Berkeley City Council
October 13, 2026

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

neighborhood ties and children, and a final household moved into a BMR unit with zero points. At the second property, both units were filled by households with children who qualified with one point each. Some BMR units are reserved for Housing Choice Voucher-holders; those units have a smaller pool to draw from and may be more challenging for preference implementation.

BMR property managers and City staff identified administrative challenges. Property managers reported verification delays from contacting applicants and explaining preferences, and processing unverifiable preference claims. City staff who work directly with BMR property managers emphasized the administrative burden of explaining the policy to leasing staff, especially given frequent staff turnover at BMR properties.

BMR property managers do not have the same institutional knowledge as the nonprofit managers at HTF projects. They do not typically have experience verifying income and preferences. This has also led to inconsistent data tracking related to preferences.

Reporting
Staff will continue to monitor the policy to understand how it is working, including administration and populations served. The City will collaborate with Doorway on data collection. Staff will provide an annual report to Council documenting the policy’s impact. Staff will conduct an evaluation of the policy every five years, requesting any policy amendments to better serve the anti-displacement goals as needed.

Housing Advisory Commission Recommendation
July 2, 2026, the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) supported the proposed preference policy updates with the following vote:

Action: M/S/C (Shere/Simon-Weisberg) to recommend City Council adopt a resolution to establish an updated affordable housing preference policy with the following preference categories organized into ranked tiers:
 Displaced due to BART construction
 Generational ties to redlined neighborhoods (families with children prioritized)  Current/displaced Berkeley resident (families with children prioritized) Vote: Ayes: Bell, Haycox, Shere, Simon-Weisberg, Twu, and Vaughn Scott. Noes:

None. Abstain: None. Absent: Micael (excused) and Mirvish (excused).

BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the preference policy on July 11, 2023. The policy became effective on January 1, 2024.

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

The City partnered with HBF and with Street Level Advisors on the following research efforts to better understand the impact of the policy at MMSC and BMR properties, as well as challenges and opportunities. Research efforts include:
 MMSC applicant experience survey administered by Exygy (developer of the housing portal platform)
 Analysis of MMSC leasing data by Street Level Advisors  Research on MMSC resident experiences led by HBF:
o MMSC resident survey
o In-depth MMSC resident interviews
 Stakeholder interviews led by City staff with the following groups:
o Homeless service providers, Bay Area Community Services (BACS) and Women’s Daytime Drop-In Center (WDDIC)
o City of Berkeley Asset Management and Preservation team (BMR properties)
o City of Berkeley Homeless Services team
o MTC-Doorway staff
o RCD and John Stewart Company
o City staff in San Francisco
o City staff, nonprofit, and community development corporation in East Palo Alto
 Stakeholder meetings to discuss revised policy proposals with the following groups (including a joint meeting):
o HBF
o John Stewart Company
o MTC-Doorway
o RCD

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Displacement can lead to commutes into Berkeley as displaced people continue to return to their community of origin for school, work, faith institutions, healthcare, and/or social networks. A preference policy can help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from these longer commutes by reducing or reversing displacement.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Lessons from the pilot suggest that simplifying the policy to a ranked tier system and consolidating categories is necessary to better support applicants. The updated policy proposal builds on strengths of the existing policy and addresses its challenges.

Policy Strengths
Redlined Preferences
Redlined neighborhoods experienced decades of disinvestment that promoted gentrification and displacement. The outcomes of the redlining preferences, combined

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

with HBF’s MMSC tenant survey data, suggest that these preferences provided a pathway for displaced long-term residents to return to the community. In the tenant survey, 65% of those answering indicated that they applied to MMSC because they “wanted to return to South Berkeley.”
21 out of 25 respondents agreed that the policy successfully met its goal to “prioritize displaced families from Berkeley.” This impact is particularly meaningful for long-term community ties; of the 22 surveyed residents with previous Berkeley residency, nine households had lived in the city for over 20 years. One survey respondent highlighted the profound personal impact of the policy: “It was fair, and truly a blessing. Affordability in Berkeley had been out of reach for me since I left my mom's house in 1984.” BART Database, Certificates, and Library Partnership
Staff used Public Records Act (PRA) requests to BART to compile a database of property owners who were displaced by the construction of BART in the 1960s. Staff also established a BART Construction Displacement Certificate application on the City website. City staff work with applicants on verification; this pre-verification reduces burden for leasing staff.

Twelve of the sixteen BART certificates issued traced back to ancestors in the database. Other certificate holders were able to provide their ancestors’ addresses, but the ancestors did not appear in the database since they were renters. In those cases, applicants were required to provide proof of address for their ancestors.

HHCS Staff established a partnership with the Berkeley Public Library (BPL) historian, who supports applicants in looking for proof of address documentation for ancestors.

BPL has institutional accounts for Ancestry.com and other directories with historical records. When an applicant’s ancestor did not appear in the BART database, the library was able to support them in locating proof of address for their ancestors. BPL also supported applicants looking for proof of address for the redlined neighborhood descendant preference.

Challenges & Constraints
Policy Complexity
The seven-point system was difficult to implement and monitor, and challenging for applicants to understand. In-depth HBF resident interviews indicated that some MMSC residents are not aware of the preferences. Information overwhelm may have contributed to confusion about the requirement for preferences to tie back to Berkeley.

Many applicants apply to listings on their phones in a short amount of time. The ease of the online application also makes a layered, complicated policy difficult to convey.

The updated policy proposal consolidates eviction and foreclosure category into the displaced from Berkeley category. This consolidation better reflects varied displacement

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

circumstances, reduces overall policy complexity, and cuts down on applicant confusion regarding out-of-city eligibility.

Conversations with partner organizations about innovative outreach methods noted that a consolidated policy could support more effective outreach. A policy with seven preferences and a points-based formula was also challenging for leasing staff to implement and made tracking challenging. A more streamlined policy lends itself to improved data systems and reporting, in order to best understand policy outcomes.

Unverified Preference Claims
The majority of preferences that applicants claimed were not verified. The children preference was the only preference that more than half of applicants were able to verify (see Table 3). The BART preference had the lowest verifiable rate; only 1%, or three out of 205 applicants, were able to verify the preference. The homeless preference had the second lowest verification rate; 18% of applications processed were able to be verified.

This preference had broad, subjective criteria for the at-risk of homelessness category; the rate of applicants who verified as actively homeless was likely much lower.

It is common with preference policies for applicants to select preferences they later cannot verify. This delays the leasing process and pushes back move-in dates.

Simplifying preferences will clear up confusion for applicants, which may reduce unverifiable preference claims. Some unverified claims will always happen, but simpler rules and clear deadlines for paperwork will reduce processing delays.

Income Mismatch
Many people who qualify for preferences have incomes that are below income minimums for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) affordable housing. LIHTC housing is the primary way to fund affordable housing. Most City-funded affordable housing projects use LIHTC and have to follow LIHTC income requirements. For eviction, foreclosure, and homelessness preferences, the vast majority of applicants were screened out because their incomes were too low to qualify.

Alameda County Housing Portal data showed that about 46% of MMSC applicants reported incomes below 20% Area Median Income (AMI). It is important to note that these are self-reported incomes. This large group of extremely low-income applicants likely applied because the building offers project-based vouchers (PBVs), which limits a tenant’s rent to 30% of their income. This lease-up aligns with broader Bay Area trends, where housing portals receive the most applications from extremely low-income households and fewer as income levels go up.

Ultimately, preferences only work if qualified applicants meet income and other requirements for the available affordable housing units.

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

Homeless and At-Risk of Homelessness Verification Realities Creating a homeless preference for LIHTC units without deep rental subsidies creates a structural mismatch. LIHTC buildings usually combine different funding sources to serve different income levels. Often, developments reserve specific units for extremely low- income and homeless households through Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) programs outside the standard lottery. PBVs and special funds such as the No Place Like Home program are common examples that were used at the MMSC project.

However, the minimum income requirements for the unrestricted LIHTC units financially disqualified the majority of homeless/at-risk applicants applying through the general lottery. Because tax-credit housing relies on tenant rent payments to cover operating costs, units without deep rental subsidies require a minimum monthly income that many extremely low-income applicants cannot meet.

The policy was designed to target people with lower supportive service needs who did not qualify for PSH. The goal of this targeting was to mitigate this income mismatch, and expand options for people who are not prioritized for other housing programs. This approach aimed to help people keep their housing without putting high-need households into units that lack proper support services. However, many applicants did not understand this complicated rule for individuals who were homeless but not prioritized for PSH.

Interviews with homeless service providers emphasized that promoting housing people cannot actually qualify for creates false hope. It can also add to the trauma unhoused people face with housing searches.

The "at-risk of homelessness" category was too broad to work well in a region where so many people struggle with housing. Service providers noted this broad rule made eligibility hard to verify and undermined efforts to prioritize people with the most urgent needs.

The effort required from staff and applicants for this category did not match the actual housing outcomes. Preferences cannot replace dedicated, fully funded supportive housing systems. The City and the Berkeley Housing Authority serve homeless people more effectively through programs built specifically for people with extremely low incomes. These include Permanent Supportive Housing, project-based vouchers, the Shelter Plus Care program, interim housing, the Housing Retention Program, and wraparound support services.

These specialized systems provide the necessary support and subsidies that affordable housing preferences cannot. Homeless households will still qualify for priority under the new proposed current/displaced Berkeley resident category, but they will no longer face the heavy paperwork required by a homeless preference.

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

Opportunities
Honoring Intersectionality
The current points system tried to account for households facing multiple displacement- related challenges. However, it required applicants to prove each of these preference claims with paperwork. The proposed tier system honors these overlapping challenges by creating a right of return for people harmed by decades of redlining, disinvestment, and gentrification in Berkeley, without burdening applicants with heavy documentation.

Pilot data supports this design: 80% of households with the highest preference points (three or four preferences) were descendants of redlined neighborhood residents.

Prioritizing generational roots in redlined neighborhoods lifts up households facing the most layered displacement circumstances. This approach directs Berkeley's affordable housing to the community members most impacted by systemic discrimination.

Integration with Doorway
City staff collaborated with Exygy and the Alameda County Housing Portal on a post- application survey of 855 MMSC applicants. Over 80% said application instructions were clear and easy to follow. Since that pilot, the Alameda County Housing Portal was integrated into Doorway, a regional affordable housing platform with over 500,000 active users.

Switching to a tier-based system is necessary to integrate with Doorway because the platform does not currently support points systems. Currently, Doorway cannot automate or audit Berkeley’s lotteries, forcing Doorway staff to run them manually. This means applicants receive their lottery number in an emailed document instead of in their portal profile. Lottery positions also keep changing as staff check paperwork, which confuses applicants, creates extra work for leasing teams, and makes long-term tracking difficult.

A tier system allows Doorway to automate and audit Berkeley's lotteries so they align with regional standards. Automation and audits reduce human error and keep the process fair. For example, an audit in another city recently caught a technical glitch that left non-English preference responses blank. This allowed staff to reach out to applicants and fix the issue quickly.

Standard Doorway listings give applicants direct, reliable access to their lottery rank.

Under a tier system, applicants hold a stable rank within a clear tier. If they cannot prove a preference, they simply drop to their position in the next qualifying tier without requiring the entire applicant pool to be re-sorted.

Doorway is currently designed to support preferences via tiers. Other jurisdictions that implement preferences via Doorway also use tiers. Aligning Berkeley's policy with nearby cities creates a consistent experience and reduces confusion. Doorway offers the best way to reach applicants and keep the application process simple.

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative actions include:
 Keep the existing policy.
o Maintaining the homeless preference could lead to ongoing false expectations, which can cause more harm than good in a population with housing trauma. Keeping this preference would also lead to ongoing heavy administrative burden for HHCS Homeless Services team. o Keeping the points system along with the foreclosure and eviction preferences could continue to delay building lease-ups without proportional policy impact.
 Keep the points system, but reduce the number of categories to reflect pilot lessons (for example, remove the homeless category, and combine displacement circumstances into one displacement category). This option has substantial limitations:
o Keeps the heaviest documentation burden on applicants who qualify for the most preferences.
o Prevents current full integration with Doorway, which means listings in Berkeley could not use automated lotteries or lottery audits. This leaves more room for human error in ensuring that qualified applicants receive preferences.
o Limits transparency for applicants. In a points system, applicant rankings constantly shift as files are checked, and applicants receive limited information on these changes. These lists are emailed instead of clearly appearing in an applicant’s Doorway profile like other jurisdictions’ listings.

Opportunities for Future Exploration
Lessons from the MMSC pilot point to systemic housing challenges that go beyond the scope of a preference policy. The biggest challenge is the gap between LIHTC rent amounts and what applicants actually earn.

Deeply Affordable Housing
High demand for extremely low-income housing at MMSC highlights Berkeley's urgent need for deeply affordable units. This includes Permanent Supportive Housing as well as deeper affordability for independent households with lower supportive service needs.

Meeting minimum income requirements is hard in high-income areas like Alameda County. Over the past decade, Alameda County’s median income increased by 24% after adjusting for inflation, reaching $162,800 for a family of four in 2026. Affordable housing built using federal tax credits (LIHTC) mostly targets households making 50% and 60% of that median income. To qualify, a family’s income must be at least double their rent. About 64% of applicants to MMSC reported making 30% of median income or

Affordable Housing Preference Policy: Pilot Assessment and Policy Update ACTION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

lower, which means they would not qualify for the 50% or 60% area median income (AMI) LIHTC units.

Staff identified three areas for future exploration to bridge these gaps:
 Targeted Voucher Integration: San Francisco addresses this income mismatch by partnering with its housing authority to place lower-income preference- qualified applicants into project-based voucher units (where rent is tied to income).
 Social Housing Planning: The 2025 Berkeley Social Housing Study recommended developing an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. This plan would map out specific income targets and sub-populations, with a goal of designing a social housing system that addresses long-term structural gaps.  Guaranteed Income Pilots: City Council referred to staff research on guaranteed income programs, which could supplement baseline earnings so extremely low- income households can meet minimum income requirements.

Holistic Support for Returning Berkeleyans
Displaced residents returning to Berkeley may need help with housing navigation, mental health care, and support services that standard property managers cannot provide. Future strategies should build on work with existing community partners for upcoming large affordable housing lease-ups that use the preference policy. Community partnerships can help applicants collect required paperwork and connect returning residents to culturally relevant support networks.

CONTACT PERSON
Anna Cash, Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981-5403 Mike Uberti, Senior Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981- 5114
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Preference Categories
2: Comparison Between Current and Proposed Preference Policy 3: Proposed Displacement Criteria

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

AMENDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PREFERENCE POLICY FOR

AFFORDABLE UNITS DEVELOPED WITH CITY SUBSIDY AND THROUGH THE

BELOW MARKET RATE PROGRAM AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 70,960-N.S.

WHEREAS, City Council adopted Resolution No. 70,960-N.S. on July 11, 2023 “Adopting a Housing Preference Policy for Affordable Units Developed with City Subsidy and through the Below Market Rate Program”, with an effective date of January 1, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Housing Preference Policy, as adopted in 2023, was subject to a pilot evaluation at Maudelle Miller Shirek Community and several Below Market Rate properties; and
WHEREAS, in the 1960s and 1970s, Bay Area Rapid Transit (“BART”) bought blocks of homes, in some cases invoking eminent domain, in order to build BART stations in Berkeley, displacing residents of South Berkeley and North Berkeley in the process.

Those who lost their homes due to BART construction forewent intergenerational wealth- building; and
WHEREAS, redlining led to patterns of disinvestment in Berkeley’s redlined neighborhoods, which were predominantly populated by people of color. Redlining limited homeownership and housing stability in these neighborhoods, with compounding generational effects. These patterns continue to enable gentrification; approximately 83% of today's gentrifying areas in the East Bay were rated as "hazardous" (red) or "definitely declining" (yellow) by the government-sponsored corporation that introduced redlining; and
WHEREAS, families with children may be most vulnerable to and impacted by displacement. National research underscores that low-income single mothers with young children are at the highest risk of eviction; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley (“City”) provides funding to support affordable housing development through the Housing Trust Fund program; and WHEREAS, the City creates affordable housing via the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirements (Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.328), requiring new market-rate residential developments to include Below Market Rate affordable housing units; and WHERAS, the amended policy is consistent with Berkeley's General Plan Housing Element goals; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2022, the City of Berkeley and BART adopted the City and BART Joint Vision and Priorities for Transit-Oriented Development at the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Stations that included a shared priority for displacement prevention that states that “affordable housing should provide a preference for residents of Berkeley who

are facing displacement, or who have been displaced from Berkeley in the past due to economic or discriminatory reasons”; and
WHEREAS, California Senate Bill (SB) 649 was adopted by the State of California in September 2022 to establish that it is the State’s policy that lower-income individuals residing in neighborhoods and communities experiencing significant displacement, as specified, need access to housing that is affordable and assists in avoiding displacement, and that a local tenant preference adopted pursuant to the bill’s provisions is subject to the duty of public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing.

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

1. Adopts the amended Affordable Housing Preference Policy, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated by this reference, that applies to new affordable housing units created by the City’s Housing Trust Fund and Below Market Rate programs;

2. Authorizes the City Manager to approve guidelines to administer the Housing Preference Policy as amended, and take any other action with respect to the policy consistent with this resolution and its purpose;

3. Establishes that this Affordable Housing Preference Policy shall be applied only to the extent allowed by Fair Housing law and other government agency funding sources; and

4. Establishes the Affordable Housing Preference Policy, as amended by this resolution, shall take effect November 1, 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Resolution No. 70,960-N.S. is hereby rescinded and is of no force or effect on any applicable Housing Development Project that obtains City approval of its required Marketing Plan submission after the effective date of this resolution.

Exhibits
A: Exhibit A. Preference Categories

Exhibit A. Preference Categories, as Amended (2026)
Tier Preference
Tier 1 (highest priority) Displaced due to construction of BART stations in Berkeley Tier 2 (second priority) Direct descendant of Berkeley redlined neighborhood resident – households with children under 18
Tier 3 (third priority) Direct descendant of Berkeley redlined neighborhood resident – households without children
Tier 4 (fourth priority) Current/displaced Berkeley resident – households with children under 18
Tier 5 (fifth priority) Current/displaced Berkeley resident – households without children

Attachment 2: Comparison Between Current and Proposed Preference Policy Current
Preference
Pilot Implementation
Lessons
Proposed Changes
BART
construction
• Underutilized, but
timing challenge
with pilot
Tier #1
Eviction • Underutilized
• High % under-
income
Consolidate into current/displaced
Berkeley resident
Foreclosure • Underutilized
• High % under-
income
Consolidate into current/displaced
Berkeley resident
Redlined
neighborhood
resident
• Redlined
preferences most
effective
Combine into current/displaced
Berkeley resident, and Berkeley
redlined neighborhood descendant
where applicable
Redlined
neighborhood
descendant
• Redlined
preferences most
effective
Tier #2 and Tier #3
Homeless or at-
risk of
homelessness
• High % under-
income
• High burden &
false expectation
Combine into current/displaced
Berkeley resident (includes unhoused
applicant with former address in
Berkeley)
Families with
children
• Preference well-
utilized, but often
not connected to
Berkeley ties
Tier #2 and Tier #4 (combined with
Berkeley redlined neighborhood
descendant preference, and
current/displaced Berkeley resident
preference)

Attachment 3: Proposed Displacement Criteria
(For inclusion in Administrative Guidelines)
Displacement may include moving out of Berkeley due to:
 City Code Enforcement activities or building condemnation  Property foreclosure
 Domestic violence situations
 Natural disaster or other emergency
 Economic displacement
o Rent increase
o Personal financial shocks or changes in household income  Evictions and forced move-outs, including those related to:
o Formal or threatened eviction (legal eviction, including no-fault eviction, such as owner move-in; or a formal landlord notice terminating tenancy) o Constructive eviction (forced to leave a unit due to unlivable housing conditions, a severe loss of housing services, or documented harassment, discrimination, or retaliation by a landlord or neighbors)

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
October 13, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Establish 2027 City Council Meeting Schedule

RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposed modifications to the meeting schedule, including options for a shift in the timing of the summer recess, and adopt a Resolution establishing the City Council regular meeting schedule for calendar year 2027, with starting times of 6:00 p.m.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Open Government Ordinance (BMC Chapter 2.06), the Council must hold at least 24 meetings annually. The meeting schedule consists of 24 regular meetings and provides for Spring, Summer and Winter recess periods. Meetings have not been scheduled on City holidays, Election Day or days of major religious/cultural observances that have work restrictions pursuant to Council policy.

Due to the high rate of teleconference participation by the Council in July of 2026, there was a request to adjust the summer recess in order to better align with the BUSD school calendar (this would also increase alignment with the UC calendar). This change was discussed at the Agenda & Rules Committee, but no formal recommendation was adopted. Staff is presenting several options below for the 2027 summer recess schedule.

Council may consider the options and adopt its preferred schedule.

Last meeting before recess First meeting back from recess June 29 August 17
July 6 August 31
July 20 September 14
The Mayor or a majority of the Council may call special meetings as needed. The Council may also amend the regular meeting schedule when necessary.

Establish 2027 City Council Meeting Schedule ACTION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

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

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: 2027 Council Calendar
2: List of Religious/Cultural Observances for 2027

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

ADOPTING THE CITY COUNCIL 2027 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE WHEREAS, pursuant to the Open Government Ordinance set forth in Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 2.06, the Council must hold a minimum of 24 meetings annually; and WHEREAS, the proposed schedule (Exhibit A) provides for 24 regular meetings to occur with starting times of 6:00 p.m. on specified Tuesdays of each month with exceptions provided for recess periods or when a meeting would fall on a City, religious or cultural holiday with work restrictions or Election Day; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to establish as part of their schedule a Winter, Spring and Summer recess period for 2027; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor or a majority of the Council may call special meetings as needed and the Council may revise the regular meeting schedule when necessary.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council adopts the 2027 regular meeting schedule on specified Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. as indicated:

Winter Recess: December 16, 2026 – January 25, 2027
January 26, 2027
February 9 and February 23, 2027
March 2, March 16, and March 23, 2027
Spring Recess: March 24 – April 5, 2027
April 6 and April 20, 2027
May 4, May 11 and May 25, 2027
June 1, June 15 and June 29, 2027
July 6, 2027
Summer Recess: July 7 – August 30, 2027
August 31, 2027
September 14 and September 28, 2027
October 5 and October 19, 2027
November 2, November 16, and November 30, 2027
December 14, 2027
Winter Recess: December 15, 2027 – January 24, 2028
Exhibit A: 2027 Council Calendar

City Clerk Department 2027 Council Calendar
(Subject to change. For the latest information, please contact the City Clerk Department, 510-981-6900.)

Date Time
January
Winter Recess (Dec. 16, 2026 – Jan. 25, 2027)
Jan 26 6:00 p.m.

February
Feb 9 6:00 p.m.

Feb 23 6:00 p.m.

March
Mar 2 6:00 p.m.

Mar 16 6:00 p.m.

Mar 23 6:00 p.m.

April
Spring Recess (March 24 – April 5, 2027)
April 6 6:00 p.m.

April 20 6:00 p.m.

May
May 4 6:00 p.m.

May 11 6:00 p.m.

May 25 6:00 p.m.

June
June 1 6:00 p.m.

June 15 6:00 p.m.

June 29 6:00 p.m.

July
July 6 6:00 p.m.

Summer Recess (July 7 – Aug. 30, 2027)
August
Aug 31 6:00 p.m.

September
Sept 14 6:00 p.m.

Sept 28 6:00 p.m.

October
Oct 5 6:00 p.m.

Oct 19 6:00 p.m.

November
Nov 2 6:00 p.m.

Nov 16 6:00 p.m.

Nov 30 6:00 p.m.

December
Dec 14 6:00 p.m.

Winter Recess (Dec. 15, 2027 – Jan. 24, 2028)
Exhibit A

City Policy Regarding the Scheduling of City Meetings on All Significant Religious Holidays Religion Holiday
Shinto New Year 1/1/2027 thru 1/3/2027
Hindu Makara Sankranti 1/14/2027
Cultural Chinese New Year (Eve, Day, Lantern Festival) 2/5, 2/6, 2/20 Islam Ramadan (Eve & First Night) 2/7/2027 thru 2/8/2027 Islam Eid al-Fitr 3/9/2027 thru 3/10/2027
Cultural Nowruz* 3/21/2027
Hindu Holi 3/22/2027
Christian Good Friday 3/26/2027
Christian Easter Sunday 3/28/2027
Jewish Passover Nights 1 & 2 (7*, 8*) 4/21 - 4/22 (4/28, 4/29) Islam Eid al-Adha 5/16/2027 thru 5/17/2027
Buddhist Vesak 5/20/2027
Jewish Shavuot* 6/10/2027 thru 6/12/2027
Shinto Obon Ceremony* 8/13/2027 thru 8/15/2027
Jewish Rosh Hashanah 10/1/2027 thru 10/3/2027
Hindu Dussehra 10/9/2027
Jewish Yom Kippur 10/10/2027 thru 10/11/2027
Jewish Sukkot (1st Day)* 10/15/2027 thru 10/16/2027
Jewish Shmini Atzeret/ Simchat Torah* 10/22/2027 thru 10/24/2027 Hindu Diwali 10/29/2027
Baha’i Faith Birth of Bab 10/30/2027
Baha’i Faith Birth of Baha’u’llah 10/31/2027
Jewish Chanukah (1st night) 12/24/2027
Christian Christmas 12/25/2027
Cultural Kwanzaa 12/26/2027 thru 1/1/2027
Jewish Shabbat (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset)* Weekly * Meetings not prohibited, but avoid scheduling meetings if possible 2027 Date(s)
Pursuant to Resolution No. 70,066-N.S., it is the policy of the City to avoid scheduling meetings of City Legislative Bodies (City Council, Policy Committees, Commissions, Task Forces) on religious holidays that incorporate significant work restrictions for common observance in the United States. City legislative bodies must avoid scheduling meetings on the religious holidays listed below.

City Manager’s Office
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/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
October 13, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager, Neighborhood Services Subject: Homeless Response Team Audit Status Report

INTRODUCTION
This report provides the first status update regarding implementation of recommendations contained in the July 16, 2025, City Auditor report, Homeless Response Team: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Procedures and Better Track Outcomes 1. Since issuance of the audit, the City Manager’s Office and the Homeless Response Team (HRT) have continued implementing operational and reporting improvements intended to strengthen coordination, improve data integration, and enhance public reporting related to encampment response efforts.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The audit included six recommendations. As of the writing of this report, five of those recommendations have been implemented and one has been partially implemented.

In September 2025, the City adopted the Homeless Response Team: Encampment Coordination and Data Policy (Attachment 2), which formalizes the structure, membership, and procedures of the weekly Berkeley Encampment Case Conference and establishes written procedures for collecting, reviewing, and validating encampment and outreach data. The policy designates the HMIS Outreach module as the primary system of record for encampment-related outreach and sets documentation timelines for outreach contacts, shelter offers, and encampment activities.

The HRT now also conducts Coordinated Entry assessments directly as a mobile access point within Alameda County's Coordinated Entry system, rather than routing participants through another provider. In addition, the HRT standardized its public performance reporting and has released biannual data reports to Council in May 2025, November 2025, and June 2026, published on the City's Reporting Safety Concerns at an Encampment2 webpage.

The recommendation tracked as partially implemented relates to full transition to the HMIS Outreach module. While interim steps have been completed, full integration depends on incorporating Outreach module participation into City-funded outreach contracts that will occur 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Homeless_Response_Team_- _Opportunities_Exist_to_Strengthen_Procedures_and_Better_Track_Outcomes.pdf 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/safety-health/homeless-services/reporting-safety-concerns-encampment

Status Update on Implementation of HRT Audit Recommendations INFORMATION CALENDAR

with the FY 28 – FY 31 Community Agency Funding cycle consistent with the corrective action plan accepted by the City Auditor.

The Homeless Response Team continues to operate within a complex regional shelter and housing system characterized by limited interim and permanent housing resources, a challenging legal landscape, and significant fiscal constraints affecting homelessness services throughout Alameda County and the Bay Area. Sustaining the improvements described above depends on direct outreach capacity as well as administrative capacity, because outreach workers are the primary source of the client-level data underlying the expanded reporting. The FY2026 Mid- Biennial Budget added a third Social Services Specialist position to the HRT, which was subsequently frozen under the citywide hiring freeze and eliminated in the adopted FY 27- FY 28 Biennial Budget as part of the budget balancing strategy. HRT data collection capacity will therefore remain at current levels, capping the pace at which reporting and Outreach module integration can expand.

Please see Attachment 1 for a detailed table of audit report recommendations, corrective action plans, and implementation progress. The next status report to Council is expected to be presented in Fall 2027.

This work advances the City's Strategic Plan goal to create affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members.

BACKGROUND
The Berkeley City Council established the Homeless Response Team in June 2021, and the City Manager's Office launched the team in September 2021, to respond to homeless encampments by conducting sustained outreach to move people indoors while reducing health and safety threats without citation or arrest. The audit examined Homeless Response Team operations during fiscal years 2022 through 2024.

The Homeless Response Team is coordinated by the Neighborhood Services Division in the City Manager's Office and works in partnership with the Health, Housing and Community Services Department; Public Works Department; Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department; Fire Department; and Police Department; and the City Attorney's Office, among others, to address encampments and connect unsheltered residents to services and shelter resources. The HRT has limited authority over most shelter and housing placements, which are managed through the Alameda County Continuum of Care, and its work is further shaped by legal constraints including recent litigation, federal court rulings on encampment actions, City administrative regulations, and the City's September 2024 Encampment Policy Resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental sustainability or climate impacts associated with this informational report.

Status Update on Implementation of HRT Audit Recommendations INFORMATION CALENDAR

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Neighborhood Services Division in the City Manager’s Office will continue refining operational coordination, data integration, and public reporting practices related to encampment response efforts, and will incorporate HMIS Outreach module participation requirements into the next Community Agency Funding cycle.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The improvements described in this report have been implemented within existing staffing and operational resources. Ongoing fiscal pressures at the State, County, and local levels, coupled with reductions to the homelessness budget in the FY 27-FY 28 adopted budget, may further affect HRT outreach activities, which depend on referrals to existing interim housing programs and support services to be effective. In addition, court orders and other legal requirements related to encampment response may require the City to dedicate limited resources to specific activities, including disability accommodations and the provision of survival-related supplies, further constraining the flexibility of existing unhoused funding.

CONTACT PERSON
Josh Jacobs, Homeless Services Coordinator, City Manager’s Office, (510) 225-8035 Attachments:

1. HRT Audit Status Recommendation Table FY26

2. Homeless Response Team (HRT) Encampment Coordination & Data Policy

Attachment 1
Audit Title: Homeless Response Team: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Procedures and Better Track Outcomes
Issue Date: July 16, 2025
Table: Audit Recommendation Statuses
Finding Recommendation Department Previous
Status Update
Current Status Update
The HRT
paused some
coordination
meetings and
had limited
access to shared
information
systems.

2.1 Document the
coordination structure
for encampment-
related meetings.

Continue to meet
regularly with key
participants as
identified by the City for
all encampment
outreach and
interventions.

City
Manager
Not Started Implemented. In September
2025, City adopted the
Homeless Response Team:

Encampment Coordination
policy, which formalizes the
structure and procedures for
the weekly Berkeley
Encampment Case
Conference. The policy
identifies required and optional
participants and provides that
Case Conference meetings
will occur weekly, staffing
permitting. The HRT continues
to convene these meetings
regularly and uses them to
coordinate services for
vulnerable encampment
residents.

The HRT
paused some
coordination
meetings and
had limited
access to shared
information
systems.

2.2 Develop and
document internal
procedures for
collecting data on HRT
activities and
encampments. Include
plans for regular review
for data accuracy.

City
Manager
Not Started Implemented. The HRT
adopted the Encampment
Coordination policy in
September 2025, which
establishes written procedures
for collecting, reviewing, and
validating data related to HRT
activities and encampments,
including use of HMIS as the
primary system of record and
regular data quality review
processes.

Finding Recommendation Department Previous
Status Update
Current Status Update
The HRT
paused some
coordination
meetings and
had limited
access to shared
information
systems.

2.3 Fully transition to
the Outreach module
and work with HHCS to
consider including the
module in contracts
with city-funded
outreach teams who
work with encampment
residents. As part of
this recommendation,
consider developing
shared procedures for
how HRT and city-
funded outreach teams
can use the data to
inform delivery of
services.

City
Manager
Not Started Partly Implemented. The
Encampment Coordination
policy establishes the HMIS
Outreach module as the
primary system of record for
encampment-related outreach
and sets shared expectations
for documenting outreach
contacts, shelter offers and
responses, client engagement,
and encampment activities.

The policy also encourages
non-City outreach providers
with HMIS access to use the
Outreach module and provides
that participation in HMIS
Outreach will become a
requirement for City-funded
outreach providers beginning
with the FY28-31 Community
Agency Funding cycle.

The HRT can
strengthen its
approach to
using outcomes
for measuring
progress toward
goals and
keeping the
public informed.

3.1 Expand reported
outcomes that align
with the HRT’s goals
and define how they
will be measured.

Public reporting could
include key information
such as outreach
efforts and shelter
enrollments, along with
demographic
breakdowns and
reasons people decline
shelter, where
possible. Report on the
same outcomes over
time using a consistent
timeframe to support
comparisons.

City
Manager
Not Started Implemented. The Homeless
Response Team implemented
a standardized public
performance reporting
framework that expands
reported outcomes, aligns
those measures with the
HRT’s goals, and supports
comparisons across consistent
reporting periods. The HRT
released reports in May 2025,
November 2025 and June
2026 which include
comparative analyses of
demographic characteristics,
vulnerability indicators,
Coordinated Entry assessment
rates, shelter enrollment,
shelter type, and participant
shelter and housing outcomes.

Finding Recommendation Department Previous
Status Update
Current Status Update
The HRT can
strengthen its
approach to
using outcomes
for measuring
progress toward
goals and
keeping the
public informed.

3.2 Consider sharing
public data in a more
accessible format, such
as on a single landing
page on the City’s
website or through a
dashboard.

City
Manager
Not Started Implemented. HRT
performance data reports are
published through the City’s
Reporting Safety Concerns at
an Encampment webpage,
providing the public with a
consistent location to access
information about the team’s
activities and outcomes. Since
the audit, the HRT has
continued producing recurring
public performance reports
using its standardized
reporting framework, including
reports issued in November
2025 and June 2026.

The HRT can
strengthen its
approach to
using outcomes
for measuring
progress toward
goals and
keeping the
public informed.

3.3 Assess staffing
resources needed to
support data and
reporting efforts without
impacting HRT’s
operational duties.

City
Manager
Not Started Implemented. Neighborhood
Services completed an
assessment of staffing
resources needed to support
HRT operations, which
identified the need for
additional administrative,
analytical, and operational
capacity within Neighborhood
Services and the HRT.

Neighborhood Services
received an additional
Administrative Assistant FTE
in November 2024 to provide
division-wide administrative
support, and the FY2026 Mid-
Biennial Budget added a third
Social Services Specialist
position to the HRT which was
subsequently frozen and
removed as part of the City’s
response to its structural
budget deficit. Future staffing
additions will remain
dependent on available
resources and Citywide
budget priorities.

Attachment 2
Homeless Response Team Encampment Coordination
September 2025

Homeless Response Team (HRT): Encampment Coordination
I. Purpose
This policy establishes a comprehensive framework for the coordination of encampment- related outreach, data collection, and performance measurement for the Homeless Response Team (HRT). Its purpose is to ensure consistency, transparency, and accountability across City staff and partner agencies engaged in encampment response.

This policy was designed in accordance with regional encampment guidance and the Alameda County HMIS Street Outreach Protocols.

II. Scope
This policy applies to all HRT staff, contracted outreach providers, and City partners engaged in encampment-related activities. It governs meeting coordination, data collection, and use of the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) Outreach module as the primary system of record.

III. Guiding Principals
When responding to encampments, the City’s HRT is bound by the Berkeley Municipal Code and the City Council’s “Encampment Policy Resolution to Promote Healthy and Safe Neighborhoods” (Resolution No. 71,513-N.S.) as the team’s overarching policy directives. In implementing these policy directives, the HRT strives to uphold the following principles:
 Harm reduction: responsive strategies directed at reducing existing harm within encampments and between encamped individuals and the surrounding community. Harms could be dangerous conditions, violent crime, transmission/exposure of communicable illnesses, substance use, and more.  Harm mitigation: proactive strategies directed at reducing future harm  Non-Criminalization: While criminal and nuisance behaviors may warrant enforcement intervention, the circumstance of experiencing homelessness itself is not a crime, and criminalizing based on this circumstance alone is ineffective  Prioritization: recognition that the City’s available resources are insufficient in capacity to respond to every non-emergent issue in encampments and, as such, resources must be prioritized
 Culturally informed: infusing cultural sensitivity and racial equity considerations into all aspects of outreach and resource referrals, to respond fairly across racial and ethnic groups and geographic locations
 Stability: recognition that moving individuals or longstanding groups unnecessarily should be avoided, and that the safest and most stable place for an unsheltered individual to be moved is indoors
 Trauma-Informed: sensitivity to the histories of trauma, past and present, that affect those living in encampments, using evidence-based practices to reduce the exacerbation thereof across all engagements
IV. Definitions
 Berkeley Encampment Case Conference: Weekly coordination meetings convened to align outreach, services, and interventions at identified encampments

Attachment 2
Homeless Response Team Encampment Coordination
September 2025

 Case Conference Key Participants: City staff, housing/shelter providers, outreach teams, and other service providers designated by the City as important components of a coordinated encampment response
 Data Accuracy Review: The process of validating information for consistency, completeness, and accuracy before it is used for reporting or analysis  Encampment: any tent, vehicle, structure, or collection of belongings where one or more unsheltered individuals are residing for a prolonged duration, in a place not meant for human habitation including but not limited to streets, campgrounds, undeveloped properties, abandoned buildings, vehicles, or parks  HMIS Outreach Module: The shared data system used to document engagement, referrals, outcomes, and encampment-level activities
 Homeless Response Team: Resolve unsheltered homelessness through the provision of interim and permanent housing and other supportive services, as well as to coordinate the many City and nonprofit staff who work in and are impacted by homeless encampments in providing harm reduction oriented, pragmatic interventions that maintain health and safety for the unsheltered and the broader Berkeley community. It includes divisions such as Health, Housing and Community Services; Parks, Recreation and Waterfront; Public Works; Police; Fire; and the City Attorney’s Office
 Outreach: refers to any and all employees and contractors who, by the nature of their work, actively outreach to unsheltered residents to connect them to critical services and information, including health supplies
 Shelter and/or alternative interim housing: refers to any approach to providing appropriate accommodations consistent with the local, state, and federal guidelines or laws
V. Encampment Coordination Structure (Recommendation 2.1)

1. Membership
 Required Participants: HRT outreach workers, Homeless Services Coordinator (Chair), contracted housing navigation and shelter providers  Optional Participants: Any person seeking support or looking to support an encampment resident or residents

2. Roles
 Chair: Sets agenda, facilitates meetings, ensures follow-up  Recorder: Designated City staff who documents decisions and action items  Participants: Share updates, coordinate cases, and enter data into HMIS o Individual advocates/community members supporting persons experiencing homelessness may stay for the first part of the meeting to provide information and share updates with the rest of the case conference
o Staff working for agencies that participate in Alameda County’s HMIS are welcome to stay for the entire meeting, where data and information protected by the County’s HMIS privacy policies will be discussed

3. Meeting Frequency and Agenda

Attachment 2
Homeless Response Team Encampment Coordination
September 2025

 Meetings will occur weekly, staffing permitting
 Standard agenda includes:

1. Welcome and announcements (all members)

2. Meeting ground rules (all members)
 Take a client centered approach
 Be mindful of different levels of privacy access
 Respect others
 Focus on problem solving
 Prioritize resources by each client’s vulnerability

3. Resource updates (all members)

4. Data quality review (members with HMIS access only)

5. Client case conferencing (members with HMIS access only)

4. Decision-Making
 Decisions are made by consensus when possible
 When consensus is not possible, the Homeless Services Coordinator, in consultation with the Assistant to the City Manager overseeing Neighborhood Services, will make the final determination
VI. Data Collection and Accuracy (Recommendation 2.2)

1. Data Collection Requirements
 Outreach Contacts: Documented in HMIS within 72 hours  Shelter Offers/Responses: Recorded in HMIS within 72 hours  Encampment Activities: Notices, clean-ups, and closures documented internally and summarized in HMIS under the encampment profile description.  Demographics: Recorded per HMIS data standards

2. Workflows
 Entry: Outreach staff/providers enter data directly into HMIS  Review: Supervisor reviews weekly for timeliness/completeness  Verification: Administration staff cross-checks monthly against case notes, shelter rosters, and meeting records
 Reporting: Quarterly reports generated from HMIS and validated against provider records

3. Data Quality Reviews
 Built into Case Conferences as a standing agenda item  Corrections made within 10 business days of identification VII. HMIS Outreach Module Utilization (Recommendation 2.3)

1. Use Requirements
 Mandatory: City of Berkeley staff and contracted partners must record all outreach and encampment activities in the module
 Voluntary: Non-City of Berkeley providers encountering encampment residents and with HMIS access are encouraged to use the module

Attachment 2
Homeless Response Team Encampment Coordination
September 2025

 Contracted Providers: Beginning in the City’s FY28-31 Community Agency Funding RFP cycle, use of HMIS Outreach will be a required scope of work for contracted providers
Shared Procedures
 The HRT and partners will follow standardized data entry timelines and service tracking requirements as laid out in the Alameda County HMIS Data Quality Policies and Procedures, Alameda County Homeless Response System Written Standards, HMIS Street Outreach Exiting Protocol, and HUD’s HMIS Data Standards, to be in accordance with HUD and Alameda County best practices.

Integration of standardized procedures into weekly Case Conference processes to review data completeness and accuracy.

2. Data Quality and Security
 When sharing personally identifiable information for the purposes of care coordination, the HRT and participating agencies must comply with applicable data privacy regulations, federal HMIS Data Standards, and confidentiality protocols  HRT staff and participating partners will attend all relevant trainings to ensure data completeness and accuracy.
 Quarterly audits and cleanups of module data by the Homeless Services Coordinator

3. Implementation Timeline
 Phase 1 (September 1, 2025): HRT staff full transition to Outreach module  Phase 2 (August 1, 2028): Full integration into City-funded outreach contracts VIII. Accountability and Evaluation
 Meeting attendance and participation tracked weekly and reviewed quarterly  Data entry timeliness and accuracy monitored monthly
 Annual evaluation of policy effectiveness, including housing placements, service connections, and encampment outcomes
 Noncompliance may result in corrective actions pursuant to City disciplinary procedures or individual agency contracts
 This Policy will be subject to periodic evaluation and may be modified by the Neighborhood Services Division, in partnership with participating agencies and as needed, to respond to shifts in funding streams, emerging legal/policy mandates, changes to participating agencies, and/or other changing circumstances.

X. Effective Date
This policy is effective September 15, 2025, and shall remain in force until modified or rescinded by the City Manager’s Office.

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/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
October 13, 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: Inclusionary Housing Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2026

INTRODUCTION
The City of Berkeley’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) (Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 23.328) requires new residential projects to contribute to affordable housing by either:
 Providing 20% of newly constructed units as Below Market Rate (BMR) units; or  Paying the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee (“in- lieu fee”) into the City’s Housing Trust Fund, which supports the development of 100% affordable housing; or
 A combination of on-site BMR units and In-Lieu Fee; or  Other options allowed by Chapter 23.328 (identified below).

This report summarizes program activity for FY 2026, including the BMR unit pipeline, in-lieu fee revenue and anticipated trends.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In 2023, the City Council replaced the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (AHMF) with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). The following is a summary of findings related to the City’s Inclusionary Housing program for FY 2026. This summary includes pipeline projects entitled under the previous AHMF ordinance.

Affordable Housing Compliance Plan: Entitlements and Building Permits New residential projects submit a preliminary Affordable Housing Compliance Plan (AHCP) as part of the entitlement application and a final AHCP as part of the building permit application. By confirming how a project will comply with IHO, the AHCP provides transparency and predictability for both the applicant and City. However, submitting a plan does not guarantee that a project will be built or that its fees will be paid within that specific year. A full list of proposed projects with a preliminary or final AHCP status in FY 2026 is available in Attachment 1. Note that preliminary AHCPs are estimates and may change prior to building permit issuance.

Inclusionary Housing Program Annual Report FY 2026 INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

 Entitlements Processed in FY 2026: Seven new entitled projects were processed totaling 399 units, including 43 BMR units. Projected fee revenue for these units is $2.9 million (Table 1).
 Building Permits Processed in FY 2026: Three new projects with building permits were processed, representing 471 units, including 41 BMR units.

Projected fee revenue totals $8.1 million (Table 1). This figure includes projects entitled under both the IHO and the previous Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee ordinance (AHMF).
 Entitlement Pipeline: The City’s total entitlement pipeline now stands at 2,212 units, including 206 BMR units. This total includes projects carried over from FY 2025 as well as the seven new FY 2026 projects. The total projected fee revenue for these units is $14.4 million (Table 2).
 Building Permit Pipeline: The total building permit pipeline contains 1,057 units, including 86 BMR units. This includes FY 2025 carryover projects and the three new projects from FY 2026. Total projected fee revenue is $18.1 million (Table 2), covering projects from both the IHO and AHMF ordinances.

Table 1. BMR Program Pipeline (New Projects in FY 2026) Category Total
Projects
Total
Units
BMR
Units
Projected Fee
Revenue
Entitlements Processed 7 399 43 $2.9M
Building Permits Processed 3 471 41 $8.1M
Pipeline Total 10 870 84 $11.0M
Table 2. BMR Program Pipeline (All Projects)
Category Total
Projects
Total
Units BMR Units Projected Fee
Revenue
Entitlements Processed 21 2,212 206 $14.4M
Building Permits Processed 11 1,057 86 $18.1M
Pipeline Total 32 3,269 292 $32.5M

Inclusionary Housing Program Annual Report FY 2026 INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

Newly Constructed Below Market Rate Units
 In FY 2026, 34 newly constructed BMR units were made available for lease across six buildings;
 Eleven of these units were made available to Section 8 voucher holders; and  Eleven units were made available to Shelter Plus Care voucher holders.

A table showing the complete list of projects is included in Attachment 1.

Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee
The in-lieu fee is set to $62.83 per square foot of Residential Unit Floor Area (RUFA) for new residential construction. Under Resolution No. 71,674-N.S. this fee automatically adjusts every two years to reflect changes in the California Construction Cost Index (CCI). Following the initial adjustment on July 1, 2025, the next scheduled update will occur on July 1, 2027.

Certain projects paying the full fee qualify for RUFA deductions: 1) Middle Housing Infill Projects (MHIP) and Multifamily Residential (MFR) projects paying the full in-lieu fee may deduct 5,000 square feet. 2) Single Family Residential (SFR) projects may deduct 2,500 square feet.

Total Fee Revenue
In FY 2026, the City collected $1,509,000 in affordable housing fees. These fees were collected from projects entitled under the previous AHMF ordinance.

As of April 1, 2023, residential projects are subject to the requirements under the IHO.

Residential projects with a building permit or preliminary application submitted on or before April 1, 2023, remain under the older AHMF rules. The City’s AHCP data shows a robust pipeline of IHO-entitled projects; however, developers are not required to pay the in-lieu fee until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. As these entitlements advance, overall fee revenue will steadily transition from the AHMF to the IHO framework.

Table 3 and Figure 1 detail annual fee collections from FY 2022 to FY 2026. The City averaged $8.7 million per year in housing fee revenue during a five-year period.

Table 3. BMR Program Fee Revenue (FY 2022 to FY 2026)
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
AHMF $16,208,000 $14,224,000 $10,716,000 $831,000 $1,509,000

Inclusionary Housing Program Annual Report FY 2026 INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

Figure 1. Inclusionary Housing Program Fee Revenue (FY 2022 to FY 2026)

BACKGROUND
The Inclusionary Housing ordinance is established by BMC Chapter 23.328.

As of July 1, 2026, the BMR program provides 639 units across 67 properties. Fees collected under the ordinance are dedicated to the City’s Housing Trust Fund program to fund non-profit, 100% affordable housing developments. The City has generated $56 million in Housing Trust Fund revenue since FY 2017.

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

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Resolution No. 71,674-N.S. established an automatic adjustment to the in-lieu fee to reflect changes in the California Construction Cost Index every two years. The in-lieu fee will automatically increase based on changes to the CCI on July 1, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee and In-lieu fee revenues are deposited in the City’s Housing Trust Fund program. While local bond measures, such as Measure O, provide substantial funding, they serve as one-time source for affordable housing.

Consequently, the in-lieu fee remains Berkeley’s primary dedicated funding source to support 100% affordable housing and leverage County, State, and federal funding.

Future revenue trends depend heavily on local development volume, developer compliance choices (building BMR units versus paying fees), legislative shifts in state law, and broader housing market conditions. Reflecting recent market constraints, fee

Inclusionary Housing Program Annual Report FY 2026 INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

revenues have slowed due to escalating construction costs and higher financing costs than previous years.

Historically, there have been legal challenges to Inclusionary Housing ordinances throughout California. It is possible future court rulings or changes to State law may affect the City’s ability to enforce the Inclusionary Housing ordinance and collect in-lieu fees.

CONTACT PERSON
Mike Uberti, Senior Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981-5114
Snow Zhu, Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981-7774 Attachments:
1: Below Market Rate Properties FY 2026

Attachment 1: Below Market Rate Properties FY 2026
Table 1. Residential Projects Pipeline by AHCP Status
Address Applicable
Ordinance
Total
Units
BMR
Units
Fee
Estimate
Preliminary AHCP
(Entitlements Processed)
Bancroft 2036 IHO 87 6 $1,516,700
Bancroft 2462 IHO 66 3 $917,200
Bancroft 2680 IHO 79 9 $158,400
Cedar 1745* IHO 6 0 $152,200
Center 2001* IHO 58 12 $0
Channing 2317 AHMF 22 3 $621,700
Dwight 2204* IHO 2 3 $0
Ellsworth 2372* IHO 49 0 $1,853,600
Haste 2442 IHO 38 4 $1,016,400
Kittredge 2138 IHO 66 5 $643,600
Milvia 2109 IHO 105 11 $316,800
Oxford 1899* IHO 222 23 $548,100
San Pablo 2147 IHO 141 15 $300,900
Shattuck 1685/ Virginia 2109 IHO 110 9 $462,900
Shattuck 2655 IHO 97 10 $514,900
Telegraph 2712* IHO 50 5 $362,500
Tenth St. 1917 IHO 3 0 $72,300
University 1740* IHO 12 3 $0
University 1950 IHO 599 58 $2,891,500
University 2029 #1 IHO 240 18 $985,500
University 2029 #2 IHO 160 12 $1,038,300
Preliminary AHCP Subtotal 2,212 206 $14,373,500
* Indicates a new project that submitted an AHCP in FY 2026. Remaining projects are carried over from FY 2025.

Below Market Rate Properties FY 2026

Table 2. Residential Projects Pipeline by AHCP Status – Final AHCP Address Applicable
Ordinance
Total
Units
BMR
Units
Fee
Estimate
Final AHCP
(Building Permits Processed)
San Pablo 2403 IHO 36 0 $1,952,000
Channing 2328 AHMF 13 0 $600,400
University 1598 IHO 207 21 $810,200
Berryman 1850* IHO 6 0 $120,700
Kittredge 2065 AHMF 187 9 $5,449,800
San Pablo 3020 IHO 29 4 $182,900
Telegraph 2614* IHO 32 5 $0
Ashby 1331 AHMF 6 1 $38,000
Shattuck 1752 AHMF 68 7 $461,900
Shattuck 2440 AHMF 40 3 $596,200
Oxford 2128* AHMF 433 36 $7,949,200
Final AHCP Subtotal 1,057 86 $18,161,300
Total
(Preliminary and Final AHCP)
3,269 292 $32,534,800
* Indicates a new project that submitted an AHCP in FY 2026. Remaining projects are carried over from FY 2025.

Below Market Rate Properties FY 2026

Table 3. New Projects and Below Market Rate Units (FY 2026) Address Total Units BMR Units
2555 College 11 1
Dwight 2137 58 8
Telegraph 2587 52 8
Telegraph 3030 144 8
Durant 2538 83 6
Shattuck 2440 / 2077 Haste 40 3
Total 388 34

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/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
October 13, 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: Measure O Impacts on Affordable Housing Development in Berkeley

INTRODUCTION
This report provides an overview of the City’s implementation thus far of Measure O, a 2018 ballot measure dedicated to increasing affordable housing.

SUMMARY
In 2018, Berkeley voters approved Measure O, a general obligation bond that will generate up to $135 million for affordable housing developments. As this report demonstrates, the funds have had a significant impact on the production of new affordable housing units; expanding the City’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) portfolio and creating a robust pipeline of new housing developments. Measure O has thus far guided $118M toward an array of projects that will create more than 1,000 new affordable apartments and 44 shelter beds. This includes six completed projects, two under construction, and a healthy pipeline of new construction projects in various stages of predevelopment and planning.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As of May 2026, $118,223,752 in Measure O funds have either been committed (via an executed loan agreement) or reserved (by Council action) for specific affordable housing development projects. More details about these projects can be found in the attached Measure O Projects spreadsheet. The projects with committed or reserved Measure O funds are listed below:

Project Name Address Total
Units
Measure O
Funds
Status
Jordan Court 1601 Oxford 35 $3,501,884 Completed
Berkeley Way –
BRIDGE Affordable
2012 Berkeley
Way
89 $161,544 Completed

Measure O Impacts on Affordable Housing Development in Berkeley INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

Project Name Address Total
Units
Measure O
Funds
Status
Berkeley Way Hope
Center - Permanent
Supportive Housing
53 $6,721,092 Completed
Berkeley Way Hope
Center Shelter
2012 Berkeley
Way 44* $6,652,191 Completed
Maudelle Miller
Shirek Community
2001 Ashby
Ave.
87 $12,932,000 Completed
The Grinnell 2527 San
Pablo Ave.
63 $7,266,032 Completed
St. Paul Terrace 2024 Ashby
Ave.
50 $6,989,009 Under
Construction
BUSD Workforce
Housing
1701 San
Pablo Ave.
110 $26,500,000 Under
construction
1740 San Pablo 1740 San
Pablo Ave.
54 $7,500,000 Predevelopment
North Berkeley BART North Berkeley
BART
265 $20,000,000 Predevelopment
Ashby BART West
Lot
Adeline St. and
MLK Wayt.
300 Predevelopment
Ashby BART East Lot Adeline St. and
Woolsey St.

TBD $20,000,000
Planning
Measure O impact: >1150+
units $ 118,223,752
* Shelter beds
Measure O’s Impact on the City’s Affordable Housing Portfolio Measure O supplements the City’s HTF program, which pools Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees, Inclusionary Fees, Commercial Linkage Fees, Condo Conversion Fees, and entitlement funds from the federal HOME program.

Prior to Berkeley voters’ approval of Measure O, the City was able to fund no more than one new construction project every few years. The 15-unit Harmon Gardens project was completed in 2011, and the next affordable new construction project was the 42-unit Harper Crossing, which was completed in 2018. The City issued an HTF Request for Proposals (RFP) in 2019 through which Council approved funding reservations for five new construction projects, all supported with Measure O, including four (Jordan Court and the three Berkeley Way projects) that were completed in 2022.

Measure O Impacts on Affordable Housing Development in Berkeley INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

The City issued an HTF RFP in 2021 as well as a Notice of Funding Availability for an educator housing project on Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD)-owned land, and through those processes three new construction projects were added to the pipeline (one in predevelopment, and two under construction). In 2010, the City had approximately 1,134 apartments in its portfolio of restricted affordable housing units.

With completed projects, active projects, and pipeline projects, Berkeley is on track to reach more than 2,400 City-assisted affordable units by 2035.

The chart below depicts the growth in the City’s affordable housing portfolio since 2010, illustrating the significant impact Measure O has had on increasing the City’s inventory of newly constructed affordable apartments for extremely low-, very low-, and low- income households. The chart represents only the City-assisted affordable housing units within a project, which typically make up 60% of the total units. However, most new construction projects that the City funds are 100% affordable in order to remain competitive for state funding.

Leveraging of City Funds
The City’s affordable housing development funds are most often reserved early in the predevelopment process. This allows project sponsors to compete for state and federal funds. Typically, the City executes a loan agreement once all permits are ready to issue and full financing has been secured, a process which usually takes years. At times City 1,134 1,224 1,249 1,263
1,414
1,505
1,682
1,841
2,098
2,298
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Cum
ulative City-Assisted Units (by Year) Funded by Measure O
City Assisted Units
Estimate
d Completion Date
Measure O
Implementation
2017 2018

Measure O Impacts on Affordable Housing Development in Berkeley INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

funds are loaned at site acquisition. As a result, funds may be reserved or committed for years before they are expended for construction.

Most new construction affordable housing developments leverage the City’s investment with at least 5-7 other funding sources. Measure O-funded projects that are completed or under construction have secured an average of $4.50 of other funding for every $1.00 of City funds. Leveraging data for funded developments can be found in the attachment to this report.

Measure O Disbursements
Once Measure O funds are committed to a project, they are typically disbursed on a monthly (or less frequent) schedule when the project sponsor has incurred eligible project expenses as well as satisfied various conditions of the loan agreement. The project sponsor submits an invoice along with documentation of each expense, which is reviewed and approved by multiple City staff before funds are released.

As of April 2026, the City had disbursed $68,184,743 in Measure O funds through eight development loans and one predevelopment loan. Six housing developments are complete (Berkeley Hope Center, Berkeley Hope Center Permanent Supportive Housing, BRIDGE Berkeley Way, Jordan Court, The Grinnell, and Maudelle Miller Shirek Community) and two are under construction (BUSD Workforce Housing and St.

Paul). The predevelopment loan disbursements are for 1740 San Pablo. These represent a total of 371 units (including 44 shelter beds) completed with Measure O support to date, and another 160 currently under construction. The City supported 1740 San Pablo with acquisition funding, and the project may start construction in late 2026 or early 2027.

The City is working closely with the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) on the development of the Ashby and North Berkeley BART sites with a goal of restricting at least 35% of the new units for affordable housing. City Council reserved $53M in funding for the developments in 2021 through Resolution 69,833-N.S. Of the total reservation, $13M will come from Affordable Housing Mitigation Fees and $40M will come from the third and fourth issuances of Measure O.

In late 2022, BART and the City selected a development team for North Berkeley BART site that included three nonprofit developers –BRIDGE Housing (no longer in the project), Insight Housing (formerly Berkeley Food and Housing Project) and East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC). The individual projects are still in predevelopment, but the team anticipates developing four 100% affordable projects at the site. The North Berkeley BART project plan includes three projects that will be funded by Measure O: a building with 124 affordable apartments for families and individuals, a building with 60 affordable homes, and an additional 85 permanent supportive housing apartments. In July 2025, the City and BART selected a development team for the Ashby West Lot project that includes two nonprofit developers

Measure O Impacts on Affordable Housing Development in Berkeley INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

- Resources for Community Development (RCD) and Affirm Housing. The project was approved to receive predevelopment funding in early 2026 and anticipates developing at least 300 affordable units at the site. The Ashby East Lot, which will be transferred to City ownership, is still in the planning stages. City staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit developer proposals in April 2026.

Developing affordable housing with Measure O funds supports the Strategic Plan goal to create affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members.

BACKGROUND
In November 2018, Berkeley voters adopted Measure O which allowed the City to issue up to $135 million in bonds to fund housing for "low-, very low-, low-, median-, and middle-income individuals and working families, including teachers, seniors, veterans, the homeless, students, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations.” As a bond measure dedicated to a specific purpose, Measure O required a two-thirds supermajority vote to pass. The measure passed with 77% of Berkeley voters voting in favor.

The City has issued Measure O bonds three times so far:
 In FY2020, the City issued $38,000,000 in Measure O bonds. The cost of issuing these bonds, including bond counsel, was $785,000. Net funds received were $37,215,000.
 In May 2022, the City issued $40,000,000 in Measure O bonds. The cost of issuing these bonds, including bond counsel, was $432,800. Net funds received were $39,567,200.
 In September 2025, the City issued additional $35 million in Measure O bonds. The cost of issuing these bonds, including bond counsel, was $429,650. Net funds received were $34,570,350.

Measure O included provisions to establish an oversight committee as well as to conduct annual audits. The Measure O Bond Oversight Commission was first convened in April 2019. The Commission met seven times in 2019, one in 2020 prior to the pandemic, and again in February and March of 2021.

Subsequently, Council approved the assignment of Measure O oversight to the Housing Advisory Commission and dissolved the Measure O Bond Oversight Commission. The Commissions have reviewed requests for funding, made funding recommendations to Council, and received information about the status of funding reservations and commitments. Neither commission has produced its own report assessing the status of Measure O.

Measure O Impacts on Affordable Housing Development in Berkeley INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

The Finance Department contracts with an outside auditor to audit Measure O expenditures as required by the ballot measure. The most recent audited fiscal year was FY 2025, which ended on June 30, 2025, and included Measure O expenditures.

The audit was completed on December 31, 2025, and had no findings.

Information about Measure O can be found on the City website1. Members of the public who are interested in learning more about Measure O funds as they are allocated and expended can consult the Housing Advisory Commission meeting agendas and materials online, and/or attend the Commission meetings.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The City’s HTF Guidelines identify sustainable development as a City priority and encourage developers to incorporate as many green building strategies and materials as is feasible. New construction affordable housing developments are typically built to third-party, green building standards such as LEED or GreenPoint Rated.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
Council will review and take action on funding reservations related to the development of affordable housing at the Ashby BART sites, which will be partially funded with Measure O funds.

Measure O updates were provided to the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) and the HAC recommended that City Council contemplate a 2028 affordable housing bond.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The specific impacts of future Measure O reservations by the City Council will depend on the actions taken. Since the bond measure authorizing Measure O limits its uses to the housing activities described previously, any funds reserved will be for housing activities.

CONTACT PERSON
Kelly deWolfe, Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, 510-981-5424 Attachment:
1: Affordable Housing Projects Supported by Measure O
1 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures/measure-o

Project Name Project Address Development Partner Description Units1 Affordability Total Measure O
Funds Committed or
Reserved2
Measure O
Disbursements
Through May 2026
Total City Funds
Reserved
Per Unit
Subsidy
Projected
Sources of
Funds3
Project Status
BRIDGE Berkeley Way 2012 Berkeley Way BRIDGE Housing
89 affordable homes and
services for low- and very low-
income families.
89 50-60% AMI $161,544 $161,544 $2,774,925 $31,178.93 Measure O, HTF Completed Berkeley Hope Center 2012 Berkeley Way Insight Housing / BRIDGE Housing
32-bed homeless shelter, 12
transitional beds for homeless
veterans, a community kitchen
and wrap-around services for
mental health, substance
abuse, job training and social
activities.
44 0-30% AMI $6,652,191 $6,652,191 $16,964,507 $385,556.98 Berkeley's
Housing Trust
Fund (HTF),
Measure U14
(U1), Measure O
Completed
Berkeley Hope Center
Permanent Supportive
Housing
2012 Berkeley Way Insight Housing / BRIDGE
Housing
53 permanent supportive
housing apartments. 53 0-30% AMI $6,721,092 $6,721,092 $7,727,630 $145,804.34 Measure O, HTF Completed Jordan Court 1601 Oxford Street Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA)
34 affordable studio units for
seniors. 12 units will also be
set aside for formerly
homeless households.
35 20-60% AMI $3,501,884 $3,501,884 $6,026,927 $172,197.91 HTF, Measure O Completed The Grinnell (formerly
Blake Apartments) 2527 San Pablo Avenue SAHA
62 affordable apartments for
families and individuals. 12
units are prioritized for people
with an intellectual or
developmental disability.
63 30-60% AMI $7,266,032 $7,266,032 $12,000,000 $190,476.19 Measure O, U1,
State Local
Housing Trust
Fund (LHTF)
Completed
Maudelle Miller Shirek
Community 2001 Ashby Avenue Resources for Community
Development (RCD)
86 apartments
for families and individuals. 12
units will also be set aside for
formerly homeless
households.
87 20-80% AMI $12,932,000 $12,932,000 $17,500,000 $201,149.43 Measure O, U1, LHTF Completed
Berkeley Unified School
District (BUSD)
Workforce Housing
Development
1701 San Pablo Avenue BUSD/SAHA/Abode
109 affordable apartments.

Employees of BUSD and their
households will have a leasing
preference.
110 30-120% AMI $26,500,000 $23,850,000 $26,500,000 Measure O Under Consruction St. Paul Terrace 2024 Ashby Avenue
Community Housing
Development Corporation
(CHDC)
49 affordable units, including
11 studios, 6 one-bedrooms
and 17 two-bedrooms, and 15
three-bedrooms.
50 30-60% AMI $6,989,009.00 - $15,754,319 TBD Under Consruction 1740 San Pablo Avenue 1740 San Pablo Avenue Resources for Community Development (RCD)
53 new affordable homes for
families. 3 units will be set
aside for artist households.
54 30-60% AMI $7,500,000 $7,100,000.00 $11,996,669 $222,160.54 Measure O Predevelopment NBB Phase 1 North Berkeley BART
Site
East Bay Asian Local
Development Corporation
(EBALDC)
119 affordable apartments for
families and individuals. 120 30-70% AMI - $11,563,636 Measure O, HTF Predevelopment NBB EBALDC Project North Berkeley BART
Site
East Bay Asian Local
Development Corporation
(EBALDC)
59 affordable homes,
including family housing and
15 units of permanent
supportive housing
60 0-70% AMI - $5,926,364 Measure O, HTF Predevelopment NBB BRIDGE Insight
PSH Project
North Berkeley BART
Site Insight Housing 85 permanent supportive
housing apartments 85 0-30% AMI - $9,010,000 Measure O, HTF Predevelopment Ashby BART West Lot Ashby BART Site Resources for Community Development (RCD) TBD 300 TBD - Measure O, HTF Predevelopment Ashby BART East Lot Ashby BART Site TBD TBD TBD TBD - Measure O, HTF Planning >1150 New Units $118,223,752 $68,184,742.97 $170,244,977 Supportive Housing at
People's Park 2556 Haste Street TBD
118 affordable units with 62
units set aside for formerly
homeless households.
119 10-50% AMI FR5 - $14,359,593 TBD Planning
Ephesian Legacy Court 1708 Harmon Avenue CHDC 79 one-bedroom units. 80 30-60% AMI FR5 - $18,087,701 TBD Predevelopment 199 New Units $32,447,294
City of Berkeley
Affordable Housing Projects Supported by Measure O
Total Authorized Bonds = $135M
Projects with Measure O Commitments and Reservations
$20,000,000
$20,000,000 $26,500,000
Measure O Impact
Projects with City Funding Reservations
1 total units, including managers' units
2 Committed = in contract, reserved= set aside for a particular project 3 General funds generated pursuant to Measure U1
4 FR= Funding Reservation that the City Council has approved from currently available affordable housing funds

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/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
October 13, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing & Community Services Subject: Condominium Conversion Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2026

INTRODUCTION
The Condominium Conversion Ordinance (CCO) (Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter

21.28) regulates property owners converting rental units to ownership units, including payment of a Condo Affordable Housing Fee (CAHF).

This report summarizes program activity for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 2026), including new applications, converted units, and fee revenue.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Condominium Conversion Program advances the Strategic Plan goal to create affordable housing and housing support service for our most vulnerable community members.

Fee revenue is deposited into the City’s Housing Trust Fund (HTF) program to mitigate the loss of affordable housing that results from the conversion of rental units to condominiums. Table 1 provides a summary of submitted and approved applications for FY 2026 (July 1, 2025 - June 30, 2026). Table 2 provides a summary of CAHF revenue for FY 2026.

The CAHF requirement offers a choice between a standard nexus-based fee, calculated using a rent-versus-ownership cost calculation, and an alternative “Rental Limitation” fee formula. The Rental Limitation fee is available to applicants who agree to restrict future rent increases for sitting tenants at the time of conversion to no more than 65% of the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase. This fee is capped at 8% of the sale price, or 4% for two-unit properties.

Applicants that select the Rental Limitation method have two options to pay the fee: 1) using the property's appraised value at the time of application to receive a 25% fee reduction, or 2) deferring the fee until the unit is sold. Fee collection varies based on the applicant’s decision to pay at the time of application or defer to when units are refinanced or sold. This is also influenced by market factors including financing and interest rates.

Condominium Conversion Program Annual Report for FY 2026 INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

In FY 2026, one property with three units completed a condo conversion process. All three units opted into the Rental Limitation fee formula. For their fee structures, two units elected to pay the upfront rental limitation fee, and one unit elected to pay the rental limitation fee at the time of sale. No units opted to use the nexus-based fee option. Additionally, two applications remain pending from FY 2026, totaling eight units across both properties. Applicants have not yet declared their preferred fee options.

Table 1: Condominium Conversion Applications Summary – FY 2026 Applications Units Number
of Units
Paid
Fee
Upfront
Number
of Units
Deferred
Fee to
Refinance
or Sale
Number of
Total Units:

Rental
Limitation
Fee
Number
of Total
Units:

Nexus
Fee
Completed 1 3 2 1 3 0
Pending 2 8 TBD TBD TBD TBD
Table 2: Revenue Received from Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee – FY 2026 Total
CAHF
Revenue
Received
Number of
Units Paid
at Time of
Application
Approval
Number
of Units
Paid at
Refinance
Number
of Units
Paid at
Time of
Sale
$102,900 2 0 0

BACKGROUND
Condominium conversion is the process of subdividing a multi-unit property into separately owned housing units with individual mortgages. Subdivisions are regulated under the California Subdivision Map Act and Subdivided Lands Act. State law also allows local governments to impose additional requirements. In Berkeley, these additional requirements are in the CCO (BMC Chapter 21.28) and include an annual limit on the number of approved units, compliance with local laws, payment of a CAHF, and various tenant protections. The City’s current ordinance has been in place since 2009.

In the past ten years (since Fiscal Year 2016), the CCO has generated $2,647,870 in CAHF revenue from 76 converted units.

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

Condominium Conversion Program Annual Report for FY 2026 INFORMATION CALENDAR October 13, 2026

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
None.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Anna Cash, Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981-5403 Mike Uberti, Senior Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981-5114

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

INFORMATION CALENDAR
October 13, 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: Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 701 University Avenue / #LMSAP2026-0007

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

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) has approved a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) for the subject Landmark property. This action is subject to a 14-day appeal period, which began after the notice was mailed on September 29, 2026.

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

To do so, a Council member must move this Information Item to Action and then move to set the matter for hearing on its own. Such action must be taken within 14 days of the mailing of the Notice of Decision, or by October 13, 2026.

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

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

Notice of Decision: 701 University Avenue / INFORMATION CALENDAR #LMSAP2026-0007 October 13, 2026

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

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

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

CONTACT PERSON
Niloufar Karimzadegan, Senior Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7430 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMSAP2026-0007 / 701 University Avenue

Attachment 1, Part 1

L A N D M A R K S

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

C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: September 3, 2026
DATE NOTICE MAILED: September 29, 2026
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: October 13, 2026
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal): October 14, 20261
701 University Avenue – West Berkeley Shellmound
Structural Alteration Permit #LMSAP2026-0007 to demolish the 99,410 square foot parking lot located above the Landmarked West Berkeley Shellmound, by removing the existing asphalt pavement and miscellaneous site features such as curbs, wheel stops, fencing, and minor concrete elements.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the Structural Alteration Permit request.  Applicant Shah Noor Broomand
1552 Lenay Ct.

Manteca, CA 95337
 Property Owner Sogorea Te Land Trust
2501 Harrison St.

Oakland, CA 94612
ZONING DISTRICT: West Berkeley Commercial (C-W)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 for Existing Facilities and Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects.

The application materials for this project are available online at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/zoning-projects or

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2026-0007
701 University Avenue
Mailed: September 29, 2026

https://permits.cityofberkeley.info/CitizenAccess/Default.aspx

FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED

TO THIS NOTICE
COMMISSION VOTE: 6-0-0-1
YES: FIKE, GORDON, FINACOM, ORBUCH, SCHWARTZ, MONTGOMERY NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: GREENE
TO APPEAL THIS DECISION (see Section 3.24.300 of the Berkeley Municipal Code):

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

1. Submit a letter clearly and concisely setting forth the grounds for the appeal to the City Clerk, located at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley. The City Clerk’s telephone number is (510) 981-6900.
a. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.300.A, an appeal may be taken to the City Council by the application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the application of at least 200 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 $3,000. This fee may be reduced to $1,000 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 all appeals by Applicants is $6,000.

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

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

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2026-0007
701 University Avenue
Mailed: September 29, 2026

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.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2026-0007
701 University Avenue
Mailed: September 29, 2026

Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Niloufar Karimzadegan, at (510) 981-7430 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3 rd Fl., during regular business hours.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Findings and Conditions

2. Project Plans
ATTEST:

Allison Riemer, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Shah Noor Broomand, 1552 Lenay Ct., Manteca, CA 95337
Sogorea Te Land Trust, 2501 Harrison St., Oakland, CA 94612

A t t a c h m e n t 1, part 2
F i n d i n g s a n d C o n d i t i o n s
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 App #: LMSAP2026-0007
September 3, 2026
Structural Alteration Permit for 701 University Ave (1900 Fourth Street- West Berkeley Shellmound)
Quick Facts Project Description:

To demolish the 99,410-square-foot parking lot
located above the Landmarked West Berkeley
Shellmound, by removing the existing asphalt
pavement and miscellaneous site features such as
curbs, wheel stops, fencing, and minor concrete
elements.

Permits Requested:

Structural Alteration Permit pursuant to Berkeley
Municipal Code (BMC) Section 3.24.200 for an
alteration to a designated landmark site.

Staff Recommendation:

Applicant:

Shah Noor Broomand
Property Owner: Sogorea Te Land
Trust
Project Address: 701 University Avenue
(1900 Fourth Street)
GP Land Use: Avenue Commercial
Zoning: West Berkeley Commercial
District (C-W)
Historic District: None
CEQA: Categorically Exempt pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 for
Existing Facilities and 15332 for In-Fill
Development Projects
Submittal Date: June 4, 2026
Date Deemed Complete: July 16, 2026
Project Planner: Nilu Karimzadegan
Staff recommends that LPC hold and conclude a public
hearing and consider favorable action on this request.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 701 UNIVERSITY AVENUE – #LMSAP2026-0007 September 3, 2026 Page 2 of 11
CEQA
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Existing Facilities”) and 15332 (“In-Fill Development Projects”) because the project is to demolish an existing parking lot and an existing non-residential building and because:
• The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. • The project site is within city limits on a project site of fewer than five acres that is substantially surrounded by urban uses.
• The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. • Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
• The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

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

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

Evidence: The demolition of the surface parking lot will result in minimal change to the defining characteristics of the landmarked West Berkeley Shellmound.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Evidence: Because the work is limited to non-historic, modern surface materials and does not alter or remove any archaeological resources, character-defining features, or spatial attributes of the landmark, the historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with SOI Standard 2.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

Evidence: This application is only to demolish the parking lot’s asphalt and other miscellaneous site features. It does not include construction. SOI Standard 3 does not apply.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 701 UNIVERSITY AVENUE – #LMSAP2026-0007 September 3, 2026 Page 3 of 11
Evidence: The subject property does not feature changes that have acquired significance in their own right. SOI Standard 4 does not apply.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

Evidence: The features of the subsurface West Berkely Shellmound site will be retained and preserved, with the limited scope of the project affecting the top asphalt layer. SOI Standard 5 does not apply.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.

Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

Evidence: The surface parking lot does not contain any historic features, and all culturally significant materials associated with the earliest Native habitation are located in the subsurface soils. The current scope of work does not include construction or replacement of any features. As no historic materials or character-defining elements are present at the surface or proposed for alteration, SOI Standard 6 is not applicable.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

Evidence: The scope of work involves removal of asphalt and miscellaneous features on site. Approval would require any chemical or physical treatments to be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved.

If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

Evidence: The project will not affect any archaeological resources as it does not require any excavation. It will only require removal of approximately four inches of asphalt and other site features above ground. Standard conditions of approval include preserving and protecting unexpected discoveries during construction activities.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

Evidence: The removal of the approximately four-inch asphalt surface would not eliminate any historic materials, features, or spatial relationships that contribute to the property’s significance.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 701 UNIVERSITY AVENUE – #LMSAP2026-0007 September 3, 2026 Page 4 of 11

10.New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Evidence: The proposed demolition is limited to removal of the top four inches of asphalt.

Because the work is minimal in both scope and scale, neither the superficial removal of asphalt nor the subsequent development of a park is expected to result in permanent or irreversible impacts to the subsurface archaeological features of the site or its historic integrity.

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.260, approval of permit applications pursuant to this section may be granted only upon determination that the proposal conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraphs 1.

1. For permit applications for construction, alteration or repair:
(a) For applications relating to landmark sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the landmark and, where specified in the designation for a publicly owned landmark, its major interior architectural features; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site, as viewed both in themselves and in their setting.

Evidence: The anticipated effects of the proposed demolition are centered around the upper asphalt layer of the parking lot and would not alter subsurface archaeological features. Because the scope is limited to removal of asphalt and above-ground features the project would not result in a detrimental impact to the historic site. (b) For applications relating to property in historic districts, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. The proposed work shall also conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the designation of the historic district.

Evidence: The project site is not located in a historic district. (c) For applications relating to structure of merit sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the architectural features if architectural merit is the basis for designation; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special cultural, educational or historical interest or value if that is the basis for designation.

Evidence: N/A. The site is a designated City of Berkeley Landmark and not a Structure of Merit.

L M S A P 2 0 2 6 - 0 0 0 7
Conditions of Approval
September 3, 2026
Page | 5
I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Project Approval. This Structural Alteration Permit approval is for 701 University Avenue also known as 1900 Fourth Street- West Berkeley Shellmound, as substantially shown and described on the project plans dated July 15, 2026, except as required to be modified by conditions herein and plans as presented to the Landmarks Preservation Commission on September 3, 2026 (“Approval Date.”). For any condition herein that requires preparation of a Final Plan where the project applicant has submitted a conceptual plan, the project applicant shall submit final plan(s) in substantial conformance with the conceptual plan, but incorporate the modifications required by the conditions herein for approval by the City.

City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning

2. Approval Limited to Proposed Project. This Permit authorizes only the proposed project described in the application. In no way does approval authorize other uses, structures or activities not included in the project description.

City of Berkeley
BMC Sections

23.404.060
On-Going Land Use Planning

3. Compliance Required. All land uses and structures in Berkeley must comply with the Zoning Ordinance and all applicable City ordinances and regulations. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance does not relieve an applicant from requirements to comply with other federal, state, and City regulations that also apply to the property.

City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning

4. Conformance to Approved Plans. All work performed under an approved permit shall be in compliance with the approved plans and any Conditions of Approval.

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.060. B.4
On-Going Land Use Planning

L M S A P 2 0 2 6 - 0 0 0 7
Conditions of Approval
September 3, 2026
I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

5. Permit Revocation. The City may revoke or modify a discretionary permit for completed projects due to: 1) violations of permit requirements; 2) Changes to the approved project; and/or 3) Vacancy for one year or more. However, no lawful residential use can lapse, regardless of the length of time of the vacancy. Proceedings to revoke or modify a permit may be initiated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), or City Council referral.

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.080
On-Going Land Use Planning

6. Exercise and Expiration of Permits A permit authorizing a land use is exercised when both a valid City business license is issued (if required) and the land use is established on the property.

A. A permit authorizing a land use is exercised when both a valid City business license is issued (if required) and the land use is established on the property.

B. A permit authorizing construction is exercised when both a valid City building permit (if required) is issued and construction has lawfully begun.

C. The Zoning Officer may declare a permit lapsed if it is not exercised within one year of its issuance, except if the applicant has applied for a building permit or has made a substantial good faith effort to obtain a building permit and begin construction. The Zoning Officer may declare a permit lapsed only after 14 days written notice to the applicant. A determination that a permit has lapsed may be appealed to the ZAB in accordance with Chapter 23.410 (Appeals and Certification).

D. A permit declared lapsed shall be void and of no further force and effect. To establish the use or structure authorized by the lapsed permit, an applicant must apply for and receive City approval of a new permit.

City of Berkeley
BMC Section

23.404.060 (C)
“Time Limits”
On-Going Land Use Planning

7. Hold Harmless. The permittee agrees as a condition of approval of this application to indemnify, protect, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless, the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning

L M S A P 2 0 2 6 - 0 0 0 7
Conditions of Approval
September 3, 2026
I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring employees and agents, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the approval of this application, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement, or any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 210000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions. The indemnification shall include any Claims that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the permittee, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents. The permittee’s duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permittee has asserted the Claims, although the permittee shall still have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City.

II. At Building Permit Submittal Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Conditions of Approval on Building Permit Plan Submittal Structural Alteration Permit. The Conditions of Approval for this Structural Alteration Permit shall be printed on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit pursuant to this Structural Alteration Permit, under the title ‘Structural Alteration Permit Conditions.’ City of Berkeley At the Time of Building
Permit Submittal
Building & Safety/Land Use
Planning

L M S A P 2 0 2 6 - 0 0 0 7
Conditions of Approval
September 3, 2026

2. Project Liaison. The applicant shall include in all building permit plans and post onsite the name and telephone number of an individual empowered to manage construction-related complaints generated from the project. The individual’s name, telephone number, and responsibility for the project shall be posted at the project site for the duration of the project in a location easily visible to the public. The individual shall record all complaints received and actions taken in response, and submit written reports of such complaints and actions to the project planner on a weekly basis.

Please designate the name of this individual below:
 Project Liaison ____________________________________________________ Name Phone #
City of Berkeley At the Time of Building
Permit Submittal
Building & Safety/Land Use
Planning

3. Construction and Demolition Diversion. The applicant shall submit a Construction Waste Management Plan that meets the requirements of BMC Chapter 19.37 including 100% diversion of asphalt, concrete, excavated soil and land-clearing debris and a minimum of 65% diversion of other nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.

City of Berkeley
BMC Chapter 19.37
At Building Permit
Submittal
Building & Safety Division
III. During Construction
A. Building & Safety Division
Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring 1 Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturday.

No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

2. Construction Hours- Exceptions. It is recognized that certain construction activities, such as the placement of concrete, must be performed in a continuous manner and may require an extension of these work hours. Prior to initiating any activity that might require a longer period, the developer must notify the Zoning Officer and request an exception for a finite period of time. If the Zoning Officer approves the request, then two weeks prior to the expanded schedule, the developer shall notify businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site describing the expanded construction hours. A copy of such notice and City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety

L M S A P 2 0 2 6 - 0 0 0 7
Conditions of Approval
September 3, 2026
methodology for distributing the notice shall be provided in advance to the City for review and approval. The project shall not be allowed more than 15 extended working days.

3. Construction / No Parking Permits. Contact the Permit Service Center (PSC) at 1947 Center Street, Third Floor or (510) 981-7500 for details on obtaining Construction/No Parking Permits (and associated signs and accompanying dashboard permits). Please note that the Zoning Officer and/or Traffic Engineer may limit off-site parking of construction-related vehicles if necessary to protect the health, safety or convenience of the surrounding neighborhood. A current copy of this Plan shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff.

City of Berkeley During Construction Building & Safety
IV. During Construction
B. Land Use Planning
Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Paleontological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]). The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find.

The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

City of Berkeley During Construction Land Use Planning

L M S A P 2 0 2 6 - 0 0 0 7
Conditions of Approval
September 3, 2026

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

City of Berkeley During Construction Land Use Planning

3. Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be instituted. Therefore:

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

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

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

City of Berkeley During Construction Land Use Planning

L M S A P 2 0 2 6 - 0 0 0 7
Conditions of Approval
September 3, 2026
D. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.

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

IV. During Construction
C. During Construction: Public Works Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Site Debris. All piles of debris, soil, sand, or other loose materials shall be covered at night and during rainy weather with plastic at least one-eighth millimeter thick and secured to the ground.

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

2. Street & Sidewalk Damages. Subject to approval of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall repair any damage to public streets and/or sidewalks by construction vehicles traveling to or from the project site.

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

3. Underground Utilities. If underground utilities leading to adjacent properties are uncovered and/or broken, the contractor involved shall immediately notify the Public Works Department and the Building & Safety Division, and carry out any necessary corrective action to their satisfaction
City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

4. Hauling of Debris. Trucks hauling debris, soil, sand, or other loose materials shall be covered or required to maintain at least two feet of board.

City of
Berkeley
During Construction Public Works

L M S A P 2 0 2 6 - 0 0 0 7
Conditions of Approval
September 3, 2026
V. Structural Alteration Permit Cond
itions Regulation
Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring

1. Chemical Treatments. With respect to historic resources located on this site or within the propose project area, any chemical treatments needed as construction progresses will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

2. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be downcast and not cause glare on the public right- of-way and abutting parcels.

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

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

City of
Berkeley
On-Going Land Use Planning

Attachment 1, part 3

BU EN A
VISTA
AVE.
405'-0''
405'-0''
8'-0'' 115'-0'' 99'-0''
8'-0''
1/A0.04
2/A0.04
4/A0.04
3/A0.04
R = 24

37.70'
381'-0''
123'-0''115'-0''
SETBACK 5'-0''
SETBACK 5'-0''
SETBACK 5'-0''

SUBJECT PROPERTY
701 UNIVERSITY AVE.

APN: 57-2101-5

SUBJECT PROPERTY
1900 4TH ST.

APN: 57-2101- 1-3

ADJACENT PROPERTY
3RD ST. / APN: 57-2101- 1-3

SITE PLAN - EXISTING / DEMO
Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 A0.03
0 20 28 ft
4TH STREET
3RD STREET

UNIVERSITY AVENUE

HEARST AVENUE

REMOVE (E) ROOF, STRUCTURE, WALLS,

EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES AND FINISHES AS
SHOWN

CURRENT LOCATION OF (E) GAS AND

ELECTRICAL METER TO BE REMOVED
47'-6"
60'-9"- ROOF
37'-11"- ROOF
60'-9"- ROOF
37'-11"- ROOF
30'-1"
56'-3"
21'-11" 8'-2"
8'-9"
13'-4"
V.I.F.
15'-6"
V.I.F.
15'-6"
V.I.F.
3:12
(E) SLOPE
(E) LIGHT POST
8'-0"
APPROX.
5'-2"
APPROX.
4'-2"
APPROX.
8'-0"
APPROX.

APPROX. LOCATION OF (E)

CURBCUT
15'-4"
APPROX.
22'-0"
APPROX.
(E) TRAIN TRACKS (TYP.)
6'-9"
APPROX.
(E) PLATING AREA (TYP.)
3:12
(E) SLOPE
(E) APPROX. LOW POINT OF ROOF:
8'-4'' FROM F.F.E.
(E) APPROX. HIGH POINT OF ROOF:
12'-8'' FROM F.F.E.

PROJECTION OF (E) WALL BELOW (TYP.)
(E) 1-STORY BUILDING

TO BE REMOVED
& OFF HAUL
APPROX. LOCATION OF (E)

CURBCUT
APPROX. 100,000 SQ.FT.

OF (E) ASPHALT PAVEMENT

TO BE REMOVED
(UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)
PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)
OCCUPANCY:

B-BUSSINESS
PER CBC §3307.1, PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY FENCING AROUND THE

CONSTRUCTION AREA TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR THE DURATION OF WORK.

CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) AT LEAST TW0 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OR EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES TO LOCATE AND MARK ALL EXISTING UTILITIES.

DEMOLITION SCOPE IS LIMITED TO THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING SURFACE MATERIALS DOWN TO THE EXISTING AGGREGATE BASE. NO DISTURBANCE OF SUBGRADE OR UTILITIES IS PERMITTED UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED.

EROSION CONTROL – STRAW WATTLES:

INSTALL STRAW WATTLES ALONG DOWNHILL PERIMETER OF
DISTURBED AREAS PRIOR TO WORK. SECURE AND MAINTAIN
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. INSPECT AND REPAIR AS NEEDED
TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT RUNOFF. 21'-5 5/8"
8'-0"
date: file name:7/15/26 260715_701 University Ave_SD_V25.vwx 701 UNIVERSITY AVE.

BERKELEY, CA
APN: 57-210-5

SITE PLAN (E)
A0.03

A Z O R I

ARCHITECTURE & REALTY
DEPA R T ME NT S TA MP:

P ROJ ECT N A ME
BY:ISSUES / REVISI ONS:DATE:

DEMOLITION PERMIT
PROFESSI O N AL S TA MP:

PERMIT SUBMISSION AA02/23/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT SUBMISSION AA06/04/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT REV 2 AA07/15/2026
Shah Noor Broomand, PMP
Anaba Construction, Inc
License # 1084569 - A & C21

59 MASTER PLAN | SITE PLAN

BU EN A
VISTA
AVE.

SUBJECT PROPERTY
701 UNIVERSITY AVE.

APN: 57-2101-5

SUBJECT PROPERTY
1900 4TH ST.

APN: 57-2101- 1-3

ADJACENT PROPERTY
3RD ST. / APN: 57-2101- 1-3

SITE PLAN - CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN BY OTHERS
Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 A0.04
0 20 28 ft
4TH STREET
3RD STREET

UNIVERSITY AVENUE

HEARST AVENUE
8'-0"
APPROX.
5'-2"
APPROX.
4'-2"
APPROX.
8'-0"
APPROX.

APPROX. LOCATION OF (E)

CURBCUT
15'-4"
APPROX.
22'-0"
APPROX.
6'-9"
APPROX.

APPROX. LOCATION OF (E)

CURBCUT
PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)

CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN

BY OTHERS
date: file name:7/15/26 260715_701 University Ave_SD_V25.vwx 701 UNIVERSITY AVE.

BERKELEY, CA
APN: 57-210-5

SITE PLAN (P)
A0.04

A Z O R I

ARCHITECTURE & REALTY
DEPA R T ME NT S TA MP:

P ROJ ECT N A ME
BY:ISSUES / REVISI ONS:DATE:

DEMOLITION PERMIT
PROFESSI O N AL S TA MP:

PERMIT SUBMISSION AA02/23/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT SUBMISSION AA06/04/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT REV 2 AA07/15/2026
Shah Noor Broomand, PMP
Anaba Construction, Inc
License # 1084569 - A & C21
2

date: file name:7/15/26 260715_701 University Ave_SD_V25.vwx 701 UNIVERSITY AVE.

BERKELEY, CA
APN: 57-210-5

ELEVATIONS
A0.05

A Z O R I

ARCHITECTURE & REALTY
DEPA R T ME NT S TA MP:

P ROJ ECT N A ME
BY:ISSUES / REVISI ONS:DATE:

DEMOLITION PERMIT
PROFESSI O N AL S TA MP:

PERMIT SUBMISSION AA02/23/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT SUBMISSION AA06/04/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT REV 2 AA07/15/2026
EXTERIOR ELEVATION: WEST - EXISTING / DEMO
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 A0.05
PL

ROOF - LOW POINT
+8'-4''

ROOF - HIGH POINT
+12'-8''
UNIVERSTITY AVE.
(E) VERTICAL BOARD &

BATTEN WOOD SIDING
(E) ROOF
(E) FENCE TO REMAIN

FIRST FLOOR
+0'-0''
EXTERIOR ELEVATION: NORTH - EXISTING / DEMO
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 A0.05
PL
(E) VERTICAL BOARD &

BATTEN WOOD SIDING
PL

FIRST FLOOR
+0'-0''

ROOF - LOW POINT
+8'-4''

ROOF - LOW POINT
+12'-8''
8'-4" 4'-4"
12'-8"
APPOX. BLD. HEIGHT
(E) ROOF
(E) FENCE TO REMAIN

SUBJECT PROPERTY
701 UNIVERSITY AVE

ADJACENT PROPERTY
3RD ST.

EXTERIOR ELEVATION: EAST - EXISTING / DEMO
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 A0.05
PL

ROOF - LOW POINT
+8'-4''

ROOF - HIGH POINT
+12'-8''
UNIVERSTITY AVE.
(E) VERTICAL BOARD &

BATTEN WOOD SIDING
(E) ROOF
(E) FENCE TO REMAIN

FIRST FLOOR
+0'-0''

SUBJECT PROPERTY
701 UNIVERSITY AVE
EXTERIOR ELEVATION: SOUTH - EXISTING / DEMO
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 A0.05
PL
(E) PLYWOOD PANEL
SIDING
PL
(E) ROOF
(E) FENCE TO REMAIN

SUBJECT PROPERTY
701 UNIVERSITY AVE

ADJACENT PROPERTY
3RD ST.

FIRST FLOOR
+0'-0''

ROOF - LOW POINT
+8'-4''

ROOF - LOW POINT
+12'-8''
2 Shah Noor Broomand, PMP
Anaba Construction, Inc
License # 1084569 - A & C21

date: file name:7/15/26 260715_701 University Ave_SD_V25.vwx 701 UNIVERSITY AVE.

BERKELEY, CA
APN: 57-210-5

POLLUTION PREVENTION
A0.06

A Z O R I

ARCHITECTURE & REALTY
DEPA R T ME NT S TA MP:

P ROJ ECT N A ME
BY:ISSUES / REVISI ONS:DATE:

DEMOLITION PERMIT
PROFESSI O N AL S TA MP:

PERMIT SUBMISSION AA02/23/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT SUBMISSION AA06/04/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT REV 2 AA07/15/2026
the City of Berkeley©s Public Works Department by dialing 311 City of Berkeley Ordinances
City of Berkeley©s
City of
Berkeley
City
Inspector
CITY OF BERKELEYArchitectural Copper
If project contains architectural copper use best management practices as detailed in the handout Requirements for Architectural Copper available at the lobby of the Permit Service Center.

date: file name:7/15/26 260715_701 University Ave_SD_V25.vwx 701 UNIVERSITY AVE.

BERKELEY, CA
APN: 57-210-5
PCBs
A0.07

A Z O R I

ARCHITECTURE & REALTY
DEPA R T ME NT S TA MP:

P ROJ ECT N A ME
BY:ISSUES / REVISI ONS:DATE:

DEMOLITION PERMIT
PROFESSI O N AL S TA MP:

PERMIT SUBMISSION AA02/23/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT SUBMISSION AA06/04/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT REV 2 AA07/15/2026
PCBs Screening Assessment Form
1 For Municipality Use Only
Date Received
File #

This screening process is part of a program for water quality protection and was designed in accordance with requirements in the Bay Area regional municipal stormwater NPDES permit (referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit). This process does not address other environmental programs or regulations (e.g., PCBs regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); federal, state, or local regulations for hazardous material handling and hazardous waste disposal; health and safety practices to mitigate human exposure to PCBs or other hazardous materials; recycling mandates; or abatement at sites with PCBs or other contaminants). The applicant is responsible for knowing and complying with all relevant laws and regulations. See Notices to Applicants section in the Applicant Instructions and at the end of this form.

Complete all applicable parts of the PCBs Screening Assessment Form and submit with your demolition permit application.

All Applicants must complete Part 1 and Part 2.

Part 1. Owner/Consultant and project information
Owner Information
Name
Address
City State Zip
Contact (Agent)
Phone Email
Consultant Information
Firm Name
Address
City State Zip
Contact Person
Phone Email
Project Location
Address
City State CA Zip
APN (s)
Year Building was Built Type of Construction
Estimated Demolition Date

Elite Environmental Consulting
301 Georgia Street #390
Vallejo
CA
94590
Kenneth Rodriguez-Praeger
(707)654-9001
[email protected]
701 University Avenue
Berkeley
94710
Wood Frame
2 Part 2. Is building subject to the PCBs screening requirement based on type, use, and age of the building?

2.a Is the building to be demolished wood framed and/or single family residential? Yes No If the answer to question 2.a is Yes, the PCBs Screening Assessment is complete, skip to Part 4. If the answer is No, continue to Question 2.b.

2.b Was the building to be demolished constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31, 1980? Yes No
➢ If the answer to Question 2.b is No the PCBs Screening Assessment is complete, skip to Part 4. If the answer is Yes, continue to Question 2.c.

2.c Is the proposed demolition a complete demolition of the building? Yes No ➢ If the answer to Question 2.c is No the PCBs Screening Assessment is complete, skip to Part 4. If the answer is Yes, complete Part 3.

All applications affecting applicable structures and demolitions must complete Part 3 and the Part 3 Tables.

Part 3. Report concentrations of PCBs in priority building materials Option 1. Applicants conducted representative sampling and analysis of the priority building materials per the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (2018) (Attachment C).

Option 2. Applicants possess existing sample results that are that are consistent with the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (2018) (Attachment C).

3.a Select option and report PCBs concentrations in the priority building materials and the source of data for each of the priority building materials. Provide the required supporting information Option 1 Conduct Representative Sampling
• Summarize results on Part 3 Tables; and
• Provide the following supporting information:
□ Contractor’s report documenting the assessment
results;
□ QA/QC checklist (see Attachment C, section 3.2.4);
and
□ Copies of the analytical data reports.

Option 2 Use Existing Sampling Records
• Summarize results on Part 3 Tables; and
• Provide the following supporting
information:
□ Contractor’s report/statement that the
results are consistent with the Protocol
for Evaluating Priority PCBs-
Containing Materials before Building
Demolition.
□ Copies of the analytical data reports.

All Applicants must complete Part 4.

Part 4. Certification
I certify that the information provided in this form is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete . I further certify that I understand my responsibility for knowing and complying with all relevant laws and regulations related to reporting, abating, and handing and disposing of PCBs materials and wastes . I understand there are significant penalties for submitting false information. I will retain a copy of this form and the supporting documentation for at least 5 years.

Signature: Date:
(Property Owner//Agent/Legal Representative)

Print/Type:
(Property Owner/Agent/Legal Representative Name)

Signature: Date:
(Consultant Completing Application Form)

Print/Type:
(Consultant Completing Application Form)
4/7/2026
Kenneth Rodriguez-Praeger
Kenneth Rodriguez-Praeger Digitally signed by Kenneth Rodriguez-Praeger Date: 2026.04.07 16:57:06 -07'00'
Notices to Applicants Regarding Federal and State PCBs Regulations 3 Applicants that determine PCBs exist in building materials must follow applicable federal and state laws. This may include reporting to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). These agencies may require additional sampling and abatement of PCBs. Depending on the approach for sampling and removing building materials containing PCBs, you may need to notify or seek advance a pproval from USEPA before building demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification to or approval from USEPA is not required before the demolition activity, the disposal of PCBs waste is regulated under TSCA and the California Code of Regulations. (See Note 1)

Agency Contact Useful Links
US Environmental
Protection Agency
Steve Armann (415) 972-3352
[email protected]
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs (EPA PCBs website)
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/questions-and-answers-about-polychlorinated- biphenyls-pcbs-building-materials (PCBs in Building Materials Fact Sheet and Q/A Document)
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/pcb-facility-approval-streamlining-toolbox-fast- streamlining-cleanup-approval-process (USEPA PCB Facility Approval Streamlining Toolbox (PCB FAST))
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs-building- materials#Test-Methods (See Information for Contractors Working in Older Buildings that May Contain PCBs)
San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Jan O’Hara (510) 622-5681
Janet.O’[email protected]
Cheryl Prowell (510) 622-2408
[email protected]
v
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TM DLs/sfbaypcbstmdl.shtml
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/site cleanupprogram.html
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Regulatory Assistance Office
1-800-72TOXIC
[email protected]
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields/upload/PUB_SMP_Guide-to- Selecting-a-Consultant.pdf
California Division of
Occupational Safety and
Health (Cal/OSHA)
CalOSHA Consultations Services
1-800-963-9424
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/consultation.html

Note 1 - Federal and State Regulations
Building materials containing PCBs at or above 50 ppm that were manufactured with PCBs (e.g., caulk, joint sealants, paint) fall under the category of PCBs bulk product wastes. See 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 761.3 for a definition of PCBs bulk product wastes.

Building materials such as concrete, brick, metal contaminated with PCBs are PCBs remediation wastes (e.g., concrete contaminated with PCBs from caulk that contains PCBs). 40 CFR 761.3 defi nes PCBs remediation wastes.

Disposal of PCBs wastes are subject to TSCA requirements such as manifesting of the waste for transportation and disposal. See 40 CFR 761 and 40 CFR 761, Subpart K.

TSCA-regulated does not equate solely to materials containing PCBs at or above 50 ppm. There are circumstances in which materials containing PCBs below 50 ppm are subject to regulation under TSCA. See 40 CFR 761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(ii).

Disposal of PCBs wastes are subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR) T itle 22, Section Division 4.5, Chapter 12, Standards Applicable to Hazardous Waste Generators.

California hazardous waste regulatory levels for PCBs are 5 ppm based on the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration test and 50 ppm based on the Total Threshold Limit Concentration test, see CCR, Title 22, Section 66261.24, Table III.
4 Part 3 Caulk Applications Table
Column 1. Report all PCBs concentrations for each homogenous area of caulking area (see Attachment C, Section 3.2.2). Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.

Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 ppm
Caulk Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of Material
Units
Example:

Caulk Sample 1 320 48 Linear Feet

1. Linear Feet

2. Linear Feet

3. Linear Feet

4. Linear Feet

5. Linear Feet

6. Linear Feet

7. Linear Feet

8. Linear Feet

9. Linear Feet

10. Linear Feet
Duplicate page if additional space is needed.

5 Part 3 Fiberglass Insulation Applications Table
Column 1. Report all PCBs concentrations for each homogenous area of fiberglass insulation (see Attachment C, Section 3.2.2). Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.

Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Fiberglass Insulation Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of Material
Units
Example:

Fiberglass Insulation Sample 1 78 86 Square Feet

1. Square Feet

2. Square Feet

3. Square Feet

4. Square Feet

5. Square Feet

6. Square Feet

7. Square Feet

8. Square Feet

9. Square Feet

10. Square Feet
The area of insulation wrapped around a pipe may be estimated using the following formula:

Area (square feet) = 2Πrh; where r is the pipe radius (feet) and h is the pipe length (feet). Duplicate page if additional space is needed.

Shah Noor Broomand, PMP
Anaba Construction, Inc
License # 1084569 - A & C21

date: file name:7/15/26 260715_701 University Ave_SD_V25.vwx 701 UNIVERSITY AVE.

BERKELEY, CA
APN: 57-210-5
PCBs
A0.08

A Z O R I

ARCHITECTURE & REALTY
DEPA R T ME NT S TA MP:

P ROJ ECT N A ME
BY:ISSUES / REVISI ONS:DATE:

DEMOLITION PERMIT
PROFESSI O N AL S TA MP:

PERMIT SUBMISSION AA02/23/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT SUBMISSION AA06/04/2026
LANDMARK & USE PERMIT REV 2 AA07/15/2026
7 Part 3 Adhesive Mastic Applications Table
Column 1. Report PCBs concentrations for each homogenous area of mastic (see Attachment C, Section 3.2.2.

Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.) Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Adhesive Mastic Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of Material
Units
Example:

Adhesive Mastic Sample 1 87.4 800 Square Feet

1. Square Feet

2. Square Feet

3. Square Feet

4. Square Feet

5. Square Feet

6. Square Feet

7. Linear Feet

8. Square Feet

9. Square Feet

10. Square Feet
Duplicate page if additional space is needed.

8 Part 3 Rubber Window Gasket Applications Table
Column 1. Report PCBs concentrations for each gasket (see Attachment C, Section 3.2.2). Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.

Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Rubber Window Gasket Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of Material
Units
Example:

Window Gasket Sample 1 70 75 Linear Feet

1. Linear Feet

2. Linear Feet

3. Linear Feet

4. Linear Feet

5. Linear Feet

6. Linear Feet

7. Linear Feet

8. Linear Feet

9. Linear Feet

10. Linear Feet
Duplicate page if additional space is needed.

9 Part 3 Other Materials Table
Column 1. Optional: Use this form to report PCBs concentration data from materials other than priority building materials. Report PCBs concentrations for each material and homogeneous area. Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.

Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Material Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of Material
Units
Example:

Wall paint Sample 1 228 1500 Square Feet

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

Duplicate page if additional space is needed.

Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition 19 extraction. However, PCBs are very stable in a variety of matrices and holding times may be extended to as long as one year. Once extracted, analysis of the extract should take place within 40 days.

3.2.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
For this program, general quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) p rocedures will be utilized. The following checklist should be used by the contractor performing the evaluation:
• QA/QC Checklist:
o Proper specified s ampling equipment was used ( pre-cleaned or other , stainless steel);
o Proper decontamination procedures were followed;
o Sampling collection spatial frequency was met;
o A National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) laboratory was utilized;
o Samples were received by the laboratory within proper temperature range; o Samples wer e extracted and analyzed within the method holding time for EPA Method 8082/8082A; and
o Sample reporting limit met data quality objectives.

3.3 Reporting and Notifications
The following considerations are applicable to reporting and notification:
• Assessment results must be submitted to the applicable Permitting Authority by the project applicant;
• Applicants that determine PCBs exist in priority building materials must follow applicable federal and state laws. This may include reporting to USEPA, the San Franc isco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). These agencies may require additional sampling and abatement of PCBs. • Depending on the approach for sampling and removing building materials co ntaining PCBs, applicants may need to notify or seek advance approval from USEPA before building demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification to or approval from USEPA is not required before the demolition activity, the disposal of PCBs was te is regulated under TSCA.
• The disposal of PCBs waste is subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Section Division 4.5, Chapter 12, Standards Applicable to Hazardous Waste Generators. 6 Part 3 Thermal Insulation Applications Table
Column 1. Report all PCBs concentrations for each homogenous area of thermal insulation (see Attachment C, Section 3.2.2). Use sample designators/descriptions from laboratory report.

Column 2. Complete for each
concentration ≥ 50 mg/kg
Thermal Insulation Application Sample Description Concentration (mg/kg) Estimate Amount of Material
Units
Example:

Thermal Insulation Sample 1 20 Square Feet

1. Square Feet

2. Square Feet

3. Square Feet

4. Square Feet

5. Square Feet

6. Square Feet

7. Linear Feet

8. Square Feet

9. Square Feet

10. Square Feet
The area of of insulation wrapped around a pipe may be estimated using the following formula:

A
rea (square feet) = 2Πrh, where r is the pipe radius (feet) and h is the pipe length (feet). Duplicate page if additional space is needed.

Shah Noor Broomand, PMP
Anaba Construction, Inc
License # 1084569 - A & C21

Communications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

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