from the subject property, at 6441 Benvenue Avenue and had addresses in Oakland and San Francisco prior to that.17
In 1908, the Nortons commissioned the architecture firm of Newsom & Newsom to design a handsome residence for them at 2845 Woolsey Street. Living nearby on Benvenue Avenue likely lead to their purchase of the large empty parcel at the corner of Claremont Avenue and Woolsey Street. There appears to be no documentation of how or why the Nortons came to select the Newsoms' firm or any of the client-architect interactions that likely went into the design of the house. An article and illustration (see attached) ran in the 19 April 1908 edition of the Oakland Tribune, however; which reported on F.B. Norton “putting up a pretty house.” The article noted that the “home will be roomy and have all the latest improvements.” It went on to say:

F.B. Norton, of Norton & Teller Co., San Francisco, is building a two-story residence... It is to be located on the north side of Woolsey Street, sixty feet west of Claremont avenue, Berkeley. Newsom & Newsom, 526 Larkin Street, San Francisco, are the architects. The house will cost about $6,000, complete.

The feature of the exterior will be heavy beam work on the front porch and cornice. The house is to be shingled. The living-room and library will face the south and are to be paneled with burnt board and batten. A large open fireplace is in the library. The vestibule and dining-room are to have heavily beamed ceilings. A large kitchen, pass pantry, laundry and servant's room are in the rear.

On the second story are five large sunny bedrooms, all having large closets. There are also linen closets and cases which are always needed.

Facing the north is a balcony, commanding and excellent view of the Berkeley hills.

Two years after the house was built, the 1910 federal census recorded the Nortons at 2827 Woolsey Street, as the property was originally addressed. Frank was 61 and employed as a commission merchant. Cora was 48, and their three children – Wightman, May, and Frank Jr. – lived at home. Their ages ranged from 12 to 22. Wightman was old enough to work and was employed as a commission merchant, likely by his father's firm. The family employed Mary Anderson, a 40 year old household servant from Sweden, although in late 1911, numerous want ads for a new “girl for general housework,” ran in the newspaper.18 Ten years later, in 1920, the occupancy of 2845 Woolsey Street (then still 2827) was much the same. Wightman had married and moved away from home, but May and Frank Jr. remained. Both in their early 20s, May worked as a school teacher, while Frank was not 16 Ancestry.com; U.S. Select Marriages, 1850-1945.
17 Oakland city directory, 1908.
18 Berkeley Daily Gazette, October 1911.

employed. The Norton's household servant was Nellie Haupt, a 40 year old woman from California.

In 1930, the address of the house remained 2827 Woolsey Street on census records, and the property was valued at $20,000 (about $380,000 today). Frank Norton, at age 81, was retired. Cora was 63. The Norton's three children still lived at home or had returned.

Wightman, age 41, had divorced and moved back home. He worked as a distributing agent for a furnace manufacturer. May, 31, remained unmarried and continued to work as a public school teacher. Frank Jr., 30, was also unmarried and was a dentist in general practice. The family employed Marie Moen, a 19 year old servant from Norway.

Frank Norton died in 1931. His obituary noted that he had retired several years before his death, but at one time had served as president of the San Francisco Dairy Exchange. In his personal time, he was active in the Alameda County Sportsmen's Club, the oldest duck hunting club in the West, and was a member of the Sons of the American Revolution.19
In the late 1930s, address renumbering occurred in the neighborhood and 2845 Woolsey Street was finally assigned its current address. In 1940, the house was occupied by Cora, then a 77 year old widow. Daughter May, who never married, lived with her. She was 40 and employed as a kindergarten teacher. The census also shows that Wightman Norton had remarried and lived next door with his wife, Violet, and daughter, Nancy. The Wightman Norton house (presumably built 193720) was located to the rear (northwest) of 2845 Woolsey Street and had been assigned the subject house's old address, 2827 Woolsey Street. The Nortons also appear to have owned the house at 2823-2825 Woolsey Street (now 2823 Woolsey Street), which was a duplex that they rented out.21 In August 1944 a one-alarm fire was reported at 2845 Woolsey Street. It was caused by an electric heater and caused $100 in damages.22
Cora Norton died in February 1950 at age 90. Later the same year, the census indicates that May Norton was living at the subject house by herself, still working as a public school kindergarten teacher. Her brother and sister-in-law continued to live next door and eventually had three children.

Around 1951, May Norton moved to 2844 Woolsey Street, directly across Woolsey Street from the subject property. The details of her move are unclear, but Planning Department records indicate that she petitioned to have the zoning of the subject house changed a couple of times without success. As early as November 1950, Rhoda Nichols, a playground director for Berkeley city schools, and very likely a professional acquaintance of May's, was associated with the rezoning attempts and change of use converting property to a nursery school. It may be that May Norton's professional interests as a kindergarten teacher led her to devote her family home to become a nursery school, with her associate Rhoda Nichols heading the establishment. May Norton died shortly thereafter, in 1953. She was 59 years old and succumbed to a month-long illness in an Oakland hospital.23 Ownership of the house presumably passed to Luther and Rhoda 19 “F.B. Norton, Pioneer, Dies,” San Francisco Examiner, 9 December 1931. 20 Alameda County Assessor.
21 “Houses for Rent,” Berkeley Daily Gazette, 2 May 1936. 22 “Heater fire causes $100 damage here,” Berkeley Daily Gazette, 2 August 1944. 23 “May E. Norton” (obituary), Berkeley Gazette, 24 August 1953.

Nichols around this time.

In 1952, use permit records indicate that Rhoda Nichols was granted the change-of-use for the property and permission to create a playground area in the front yard. Later records indicate that part of the house was retained as the Nichols' residence; occupied by Rhoda, her husband Luther, and at some point her elderly father. Rhoda Nichols grew up in Petaluma and attended U.C. Berkeley. Luther had grown up in Berkeley and also attended U.C. Berkeley, then went to work as a newspaper reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle.

The couple were married in 1950.24
On 16 December 1952, an announcement ran in the Berkeley Daily Gazette that the Rhoda Reed Nichols Nursery School, located on Prince Street, had moved around the corner to 3090 Claremont Avenue (an alternate address for 2845 Woolsey Street) and would be known as the Claremont Day Nursery. It was noted that “the lovely garden is much larger and the play area inside and out, is more spacious.” It has “pleasant surroundings and thoroughly trained and experienced supervision.” By 1958, Rhoda Nichols had opened another branch of the Claremont Day Nursery at 5830 College Avenue, and in 1962, she opened yet another at 912 Ensenada Avenue.

Rhoda Nichols owned the property and ran the nursery school until 1976, when both the property and the nursery school business were sold to Tom and Frances Morabito. Tom Morabito was a teacher, who worked in private and public schools prior to taking over the Claremont Day Nurseries.25 Around 2021, due to failing health, the Morabitos decided to close the nursery school. At that time, they remodeled the house prior to selling it, which resulted in a number of the recent changes noted under item 17, above. In June 2022, the property was sold to the current owners, Michael A. and Annette Pearson, who will return it to single-family residential use and wish to reverse a number of the earlier incompatible alterations.

Chain of Title
Dates Owners Occupants
1908 – 1950 Frank B. & Cora Norton Norton family
1950 – ca.1952 Mary Elizabeth Norton Mary Elizabeth Norton ca.1952 – 1976 Luther & Rhoda Nichols Nichols family
Claremont Day Nursery
1976 – 2022 Tom & Frances Morabito Claremont Day Nursery 2022 - present Michael A. & Annette Pearson Michael A. & Annette Pearson 24 “Marriage of Rhoda Reed to Berkeley man is announced,” Petaluma Argus Courier, 13 February 1950. 25 “Owner to close beloved day care schools because of failing health,” Berkeleyside, 28 June 2021; https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/06/28/tom-morabito-owner-child-care-claremont-day-nurseries-to-close

16. Significance:

Historic Value: City and neighborhood
Architectural Value: City and neighborhood
The property at 2845 Woolsey Street is eligible for designation as a Berkeley Landmark; meeting Landmark criteria 1B and 1C in relation to its architectural merit.26 The following provides an evaluation of the significance of 2845 Woolsey Street.

In accordance with Landmark criterion 1B, 2845 Woolsey Street is an outstanding example of early-twentieth century residential architecture in the First Bay Tradition style and is a notable example of design by the renowned Bay Area architecture firm of Newsom & Newsom.

The house presents a unique and complexly crafted example of the First Bay Tradition style. The style has certain typical traits (especially wood shingle exterior cladding), but is intrinsically varied in individual design and stylistic influence, often responding to customization for the specific homeowner-client and resulting an eclectic presentation of form and ornament. The house at 2845 Woolsey Street is most strongly identified as First Bay Tradition by its wood shingle cladding and Classical Revival ornamentation; however ornamentation and other features also hint at Craftsman, Tudor Revival, American Four Square, and Prairie aesthetics, and even some Japanese influence. The mixture of popular styles of the day and their amalgam into a completely unique iteration of the locally significant First Bay Tradition style makes 2845 Woolsey Street a significant example of the style. The deft adaptation of the style by architects Newsom & Newsom, presumably with the input of the Norton family who commissioned the house, makes it a prime example not only of the style but the way the style was made unique to every project.

The firm of Newsom & Newsom consisted of two generations of the Newsom family and, as it was built in 1908, 2845 Woolsey Street falls within the brief period when both Samuel Newsom and his two sons were designing together. A transitional period in the firm's history, this was also a time when the firm's design aesthetics shifted with prevailing architectural fashions, away from the exuberant Victorian and toward newly popular styles that included the increasingly popular First Bay Tradition style and its many eclectic aesthetic influences. The house at 2845 Woolsey Street showcases the evolution that the Newsoms' work took toward more quietly understated houses of high quality and highly- livable designs during this period. While the Newsoms worked throughout the Bay Area, their most recognized work is primarily found in San Francisco and Piedmont. They were active in Berkeley, however; and a selection of their residential designs illustrate both the progression of their stylistic aesthetics and their work in particular areas of the city as they became known and presumably referred among clients. The house at 2845 Woolsey Street represents a time during the first decade of the twentieth century when the Newsoms adhered strongly to the First Bay Tradition style, while making each house unique. It stands out from their earlier houses of the style in having more Classical overtones and influences from a wide variety of other styles, perhaps indicating the shift the Newsoms would make toward later Revivial styles. It was also the first of three Newsom & Newsom projects in the Parkside Claremont and Uplands neighborhood, suggesting that the firm may have been introduced to the area with their work at 2845 Woolsey Street and then 26 City of Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 3.24.110, Landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit – Designation – Criteria for consideration.

were eagerly hired by nearby neighbors.

In accordance with Landmark criteria 1C, the house at 2845 Woolsey Street is worth recognizing and preserving for its exceptional contribution to the historic and aesthetic fabric of the Parkside Claremont neighborhood. The house is sited on a prominent corner, at the intersection of Woolsey Street and Claremont Avenue; surrounded by other architecturally interesting houses, adjacent to a bustling neighborhood commercial row, and opposite the entrance to the Uplands neighborhood which is enhanced by historic stone pillars and transit shelters, creating a rich surrounding built-environment. The house is a highly visible and noteworthy element of a residential neighborhood that has many good and varied examples of early-twentieth century architecture, including similar, but always unique, examples of what is colloquially and fondly referred to as Berkeley's “brown shingle” architecture (i.e. the First Bay Tradition style identified by its ubiquitous siding material). The house represents the First Bay Tradition style, designed by renowned architects, that contributes strongly to both the visual and historical context of the area.

17. Is the property endangered?
No. On the contrary, Landmark designation will make the property eligible for Mills Act benefits that will facilitate rehabilitation and restoration of the house, including the reversal of a number of previous inappropriate alterations.

18. Photographs:

Date: 7 November 2024
Repository: Left Coast Architectural History
Photographer: Caitlin Hibma, Left Coast Architectural History

19. Bibliography/Sources:

Alameda County Assessor.

Ancestry.com; federal census and other vital records.

Berkeley Architectural Heritage Assoc., “41 Walking Tours” (2009) index; https://berkeleyheritage.com/docs/41_Walking_Tours.index.pdf Berkeleyside, 28 June 2021.

City of Berkeley, Municipal Code, Chapter 3.24.110.

City of Berkeley, Planning & Development Department; building permit and planning records.

Daily Pacific Builder.

Historical Information Gatherers, Fire Insurance Maps online (FIMo) .

Life Magazine, 5 September 1949.

NewspaperArchive.com
Newspapers.com
Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD). “Newsom and Newsom, Architects,” https://digital.lib.washington.edu/architect/partners/446/.

San Francisco Planning Department, “San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970, Context Statement,” 2010.

Thompson, Daniella. “Berkeley’s City Hall Was Inspired by a Mairie on the Loire,” http://www.berkeleyheritage.com/berkeley_landmarks/city_hall.html.

University of California Riverside, California Digital Newspaper Collection.

University of California Santa Barbara, Library Geospatial Collection.

Walker, Lester. American Shelter. New York: Overlook Press, 1996.

Weinstein, David. “Quiet Pleasures, Newsom brothers created homes with a timeless appeal,” San Francisco Chronicle, 5 February 2005.

20. Recorder: Caitlin Hibma
Date: 12 December 2024
Organization: Left Coast Architectural History

Historical Images
Illustration of F.B. Norton House, 1908. (Oakland Tribune, 19 April 1908.) Interior of 2845 Woolsey Street, 1908; library looking (north) into dining room. (Berkeley Architectural History Assoc.)

Interior of 2845 Woolsey Street, 1908; library looking northwest into stair hall. (Berkeley Architectural Heritage Assoc.)
Sanborn Fire Insurance map, 1911. Subject property outlined in red. (Historical Information Gatherers)

Aerial photograph, 1931. Subject property circled in red. (UCSB Library)
Aerial photograph, 1946. Subject property circled in red. (UCSB Library)

Sanborn Fire Insurance map, 1950. Subject property outlined in red. (Historical Information Gatherers)
View of Woolsey Street (south) facade; 1950s.
(Berkeley Architectural Heritage Assoc., Donough Collection)

Aerial photograph, 1965. Subject property circled in red. (UCSB Library)
View of Woolsey Street (south) facade; recent nursery school era, 2000s. (Berkeley Architectural Heritage Assoc.)

2845 Woolsey St. south and east facades, looking northwest from Woolsey St., ca. 2014.

Note original windows and enclosed porch with upper railing intact. (Google Streetview)
2845 Woolsey St. south facade, looking north from Woolsey St., ca. 2014.

Note original windows and enclosed porch with upper railing intact. (Google Streetview)
2845 Woolsey St. south and east facades, looking northwest from Woolsey St., ca. 2014.

Note original balcony opening (glazed) and later northern addition at right side of second story. (Google Streetview)
Current Images

View of primary (east) facade from Claremont Avenue, looking west.

View of south and primary (east) facades from Woolsey Street, looking northwest.

View of rear (west) and south facades from Woolsey Street, looking northeast.

View of primary (east) facade from front of property, looking west.

Detail of entry porch, primary (east) facade, looking west.

View of south facade from Woolsey Street, looking north.

View of primary (east) and north facade from yard, looking southwest.

View of north side of rear (west) facade, looking north.

View along rear facade from southwest corner of house, looking north.

Detail of upper south facade, showing flower boxes, looking northwest.

Detail of eaves, southeast corner of house.

Detail of cast stone site wall along south and east sides of property; near corner, looking northwest.

 









 



 















 
 

 










 
























 



 







 
 
 

 !






 
 





" 



 
!
#$#%


&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
*+'
$,+!-$
#  
 .

/






 
&




 !


 


 
 





 

 
 "

 
 


 




  
 



 !/
 




 






 
!


 
 
 

 



"


!
#$#%


&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
*
#

%+%!-+
( 0 



 "

 "
 









 


 


 
 



 




 



 " 




 " 





"
 !


 
"
 









 1

#$#%

&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
0 


 

 








 

ATTACHMENT 3

 









 



 








 
 
 !
, 2 "





 


 


 
 
3  

 

 

 


 



 




"






  




!


 
 
 

 

 





"



  
 
!
#$#%

&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
*('
''#!-$
- 2 "
 "





 


 


 
 



 

 "


" 

 

 



 
 

!


 
"
 






!
#$#%

&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
*#$
,,$!$$
% 3 




"
 "






 


 


 
 



 
 




 "









 "


"!


 
"
 






!
#$#%

&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
0 


 

 



' 

  



  



 



"



 

"

 



" 


!






 
 


  
 

"
#$#%


&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
*-4
$

!-$





 


 









 



 


 



 
!
+ 5
  
  




 

  







 
 



!




"

 



!






  

  
"
 



 










"

 

!
#$#%


&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
0 




 



46  
"

 





7 
 




 

 1

1
" 


!

 
 



 
 






 




 !
#$($
&
#$(

#$(%
)  
*,
-$$!$$

$ 









  




.
 7 
 


 
 
 





 
" 


  

 



!0 



"










1
+ 





    
1 !


 
 




  



1 






 



!
#$#%

8


&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
*
-
-,$!$$





 
 

 









 



 





 



 
"


.
 7 








 


 





!









1 






 



!
#$($
&
#$(

#$(%
)  
*-
-$$!$$

# 6
 






 


.
 7 
1 





 






" !

 






 







 





 




" !
#$($
&
#$(

#$(%
)  
*
#
($$!$$

( 2
  9
 7 :
" 







1


  

1
  !







"







!
#$#%6 


&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
*
-
('#!$$

, 9



; ; 0 


"




 




1 


!

<



1
 !
#$#% *(
+$$!$$

- 2


9"

  =


1 
 



 
 
!






  


#$#%=

&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
*#'
,,$!$$





 
 

 









 



 


"
 



 




  





!

% 
 
9"

  =




 


 
 

!



 


 




 

"

 !
#$#%=

&
#$#'
#$(%
)  
*,#
-%+!$$
9
> !"#$%&%'()
6 ?5


6  
+@> )*$"+,'#+

-


. "+!$"*"'+*





 
 

Landmarks Preservation Commission Staff Report
Page | 1
App #LMMA2025-0003
Mills Act Contract Application at 2845 Woolsey Street
Norton Family House
September 4, 2025
Quick Facts Project Description:

Applicant: Caitlin Hibma
Property Owner: Michael Pearson and
Annette Blum Pearson
Project Address: 2845 Woolsey Street
GP Land Use: Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
Zoning: Restricted Two-Family
Residential (R-2)
Historic District: No
CEQA: N/A
Submittal Date: June 3, 2025
Date Deemed Complete: July 3, 2025
Project Planner: Allison Riemer
The applicant is seeking a M
ills Act contract for a
Structure of Merit r
esidential property.

Permits Requested:

N/A
Staff Recommendation:

Approve the proposed rehabilitation schedule and
recommend favorable action to City Council.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page | 2

VICINITY MAP SHOWING NEARBY CITY LANDMARKS & DISTRICTS

Figure 1: Vicinity and Zoning Districts Map

N

Page | 3
AERIAL

Figure 2: Aerial Image (Source: GoogleEarth 2025)

ELEVATION

Figure 3: East elevation (Source: Mills Act application) N

Page | 4

BACKGROUND
The building at 2845 Woolsey Street was built in 1908, and features elements of the First Bay Tradition style, including wood shingle exterior cladding, and Classical Revival ornamentation. The building was designed by the renowned architecture firm Newsom & Newsom. The primary façade faces Claremont Avenue. It is two stories and features broad flared eaves with rafter tails on all sides. Several original features are now missing due to previous alterations. The wood shingle siding and clinker brick chimney are original to the house but were not included in the Features to Preserved when the property was designated. Additional architectural details can be found in Attachment 1.

The subject property was designated a City Structure of Merit on April 3, 2025; see Attachment 4. On June 3, 2025, the applicant, on behalf of the property owner, submitted a Mills Act Contract Application for the property.

ANALYSIS
The applicant’s historic resource consultant prepared the Mills Act submittal in line with the City’s program requirements. The Mills Act application includes the following components:
1) H
istoric Architectural Summary for the subject property (Attachment 1), which includes a list of the c
haracter-defining features.
2) A Rehabilitation Plan (Attachment 2), which outlines the projects identified for restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the property over the ten-year contract period; and
3) A financial analysis spreadsheet for estimating the potential Mills Act tax savings for this request, based on property-specific figures calculated using standard formulas.

The purpose of this review is to confirm the eligibility of the property to participate in the program and verify the validity of the identified work plan items. Should the City enter into a Mills Act Contract with the property owner, the Alameda County Assessor’s Office will be responsible for verifying the figures provided by the applicant, conducting calculations, and applying actual property tax reductions on future tax bills beginning in 2026.

All improvements included in the Rehabilitation Plan (Attachment 2) relate to restoring the historic, character-defining features of the building and site, or extending the Structure of Merit’s useful life. Some of the proposed work involves restoring previously removed exterior features, which would require a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP), pursuant to the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.24.260), because exterior changes to the current building would be proposed. Some of the proposed work items can be considered “ordinary maintenance and repair” since they do not include a

Page | 5
change to the character of any of the exterior features, and therefore, would be exempt from the SAP requirements.

The work plan items appear to be justifiable in that they constitute restoration, repair, rehabilitation, and continued maintenance of the subject property. Further, the work plan would provide for the property’s “use, maintenance and restoration as to retain its characteristics as property of historical significance,” as provided for in the Mills Act, Government Code Sections 50280 et. Seq., as authorized by the Berkeley City Council per Resolution No. 59,355 – N.S. For these reasons, staff concludes that the proposed rehabilitation plan items represent improvements that are consistent with the requirements of the Mills Act.

MILLS ACT CONTRACT PROPOSAL
The intent of the Mills Act is to provide property tax relief so that the property owners entering into Mills Act Contracts with the City will reinvest a significant portion of the property tax savings resulting from the Contract into preserving and/or restoring their property. The applicant’s proposed 10-year plan of improvements is provided in Attachment 2, and summarized in Table 1, below.

Table 1. Summary of Rehabilitation Schedule & Recommended Treatments Feature
Treatment
(as recommended by historic resource consultant)
Estimated
Year of
completion
Wood shingle siding Repl ace with fire- r esistant wood shingles installed over new weather resistant barrier and drainage mat. 2026
Window sashes Replace vinyl window sashes on south, east, and west facades with wood sash windows in original configurations. 2026
Integral balcony at second
story, northeast corner
Restore original openings of balcony and infill with
historically appropriate windows.
2026
Entry porch
Deconstruct existing non-original porch and restore
original porch with south-facing entry stairs (salvage
existing beams and rafters for reuse).
2026

Page | 6
Entry porch balcony Restore original balcony above entry porch, including new code-compliant guardrail.
2026
Door and sidelights at entry
porch balcony
Restore original door and sidelights at second story, east façade.
2026
Roof Remove composition shingles, install new plywood
sheathing, and new visually similar shingles.
2026
Gutters and downspouts
Replace painted aluminum gutters with new gutters,
downspouts, and leader boxes. Repair related dry rot at eaves and rafter tails.
2026
Chimney Repair and re-sel original clinker brick chimney on west façade.
2030
Wood architectural features
Repair and replace missing and damaged corbels at the
second story cornice line and modillions at the eaves.

Repair dry rot at eaves related to gutters, and replace existing window and door trim in kind.
2026
Planter boxes, second story
south façade
Repair or replace deteriorated wood planter boxes,
including waterproofing. 2030
Cast stone (concrete)
perimeter retaining wall
Repair cracks in existing site wall at south and east
perimeter of property. 2030
Exterior paint and stain Apply stain over new wood shingle siding and paint architectural woodwork and trim. 2026
Scaffolding Install temporary scaffolding to complete exterior work. 2026 Electrical systems Upgrade outdated knob-and-tube wiring to modern wiring. 2026 Plumbing systems Upgrade existing plumbing piping to modern copper piping. 2026 Per the applicant’s calculations in Attachments 2 and 3, the owner’s work plan would be $27,979 less than the tax savings received (i.e. spending $534,515 on the 10-year work plan,

Page | 7
while saving $562,494 in property tax reduction over the 10-year period).

RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that all work proposed in the Mills Act Contract work plan provides for the property’s “use, maintenance and restoration as to retain its characteristics as property of historical significance,” and advises the Commission to recommend that City Council approve the Mills Act Contract request for the subject property.

Environmental Review
The review of the Mills Act contract is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) “ Review for Exemptions.”
Attachments

1. Historic Architectural Summary, dated May 30, 2025

2. Re habilitation Plan, dated Ma
y 30, 2025

3. Financial Analysis Spreadsheet, dated August 26, 2025

4. Notice of Decision – Structure of Merit Designation, April 3, 2025

5. Project Estimates, received June 30 ,2025

Office of the City Attorney

ACTION CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Farimah Brown, City Attorney (Author)
Subject: Proposed Resolution Limiting Use of City Property to Authorized Uses That Further City Purposes and Protect Access to City Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution limiting the use of City property to authorized uses that further City purposes and protect access to City services. This policy will ensure that City assets are not misappropriated in a manner that inhibits access to City services and interferes with City programs and other purposes.

BACKGROUND
On October 27, 2025, the Council directed the City Manager to identify City-owned and controlled properties, and to coordinate with the City Attorney to develop a policy or ordinance that would ensure City properties and facilities are only used for City purposes and those other purposes approved by the City Manager, or their designee, to ensure that City assets are not used in a manner that interferes with the City’s own use and inhibits access to City services. The referral emphasized the need for the City to protect its limited resources, finding that the use of City property for federal immigration enforcement operations bases, staging or surveillance without permission would ignore the intended purposes of such assets, and interfere with the City’s use of its own property.

Accordingly, the City Attorney’s Office reviewed the City’s existing ordinances and policies, the policies of comparable jurisdictions, and relevant legal developments to develop a draft resolution for review and potential adoption by the City Council. The City Attorney’s Office also consulted with the Mayor to ensure alignment with desired policy outcomes and the City Manager to facilitate operationalizing the policy.

After conducting this review and consultation, the City Attorney’s Office drafted a proposed resolution (Attachment 1). The proposed resolution ensures that City property is used only to advance or promote public programs or other purposes authorized by the City, and consistent with City purposes. Specifically, the resolution would prohibit the exclusive use of City property without the City’s authorization, except for uses traditionally available to the public without such authorization. It would also prohibit any City official or employee from authorizing the use of City property if that use would disrupt City operations or discourage access to City services, unless the use furthers a City purpose, and declares that civil immigration enforcement is not a City purpose. In

19

Proposed Resolution Limiting Use of City Property – Council Referral April 14, 2026 2 effect, the resolution would restrict exclusive use of City property for certain non-City purposes, which include, but are not limited to, taking over City property for use in civil immigration enforcement.

Finally, the resolution would direct the City Manager to ensure that all non-access restricted City lots have clear signage designating that the property is owned or controlled by the City and cannot be used for any purpose not expressly authorized by the City.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City Attorney’s Office makes this recommendation at the request of the City Council per its referral on October 27, 2025.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There may be modest costs associated with posting new signage.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects from taking this action.

CONTACT PERSON
Farimah Brown 510-981-6998
Attachments:

1. RESOLUTION NO. _______–N.S. LIMITING USE OF CITY PROPERTY TO

AUTHORIZED USES THAT FURTHER CITY PURPOSES AND PROTECT ACCESS

TO CITY SERVICES

1 RESOLUTION NO. _______–N.S.

A RESOLUTION LIMITING USE OF CITY PROPERTY TO AUTHORIZED USES

THAT FURTHER CITY PURPOSES AND PROTECT ACCESS TO CITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley’s (“Berkeley” or the “City”) mission is to provide quality service to our diverse community; promote an accessible, safe, healthy, environmentally sound, and culturally rich city; initiate innovative solutions; embrace respectful democratic participation; respond quickly and effectively to neighborhood and commercial concerns, and do so in a fiscally sound manner; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to fostering an inclusive, safe, and equitable community for all residents, regardless of national origin or immigration status; and WHEREAS, to further these goals, the City invests in and maintains substantial resources, including real and personal property, to administer public programs and services, such as health care, library services, emergency response, housing, public safety, economic development, and other essential municipal services; and WHEREAS, the City’s facilities and other property are critical access points relied upon by all residents, and preserving their safety, accessibility, and operational continuity is a matter of practical necessity and fiscal responsibility; and WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in preserving City resources for programs and services that further the City’s mission; and
WHEREAS, the City must ensure that all uses of City-owned and City-controlled property are authorized, used in a manner that furthers City purposes, and do not interfere with the City’s mission to serve its residents effectively and equitably; and WHEREAS, the unauthorized appropriation of City property by non-City actors in ways that conflict with City purposes may undermine public trust, disrupt municipal operations, and discourage access to essential services; and WHEREAS, in recent weeks and months, the City has observed the commandeering of local government-owned facilities for immigration enforcement across the country; and WHEREAS, the City has long prohibited City officials from using City resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, except in narrowly defined circumstances required by law; and

2 WHEREAS, if the City were to authorize the use of City property to conduct immigration enforcement, such enforcement would unquestionably interfere with the City’s ability to use its own resources effectively and equitably provide programs and services to all residents. This conclusion is based on substantial evidence from major cities across the country demonstrating that recent surges in immigration enforcement activity discourage participation in the affairs of those cities, which disrupts municipal operations, creates public health and safety risks, and depresses commercial activity; and WHEREAS, the unauthorized use of City property to assist in federal civil immigration enforcement does not further a City purpose and is inconsistent with the City’s values and operational priorities; and
WHEREAS, access to non-public areas of City property by federal immigration authorities is already governed by the City’s existing Sanctuary City Ordinance, which requires judicial authorization for such access; and
WHEREAS, the City has a strong interest in ensuring its policies concerning the use of its property are clear and unambiguous, including to prevent takeover of such property for federal civil immigration enforcement activity or for any other purpose not expressly authorized by the City and inconsistent with the City’s own use of its limited discretionary resources; and
WHEREAS, the City does not interfere with or obstruct lawful immigration enforcement.

Federal immigration enforcement officers currently carry out immigration enforcement in the City. The purpose of this policy is to preserve City resources for programs and services that further the City’s mission and to ensure that the unauthorized use of City property does not undermine that mission by discouraging residents’ participation in City’s affairs.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley:

SECTION 1. Authorized Use of City Property
A. As used herein, the use of City real or personal property shall mean the right to occupy or use the property, to the exclusion of others, and shall include but not be limited to uses that require a license, permit to enter, use permit, or other similar instrument. It shall not mean non-exclusive access or use of the City’s property traditionally open and available to the public where that access or use is on the same terms as members of the public and does not infringe on the City’s own use.

B. No person or entity may use real or personal property owned or controlled by the City

3 of Berkeley (“City”), including by any City board or commission, unless such use advances or promotes public programs or other purposes authorized by the City and the City has authorized the use.

C. No City department, officer, or employee shall authorize the use of City real or personal property if such use would disrupt City operations or discourage access to City services, unless the use furthers a City purpose.

D. The use of City real or personal property to assist in federal civil immigration enforcement is a use that does not further a City purpose.

E. The City Manager shall ensure that all City-owned or controlled parking lots, vacant lots, and parking garages that are not access restricted have clear signage designating that the property is owned and/or controlled by the City and cannot be used for any purpose not expressly authorized by the City.

F. The City Manager shall oversee implementation and staff training regarding this policy in coordination with the City Attorney.

G. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to interfere with or inhibit any exercise of the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech or assembly or to prevent the use of, or access to, City property as required by law.

H. The examples provided herein are illustrative and not exhaustive; this policy applies equally to all proposed uses of City property that do not further City purposes, regardless of the identity of the user.

I. This policy is not intended to and does not alter any existing City laws governing permitting or licensing of City property.

SECTION 2. No Conflict with Federal or State Law.

Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted or applied to create any requirement, power, or duty in conflict with any federal or state law.

SECTION 3. No Conflict with Existing Property Interest or Agreements.

Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted or applied to affect or interfere with any property interest or agreement, including but not limited to amendments to those agreements, deeds, easements, leases, licenses, or permits, to occupy or use City real or personal property that is entered into or effective before the effective date of this resolution.

SECTION 4. Severability

4 If any provision of this resolution is found invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

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/

ACTION CALENDAR
April 14, 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 3.24 (Landmarks Preservation Commission) to Revise Procedures for Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit and Incorporate Technical Edits.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the first reading of an ordinance amending BMC Title 3.24 (Landmarks Preservation Commission) to revise procedures for designating landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit, and to incorporate technical edits.

SUMMARY
The amendments to the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) are proposed in response to the Council referral and subsequent supplemental materials adopted on November 10, 2025 (Attachment 2). The proposed amendments to Title 3.24 consist of substantive changes to BMC Section 3.24.120 and 3.24.300 as well as technical edits to other sections (Attachment 1). The proposed amendments revise the designation initiation and appeals procedures for landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit by increasing the signature thresholds for initiation. The amendments also propose delaying landmark initiation procedures for five years following the receipt of a Preliminary Development Application under SB 330. The technical edits update noticing, certification, and appeals procedures for consistency with current City practices.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of the recommended amendments would reduce staff expenses, with fewer expected applications to landmark structures, and fewer appeals of landmark designations of properties under SB 330 Preliminary Development Applications.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Currently, under BMC Section 3.24.120, a landmark designation can be initiated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission; City Council; the Planning Commission; the Civic Arts Commission; a verified application from the owners of the property to be

20

Amendments to BMC Title 3.24 to Improve Procedures for ACTION CALENDAR Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit April 14, 2026

designated or their authorized agents; or a verified application from at least fifty residents of the City.

Similarly, BMC Section 3.24.300(A)(1) allows appeals to be taken to City Council by the City Council on its own motion; a motion of the Planning Commission; a motion of the Civic Arts Commission; a verified application from the owners of the property or their authorized agents; or a verified application from at least fifty residents of the City.

The Council referral states that these provisions provide an unduly low threshold for landmark initiation and appeal. The ease of initiation and appeal can lead to neighborhood disputes and delays, uncertainty for property owners and project applicants, and significant expenditure of resources and staff time to process landmark designation applications that are often unmeritorious. The Council referral notes that several of the landmark designations and appeals initiated by 50 signatures were ultimately denied by LPC or City Council; a higher threshold will better ensure the integrity of the landmark designation process.

The Council referral also notes that some landmark designation attempts conflict with the intent of State housing laws meant to streamline the approval of housing projects.

SB 330, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, locks in the zoning, design and preservation standards that are applicable at the time of the receipt of a complete application for a housing development project. Once the application is submitted and deemed complete, future changes to landmark status, zoning and other regulations are not permitted because the developer’s rights have “vested” as a matter of state law.

This prevents local jurisdictions from imposing new regulations that would reduce the development capacity or density of the project or introduce new discretionary barriers to a proposed housing development project. Since the passing of SB 330 in 2019, nearly one third of Berkeley’s landmark initiation applications were in response to an SB 330 application filing.

Administratively, the current LPO poses some implementation challenges. Procedural details relating to public hearing notice requirements, notice of decision issuance, Council certification, permit review, and the filing, noticing and processing of appeals are outdated and out of line with the current practices of other quasi-judicial bodies such as the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). One of the aforementioned amendments for procedural consistency in Section 3.24.190 extends the City Council’s certification timeline to from 15 to 90 days. This change aligns the noticing requirements for the LPO with the City’s current requirements for publication of City Council agendas which in large part are constrained by the Brown Act, a state law ensuring transparency in government decision-making. This change to the Notice of Decision publication timeline allows the City Council and the public full public notice of the action while meeting the City’s agenda preparation guidelines.

Amendments to BMC Title 3.24 to Improve Procedures for ACTION CALENDAR Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit April 14, 2026

The proposed amendments would also update language related to fees, which currently include a dollar amount set in the LPO which has been unchanged since at least 1985.

The proposed amendment would implement fees through the Council-adopted Fee Schedule, the same as all other fees administered by the Land Use Planning Division.

This would bring LPO-related fees in line with the current practice for most other City fees.

This practice is also consistent with that of other jurisdictions. Many other California cities utilize a cost recovery model for fees related to historic landmark designation. The City of Oakland, for example, assesses a fee for rezoning associated with landmark designation. The City and County of San Francisco, the City of Alameda, and the City of Santa Monica all assess fees for individual landmark and historic district designation.

Discussion
The proposed amendments to Title 3.24 reflect the changes put forth in the Council referral adopted on November 10, 2025, as well as additional technical edits identified by staff. The referrals pose two options for revising the signature threshold for landmark initiation, and both options are presented below.

Supplemental Referral 1 (Kesarwani – Attachment 2) includes two different signature thresholds, depending upon the consent of the property owner. With owner consent, landmark initiation by the public would require the signatures of 200 Berkeley residents.

Without owner consent, 400 signatures would be needed. Staff defined owner consent as a written Letter of Authorization from the property owner to the landmark initiation.

Under BMC Section 3.24.120, an owner is also permitted to initiate a designation on their own through a verified application.

Supplemental Referral 2 (Tregub – Attachment 2) proposes an increased signature threshold to 200 signatures, regardless of owner consent. It also proposes a provision to include a five year stay of landmark initiation for development proposals vested under SB 330. At the November 10, 2025 regular meeting, Councilmember Kesarwani made a friendly amendment to support the inclusion of the SB 330 provision.

At its November 10, 2025 meeting, the City Council referred both options to staff to consider. Accordingly, staff have proposed two versions of BMC Sections 3.24.120 and

3.24.300 to reflect the two policy options for signature thresholds put forward in the Council’s action. Both versions of Section 3.24.120 include the provisions for the five year stay of landmark initiation for SB 330 projects.

Amendments to BMC Title 3.24 to Improve Procedures for ACTION CALENDAR Designating Landmarks, Historic Districts and Structures of Merit April 14, 2026

Staff excluded the SB 330 provisions from the proposed amendments to 3.24.300 (Appeals) to avoid redundancy. Because the proposed amendments to 3.24.120 preclude projects vested under SB 330 from landmark designation, separate provisions for a delay of appeals are unnecessary, as a vested property under SB 330 cannot be landmarked in the first place.

The amendments to BMC Sections 3.24.120 and 3.24.300 as well as the technical amendments are summarized in the table below. As the table explains, these changes are technical and/or procedural in nature and do not alter the criteria for the designation or potential alteration of landmarks:

Title 3.24 (Landmarks Preservation Commission) Proposed Amendments Ord.

Sec.

BMC Code Section Proposed Change Rationale

3.24.030 (B) Membership-
Appointments-Organization and
officers.

Error correction.
1 3.24.030 (C) Membership-
Appointments-Organization and
officers.

Deletion of provisions covered in the
City’s Commissioners’ & Board
Members’ Manual.
2 3.24.050 List of structures and sites--
To be established and maintained--
Contents.

Typo correction.

3.24.060 List of structures and sites--
Landmarks, historic districts and
structures of merit designated--
Permit application review.

Deletion of initial list establishment
language, as this task has been
completed.

3.24.060 (B) Language clarification.
3 3.24.060 (A)(1) Language clarification.
4 3.24.080 Permit application--
Suspension authorized when.

Error correction.
5 3.24.100 Landmarks, historic districts
and structures of merit--Designation--
Procedures required--Control and
standards.

Organizational change for consistency
and language edits only for clarity
6 3.24.110 Landmarks, historic districts
and structures of merit--Designation--
Criteria for consideration.

Organizational change only.
7 3.24.120 Landmarks, historic districts
and structures of merit--Designation--
Increased signature threshold from 50
to 200 with owner consent through a
Letter of Authorization. Increased