Berkeley City Council
May 24, 2022

Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 1

AGENDA

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
6:00 PM

SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE

PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A HYBRID MODEL WITH BOTH IN- PERSON

ATTENDANCE AND VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION

Proof of up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination or verified negative COVID-19 test is required for in-person attendance.

In-person attendees are required to wear a mask that covers their nose and mouth for the duration of the meeting.

If you are feeling sick, please do not attend in-person.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at
http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=1244.

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84636500260. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To jo
in by phone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 846 3650 0260.

If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

Please be mindful that the meeting will be recorded and all rules of procedure and decorum apply for in-person attendees and those participating by teleconference or videoconference.

To submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusion in the public record, email [email protected].

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981- 6900. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.

1 Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Ceremonial Matters: In addition to those items listed on the agenda, the Mayor may add additional ceremonial matters.

City Manager Comments: The City Manager may make announcements or provide information to the City Council in the form of an oral report. The Council will not take action on such items but may request the City Manager place a report on a future agenda for discussion.

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: Persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda. If five or fewer persons wish to speak, each person selected will be allotted two minutes each. If more than five persons wish to speak, up to ten persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda and each person selected will be allotted one minute each. Persons attending the meeting in-person and wishing to address the Council on matters not on the Council agenda during the initial ten-minute period for such comment, must submit a speaker card to the City Clerk in person at the meeting location and prior to commencement of that meeting. The remainder of the speakers wishing to address the Council on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the agenda.

Consent Calendar
The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for “Action” or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to “Action.” Three members of the City Council must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar for it to move to Action. Items that remain on the “Consent Calendar” are voted on in one motion as a group. “Information” items are not discussed or acted upon at the Council meeting unless they are moved to “Action” or “Consent”.

No additional items can be moved onto the Consent Calendar once public comment has commenc ed. At any time during, or immediately after, public comment on Information and Consent items, any Councilmember may move any Information or Consent item to “Action.” Following this, the Council will vote on the items remaining on the Consent Calendar in one motion.

For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. Speakers will be entitled to two minutes each to speak in opposition to or support of Consent Calendar and Information Items. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items.

Additional information regarding public comment by City of Berkeley employees and interns: Employees and interns of the City of Berkeley, although not required, are encouraged to identify themselves as such, the department in which they work and state whether they are speaking as an individual or in their official capacity when addressing the Council in open session or workshops.

2 Consent Calendar
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 3

1. Amendment: FY 2022 Annual Appropriations Ordinance
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. amending the FY 2022 Annual Appropriations Ordinance No. 7,795–N.S. for fiscal year 2022 based upon recommended re-appropriation of committed FY 2021 funding and other adjustments in the amount of $53,122,621 (gross) and $43,346,798 (net).

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

2. Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects Ordinance; Adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 6.13
From: Civic Arts Commission
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No. 7,812-N.S. adding Chapter 6.13 Public Art Funding for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects of the Berkeley Municipal Code to provide for the allocation of one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the estimated cost of construction associated with eligible municipal capital improvement projects, which shall be used for art and cultural enrichment of public buildings, parks, streets, and other public spaces in the City of Berkeley
First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jennifer Lovvorn, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7530

3. Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on May 24, 2022
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.

Financial Implications: $300,000
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

4. Donation from Berkeley Echo Lake Camp Association for Echo Lake Camp Youth Scholarships
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to accept a cash donation of $10,000 from the Berkeley Echo Lake Camp Association (BELCA), for Echo Lake Camp youth scholarships.

Financial Implications: $10,000 in revenue.

Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

3 Consent Calendar
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 4

5. Contract: Care Systems Inc. for an Electronic Scheduling Solution From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any necessary amendments with Care Systems Inc. to provide an Electronic Scheduling (E-Staffing) System for a three-year contract with an option to extend the contract for a two-year period for a maximum length of five years, for a total not to exceed $191,740.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police Department, (510) 981-5700

6. Proposal to Allocate Revenues Generated by the Transient Occupancy Tax in the Waterfront Area to the Marina Fund to Avoid Insolvency, Rebuild its Fund Balance and to Stabilize its Finances (Reviewed by the Budget & Finance Committee)
From: Parks and Waterfront Commission
Recommendation: That Council adopt a Resolution adopting a policy that all Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT hotel tax) generated at the Berkeley Waterfront be allocated to the City’s Marina Enterprise Fund. All other property, sales, utility users, and parking taxes; as well as business license and franchise fees, would continue to be allocated to the City’s General Fund.

Policy Committee Recommendation: On April 28, 2022, the Budget & Finance Policy Committee took the following action: forward the item to Council with a qualified positive recommendation to consider as part of the budget process including the following amendments 1. that Public Works consider including trash pick-up at the Marina in the 218 process; 2. that the Marina Fund be excluded from road work repairs within the larger marina territory; and 3. that $1.5M be allocated from the General Fund to the Marina Fund for operating expenses in 2024.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Roger Miller, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-6700 4 Council Consent Items
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 5

7. Budget Referral: Street Maintenance Funding to Prevent Further Deterioration of Pavement Condition to Save Tax Dollars and Our Streets (Reviewed by the Budget & Finance Committee)
From: Councilmember Kesarwani (Author), Councilmember Droste (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Wengraf (Co- Sponsor)
Recommendation: Refer to the FY 2022-23 budget process to establish a three- year plan (FY 2022-23 through FY 2024-25) to fully fund an adequate street paving budget that prevents further deterioration of the City’s pavement condition. At the end of the three-year period, the fiscal plan should allocate a minimum total of $8 million in additional ongoing annual General Fund—bringing the total street paving annual budget to at least $15.1 million—the minimum amount needed to maintain pavement condition, as identified by our Public Works Department.

We recommend that the City slightly exceed the $8 million General Fund need by contributing $3 million in ongoing funds in FY 2022-23, an additional $3 million of ongoing funds in FY 2023-24, and a final addition of $3 million in ongoing funds in FY 2024-25. This total of $9 million, in addition to the existing allocation of $7.3 million for annual street maintenance, will provide the City with about $1.2 million more than the minimum total of $15.1 million to account for inflation.

A three-year plan is suggested to give the City time to gradually enhance street paving resources, and annual inflation adjustments are recommended in out-years in order to ensure that maintenance funds remain adequate over time as construction costs rise. A dollar of maintenance early in a street’s life-cycle saves $8 later in the street’s life-cycle due to avoided rehabilitation and/or reconstruction costs associated with failing streets, making this budget request an urgent matter of fiscal oversight.

Policy Committee Recommendation: On April 19, 2022, the Budget & Finance Policy Committee sent the item to Council with a positive recommendation to: 1. Formally refer the item to FY 23-24 Biennial Budget Process; 2. State the Committee’s recommendation that the City Council prioritize available General Fund revenues to supplement the street paving budget to prevent further deterioration; 3. To recommend that Council consider this proposed approach to develop an expenditure plan for street paving; 4. Set a goal of allocating an additional $3-8 Million in ongoing General Fund revenues.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember, District 1, (510) 981-7110

5 Council Consent Items
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 6

8. Budget Referral: Capacity Building for Merchant Associations in the Gilman and Lorin Districts
From: Councilmember Kesarwani (Author), Councilmember Bartlett (Co- Sponsor)
Recommendation: Referral to the City Manager and the FY 2022-23 Budget Process to provide one-time capacity building totaling $20,000 ($10,000 each) for the Gilman and Lorin District merchant associations to support economic development in their respective commercial areas. Distribution of funds should be contingent upon the following criteria: (a) Establishment of representative community advisory boards reflecting the diversity of businesses, agencies, nonprofits and resident stakeholders who could function as the leadership entity for fund management; (b) Obtainment of merchant associations’ non-profit status; or partnership with an existing entity to enable fiscal sponsorship until nonprofit status is obtained; and (c) Requirement to use the funds within two years or risk having to return them.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember, District 1, (510) 981-7110

9. Urge the AC Transit Board of Directors to Restore and Expand on Pre- Pandemic Transbay Bus Service and Bus Service to the Berkeley Hills From: Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Wengraf (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Robinson (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Send a letter to the AC Transit Board of Directors urging the restoration and expansion of transbay and Berkeley Hills bus service.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120

10. Budget Referral and Updated Guidelines and Procedures for City Council Office Staff Expenditures
From: Councilmember Bartlett (Author), Councilmember Robinson (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co- Sponsor)
Recommendation: Refer to the Budget and Finance Committee to consider updates to the guidelines and procedures for City Council office budget expenditure accounts with regards to City Council staff salaries and fringe benefits expenditures and an accompanying Budget Referral of approximately $1,226,619.52 for the FY 22-23 June Budget process.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Ben Bartlett, Councilmember, District 3, (510) 981-7130

6 Council Consent Items
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 7

11. Budget Referral: Fund Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, and Crisis-related Services Needs and Capacity Assessments
From: Councilmember Harrison (Author)
Recommendation: Refer to the FY 23 and FY 24 Annual Budget Process $100,000 to provide Health, Housing & Community Services Department and Berkeley Fire Department the means study or hire a consultant(s) to:

1. Conduct a service needs assessment based on 911 and non-911 calls for service, dispatch, and response, to address the needs of Berkeley people with behavioral health issues and/or are unhoused using computer aided dispatch (CAD) or other data from the Berkeley dispatch, other dispatch agencies, BPD, BFD, and any other relevant data during the COVID pandemic from at least March 2020 through the present; and

2. Conduct a capacity assessment of crisis response and crisis-related services available to Berkeley people in Berkeley and Alameda County, including but not limited to with respect to the Specialized Care Unit (SCU), respite, and sobering centers.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140

12. Resolution in Support of SB 379: the Solar Access Act From: Councilmember Harrison (Author), Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Wengraf (Author), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Send a letter of support for SB 379 (Wiener) - Residential solar energy systems: permitting, to Senators Wiener and Skinner, Assemblymember Wicks, and Governor Newsom. To increase the number of homes installing safe solar energy systems, Senate Bill 379, the Solar Access Act, would mandate jurisdictions above a certain population size to provide an online instant solar permitting process, like SolarAPP+, for residential solar and solar-plus-storage systems.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140

7 Council Consent Items
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 8

13. Referral to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee and Budget Referral to Consider General Fund Strategies and Related Fiscal Policies for Funding Capital Improvements, in Particular Street, Sidewalk, Micromobility and Transit Infrastructure (Reviewed by Budget & Finance Policy Committee) From: Councilmember Harrison (Author)
Recommendation:

1. Refer to the Council Budget and Finance Policy Committee to explore specific options for improving how and to what extent the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is funded, to include but not limited to the following potential strategies: (a). investigate historic assumptions and policies regarding secured- property and transfer tax revenues; (b). consider a one-time allocation of a certain percentage of salary savings accruing from historic vacancies that are not likely to be filled in the short-term; (c). consider prospective Public Works plan to charge utilities for pavement impact.

2. Refer to the June 2022 Budget process $8 million per year to be transferred to the CIP based on Committee consideration and any conclusions.

Policy Committee Recommendation: On April 19, 2022, the Budget & Finance Policy Committee sent the item to Council with a qualified positive recommendation removing item 1 (c) consider the sale of underutilized city-owned property.

Financial Implications: See report.

Contact: Kate Harrison, Councilmember, District 4, (510) 981-7140

14. Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds to the Actor’s Ensemble Company to Perform a Staged Reading of the play, “Roe” at the Goldman Theatre in the David Brower Center on June 12, 2022
From: Councilmember Wengraf (Author), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Wengraf, to the Actor’s Ensemble Company to fund a staged reading of the play, “Roe” at the Goldman Theatre of the David Brower Center on June 12, 2022 Financial Implications: See report.

Contact: Susan Wengraf, Councilmember, District 6, (510) 981-7160

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council. 8 Action Calendar – New Business
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 9

15. Resolution Adopting the Resolution of Intention of Amendment to the Miscellaneous CalPERS Contract Pursuant to California Government Code 20516; Adopt First Ordinance Reading authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Berkeley and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System From: City Manager
Recommendation:

1. Adopt the Resolution of Intention in order to approve the amendment of the contract between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City Council for the City of Berkeley pursuant to California Government Code 20516 to effectuate changes to the cost sharing agreement between the City and PEPRA members of Service Employee International Union, Local 1021 Maintenance and Clerical (SEIU MC), Public Employees Union Local 1 (Local 1), Community Services & Part-Time Recreation Leaders Associations Local 1021 (SEIU CSU/PTRLA), and the Unrepresented Employees Group.

2. Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending the City’s contract with CalPERS to effectuate changes to the cost sharing agreement between the City and PEPRA members of Service Employee International Union, Local 1021 Maintenance and Clerical (SEIU MC), Public Employees Union Local 1 (Local 1), Community Services & Part-Time Recreation Leaders Associations Local 1021 (SEIU CSU/PTRLA), and the Unrepresented Employees Group.

Council adopted Resolution #70,156 N.S.at its December 14, 2021, meeting authorizing the FY2021-22 amendment to the City’s CalPERS Miscellaneous contract. Council must now pass another Resolution of Intention to approve the FY2022-23 contract amendment between the City and the Public Employees’ Retirement System Board of Administration.

Financial Implications: See report.

Contact: Donald E. Ellison, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. This is followed by five -minute presentations each by the appellant and applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten per sons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker.

Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Each member of the City Council shall verbally disclose all ex parte contacts concerning the subject of the hearing. Councilmembers shall also submit a report of such contacts in writing prior to the commencement of the hearing. Written reports shall be available for public review in the office of the City Clerk.

9 Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 10

16. Changes to the Land Use Planning Division Fee Schedule / Hourly Rate From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 67,985-N.S. to adopt revisions to the fee schedule for the Land Use Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department, effective July 1, 2022, to increase the hourly rate for staff time from $200 to $230 per hour, increase related deposits and fixed-rate permit application fees to reflect the new rate and to more accurately reflect the staff time required to process various permit types, adopt new fees for new permit types, and clarify the existing fee descriptions.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Alene Pearson, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

17. FY 2023 and FY 2024 Proposed Budget and Proposed Budget Public Hearing #1
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Accept the FY 2023 and FY 2024 Proposed Biennial Budget for review and consideration by the City Council and final adoption on June 28, 2022 and conduct Public Hearing #1 on the FY 2023 and FY 2024 Proposed Budget.

Financial Implications: See FY 2023 and FY 2024 Proposed Biennial Budget Contact: Sharon Friedrichsen, Budget Manager, (510) 981-7000

Action Calendar – New Business

18. Berkeley’s Financial Condition (FY 2012 – FY 2021): Pension Liabilities and Infrastructure Need Attention
From: Auditor
Recommendation: We recommend City Council request that the City Manager report back by November 2022, and every six months thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by the City Manager and Finance Department. They have agreed to our findings and recommendations. Please see our report for their complete response.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jenny Wong, Auditor, (510) 981-6750

10 Council Action Items

Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 11

19. Revisions to Section 311.6 Warrantless Searches of Individuals on Supervised Release Search Conditions of the Berkeley Police Department Law Enforcement Services Manual (Reviewed by the Public Safety Committee) From: Councilmember Droste (Author), Councilmember Taplin (Author) Recommendation: Revise Section 311.6 Warrantless Searches of Individuals on Supervised Release Search Conditions of the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) Law Enforcement Services Manual to enable officers of the Berkeley Police Department to conduct detentions and warrantless searches individuals on parole/probation consistent with and supportive of the provisions in the probationer’s/parolee’s release conditions.

Policy Committee Recommendation: Send the item to the City Council with a qualified positive recommendation, as revised by the committee and subject to legal review. Section 311.6 was revised to read: In accordance with California law, individuals on probation, parole, Post Release Community Supervision, or other supervised release status may be subject to warrantless search as a condition of their probation. Officers shall only conduct probation or parole searches to further a legitimate law enforcement or rehabilitative purpose. Searches shall not be conducted in an arbitrary, capricious, or harassing fashion. In the conduct of all such detentions and searches, officers shall consciously avoid the application of bias, shall not use such detentions or searches as a means to harass or annoy, and shall not conduct such detentions and searches in a manner that targets or is discriminatory toward any protected class.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Lori Droste, Councilmember, District 8, (510) 981-7180

Information Reports

20. Mental Health Commission Annual Report 2021-2022
From: Mental Health Commission
Contact: Jamie Works-Wright, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-5400

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90- day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

11 Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 12
Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street as well as posted on the City's website at

https://berkeleyca.gov/.

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas and may be read at reference desks at the following locations:

City Clerk Department - 2180 M ilvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, South Branch – 1901 Russell COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B- TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the agenda for this meeting of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 12, 2022.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

12 Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 13
Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

Item #7: Budget Referral: Street Maintenance Funding to Prevent Further Deterioration of Pavement Condition to Save Tax Dollars and Our Streets

1. Linda and Steve Rosen

2. Rebecca Navarrete Davis
Item #19: Revisions to Section 311.6 Warrantless Searches of Individuals on Supervised Release Search Conditions of the Berkeley Police Department Law

3. Vincent Southerland, on behalf of NYU Law
California Theatre

4. Dorothy Walker

5. Laura Soble

6. Lynn Koolish

7. Jennifer Winch

8. Robb Walker

9. Rosa Luevano

10. David Crane

11. Lucy Friedland

Ashby and North Berkeley BART Development

12. Michael Gene Anderson

13. Layo Freed (2)

14. Peter Fineberg

15. Avram Gur Arye

16. Isaac Nicholson

17. Helga Recke

18. Ned Himmel

19. Robin Halprin

20. David Rice

21. Sarah Adelman

22. Suzanne McMillan

23. Hal Sternbert

24. Shirley McNeal

25. Sabina McMurty

26. Dona Boatright

27. Cindy Shamban

28. Irene Rice

29. Shoana Humphries

30. Jacqueline Wilson

31. Franklin Lei

32. Robert Dunn
13 Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 14

33. Ori Skloot

34. Jennifer King

35. Nancy Lichtenstein

36. Claire Schoen

37. Carolyn McMillan

38. Alex Bixler

39. Karen Eisenstadt

40. 21 similarly-worded form letters (7 stories maximum)

Cesar Chavez Park

41. Sandra Blair

42. Jon Stewart

43. Marty Schiffenbauer

44. Max Ventura

45. Rebecca Weinstein

46. Ingrid Good

Climate Change

47. Thomas Lord (2)

Homelessness, RV Living and Encampments

48. Brigitte Nicoletti

49. Evan F.

50. Osha Neuman (2)

51. Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager

City of Berkeley’s New Website

52. Thomas Lord (2)

53. Bryce Nesbitt

2134-36 Curtis Street Complaint

54. Ramona M. Cavanaugh (2)

Budget Proposal for Police Accountability Work

55. Michael Chang, Chairperson of Police Accountability Board

2712-2714 Telegraph Avenue

56. Christine Brozowski

Fair Work Week Ordinance

57. Jane Scantlebury

Bicycle Data

58. Margot Smith

14 Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 15
Sanctuary Contracting Ordinance

59. Elana Auerbach

Traffic Intersection Cameras

60. Carol Cohen

Proclamation Honoring Yassir Chadly

61. Helga Recke

Life Threatening Incident at Strawberry Creek

62. David Kahn

Flex Team

63. Eric Friedman

Food Deserts

64. Genevieve Kaplan

933 Colusa

65. Ashok Sabhlok

5G Effects

66. Vivian Warkentin

Grizzly Peak Traffic

67. Joshua Bloom

Pandemic Variants

68. purplecosmicpoet@

BUSD AAPI Heritage Month

69. Reichi Lee

Bronx Tenants – Limited Equity Co-op

70. Marty Schiffenbauer

Decriminalize Entheogenic Plants

71. Abigail Kemalyan

Fentanyl Drug Trafficking

72. Ronald Kirkish

Agenda Committee v. Brown Act

73. Thomas Lord

15 Tuesday, May 24, 2022 AGENDA Page 16
Unsworn Officer Traffic Enforcement

74. Thomas Lord
Supplemental Communications and Reports
Items received by the deadlines for submission will be compiled and distributed as follows. If no items are received by the deadline, no supplemental packet will be compiled for said deadline.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
Available by 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Available by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Available by 5:00 p.m. two days following the meeting.
16 Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. Page 1 of 9
ORDINANCE NO. 7,811-N.S.

AMENDING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 7,795–N.S. FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That the Annual Appropriations Ordinance based on the budget for FY 2022 submitted by the City Manager and passed by the City Council be amended as follows and as summarized in Exhibit A:
279,379,429
172,250,601
128,668,662
73,632,076
9,804,404
164,992,055
60,739,124
57,120
I. Agency Funds (Funds 771-799) 8,852,933
J. Other Funds (Funds 800-899) 6,862,718
Total General Fund 279,379,429
Add: Total Other Than General Fund 625,859,694
Gross Revenue Appropriated 905,239,122
Less: Dual Appropriations -84,605,606
Less: Revolving/Internal Service Funds -60,739,124
Net Revenue Appropriated 759,894,392
A. General Fund (Funds 001-099)
B. Special Funds (Funds 100-199)
C. Grant Funds (Funds 300-399)
D. Capital Projects Funds (Funds 500-550)
K. Total
E. Debt Service Fund (Funds 551-599)
F. Enterprise Funds (Funds 600-669)
G. Internal Service Funds (Funds 146, 670-699)
H. Successor Agency (Funds 760-769)
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby permitted, without further authority from the City Council, to make the following transfers by giving written notice to the Director of Finance:
a. From the General Fund to the General Fund – Stability Reserve Fund; Catastrophic Reserve Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Health State Aid Realignment; Fair Election Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; Phone System Replacement; Equipment Replacement Fund; Public Liability Fund; Catastrophic Loss Fund; Police Employee Retiree Health Assistance Plan; Safety Members Pension Fund; and Sick Leave Entitlement Fund.

17 Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. Page 2 of 9
b. To the General Fund from the General Fund – Stability Reserves Fund; Catastrophic Reserves Fund; Community Development Block Grant Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations and Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA); IT Cost Allocation Fund; and Health State Aid Realignment Fund. c. To the First Source Fund from the Parks Tax Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; and the Marina Fund.
d. From the Measure U1 Fund to the Workers’ Compensation Fund e. From the Catastrophic Reserve Fund to the Playground Camp Fund

f. From Gilman Sports Field Fund to Gilman Field Reserve Fund g. From Measure FF Fund to Paramedic Tax Fund.
h. From the American Rescue Plan Fund to the General Fund; Sports Field Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Marina Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; and Parking Meter Fund.
i. From Capital Improvement Fund to PERS Savings Fund; Berkeley Repertory Theater Fund; and 2010 COP (Animal Shelter) Fund.
j. To the Public Art Fund from the Parks Tax Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; and the Marina Fund.
k. To CFD#1 District Fire Protection Bond (Measure Q) from Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS.
l. To Private Sewer Lateral Fund from Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund. m. To Catastrophic Loss Fund from Permit Service Center Fund. n. To Catastrophic Loss Fund from Unified Program (CUPA) Fund. o. To the Building Purchases and Management Fund from General Fund; Health (General) Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program Fund; Measure B Local Streets & Road Fund; Employee Training Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; and Health State Aide Realignment Trust Fund.

18 Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. Page 3 of 9
p. To Equipment Replacement Fund from General Fund; Mental Health Services Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Playground Camp Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; and Central Services Fund.
q. To the Equipment Maintenance Fund from General Fund; Health (General) Fund; Mental Health Services Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Library - Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Ta Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; FEMA Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; and Central Services Fund.
r. To the Building Maintenance Fund from the General Fund; Health (General) Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Measure B Local Street & Road Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; and Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund.
s. To the Central Services Fund from the General Fund; First Source Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; Library-Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; and Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund.
t. To Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund from General Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Health (Short/Doyle); Library Fund; Playground Camp Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Street Light Assessment District Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation; Clean Storm Water Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; and Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund.

19 Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. Page 4 of 9
u. To the Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund from General Fund; Special Tax for Severely Disabled Measure E Fund; First Source Fund; HUD Fund; ESGP Fund; Health (General) Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Mental Health Service Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; EPSDT Expansion Proposal Fund; Senior Nutrition (Title III) Fund; C.F.P. Title X Fund; Fund Raising Activities Fund; Berkeley Unified School District Grant; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Alameda County Grants Fund; Senior Supportive Social Services Fund; Family Care Support Program Fund; Domestic Violence Prevention – Vital Statistics Fund; Affordable Housing Mitigation; Inclusionary Housing Program; Library – Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Community Action Program Fund; State Proposition 172 Public Safety Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Measure B Local State & Road Fund; Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Fund; Measure B – Paratransit Fund; Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Streets & Roads Fund; Measure BB – Paratransit Fund; Fair Election Fund; Measure U1 Fund; One-Time Grant: No Cap Expense Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Measure GG – Fire Prep Tax Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Employee Training Fund; Private Percent – Art Fund; Measure T1 – Infrastructure & Facilities Fund; FUND$ Replacement Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; FEMA Fund; CFD #1 District Fire Protect Bond Fund; Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS Fund; Shelter+Care HUD Fund; Shelter+Care County Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Private Sewer Lateral Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Equipment Replacement Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; Workers’ Compensation Fund; Public Liability Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; Tobacco Control Trust Fund; Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund; Alameda Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Authority; and Bio-Terrorism Grant Fund.
v. To the Sick Leave and Vacation Leave Accrual Fund from General Fund; Special Tax for Severely Disabled Measure E Fund; First Source Fund; HUD Fund; ESGP Fund; Health (General) Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Mental Health Service Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; EPSDT Expansion Proposal Fund; Senior Nutrition (Title III) Fund; C.F.P. Title X Fund; Fund Raising Activities Fund; Berkeley Unified School District Grant; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Alameda County Grants Fund; Senior Supportive Social Services Fund; Family Care Support Program Fund; Domestic Violence Prevention – Vital Statistics Fund; Affordable Housing Mitigation; Inclusionary Housing Program; Library – Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Community Action Program Fund; State Proposition 172 Public Safety Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Measure B Local State & Road Fund; Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Fund; Measure B – Paratransit Fund; Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Streets & Roads Fund; Measure BB – Paratransit Fund; Fair Election Fund; Measure U1 Fund; One-Time Grant: No

20 Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. Page 5 of 9
Cap Expense Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Measure GG – Fire Prep Tax Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Employee Training Fund; Private Percent – Art Fund; Measure T1 – Infrastructure & Facilities Fund; FUND$ Replacement Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; FEMA Fund; CFD #1 District Fire Protect Bond Fund; Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS Fund; Shelter+Care HUD Fund; Shelter+Care County Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Private Sewer Lateral Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Equipment Replacement Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; Workers’ Compensation Fund; Public Liability Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; Tobacco Control Trust Fund; Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund; Alameda Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Authority; and Bio-Terrorism Grant Fund.
w. To the Payroll Deduction Trust Fund from General Fund; Special Tax for Severely Disabled Measure E Fund; First Source Fund; HUD Fund; ESGP Fund; Health (General) Fund; Target Case Management/Linkages Fund; Mental Health Service Act Fund; Health (Short/Doyle) Fund; EPSDT Expansion Proposal Fund; Senior Nutrition (Title III) Fund; C.F.P. Title X Fund; Fund Raising Activities Fund; Berkeley Unified School District Grant; Vector Control Fund; Paramedic Tax Fund; Alameda County Grants Fund; Senior Supportive Social Services Fund; Family Care Support Program Fund; Domestic Violence Prevention – Vital Statistics Fund; Affordable Housing Mitigation; Inclusionary Housing Program; Library – Discretionary Fund; Playground Camp Fund; Community Action Program Fund; State Proposition 172 Public Safety Fund; State Transportation Tax Fund; CDBG Fund; Rental Housing Safety Program; Measure B Local State & Road Fund; Measure B Bike & Pedestrian Fund; Measure B – Paratransit Fund; Measure F Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Streets & Roads Fund; Measure BB – Paratransit Fund; Fair Election Fund; Measure U1 Fund; One-Time Grant: No Cap Expense Fund; Rent Stabilization Board Fund; Parks Tax Fund; Measure GG – Fire Prep Tax Fund; Street Lighting Assessment District Fund; Employee Training Fund; Private Percent – Art Fund; Measure T1 – Infrastructure & Facilities Fund; FUND$ Replacement Fund; Capital Improvement Fund; FEMA Fund; CFD #1 District Fire Protect Bond Fund; Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS Fund; Shelter+Care HUD Fund; Shelter+Care County Fund; Zero Waste Fund; Marina Operations/Maintenance Fund; Sanitary Sewer Operation Fund; Clean Storm Water Fund; Private Sewer Lateral Fund; Permit Service Center Fund; Off-Street Parking Fund; Parking Meter Fund; Unified Program (CUPA) Fund; Building Purchases & Management Fund; Equipment Replacement Fund; Equipment Maintenance Fund; Building Maintenance Fund; Central Services Fund; Workers’ Compensation Fund; Public Liability Fund; Information Technology Cost Allocation Plan Fund; Health State Aid Realignment Trust Fund; Tobacco Control Trust Fund; Mental Health State Aid Realignment Fund; Alameda Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Authority; and Bio-Terrorism Grant Fund.

21 Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. Page 6 of 9
Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of Council Chambers, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

22 Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. Page 7 of 9
Attachment for Annual Appropriations Ordinance - Fiscal Year 2022

REVOLVING FUNDS/INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Appropriations are identified with revolving and internal service funds. Such funds derive revenue by virtue of payment from other fund sources as benefits are received by such funds, and the total is reflected in the "Less Revolving Funds and Internal Service Funds" in item I. The funds are:

Employee Training Fund 961,840
Equipment Replacement Fund 16,855,573
Equipment Maintenance Fund 9,990,781
Building Maintenance Fund 4,686,074
Central Services Fund 388,107
Workers' Compensation Fund 6,706,769
Public Liability Fund 4,212,789
16,937,191
Subtotal Revolving/Internal Service Funds 60,739,124$
Information Technology Fund

DUAL APPROPRIATIONS - WORKING BUDGET
Dual appropriations are identified with revenues generated by one fund and transferred to another fund. Both funds are credited with the applicable revenue, and the total is reflected in the "Less Dual Appropriations" in item I. The dual appropriations are:

23 Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. Page 8 of 9
Transfer to Safety Members Pension Fund from General Fund 551,804 Tansfert to Climate Equity Action Fund from General Fund 600,000 6,094,045
Transfer to Stability Reserve Fund from General Fund 3,636,005 Transfer to Catastrophic Reserve Fund from General Fund 2,974,913 Transfer to PERS Savings Fund from General Fund 2,000,000 Transfer to Health State Aid Realignment from General Fund 1,953,018 Transfer to Fair Election Fund from General Fund 505,002 Transfer to Capital Improvement Fund (CIP) from General Fund 4,950,905 449,408
Transfer to Equipment Replacement Fund from General Fund 1,081,699 Transfer to Public Liability Fund from General Fund 3,895,888 Transfer to Catastrophic Loss Fund from General Fund 3,129,119 Transfer to IT Cost Allocation Fund from General Fund 145,640 400,136
946,163
2,700,000
Transfer to Sick Leave Entitlement Fund from General Fund 201,501 175,000
Transfer to General Fund from Health State Aid Realignment Fund 2,643,280 757,925
Transfer to General Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund 22,969,355 196,000
Transfer to Playground Camp Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund 1,035,000 1,400,000
Transfer to Off-Street Parking Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund 3,940,000 4,340,000
Transfer from CIP Fund to PERS Savings Fund 151,632
499,802
Transfer from CIP Fund to 2010 COP (Animal Shelter) Fund 402,613 90,501
50,555
5,082
Transfer to General Fund from Parking Meter Fund 1,742,288 2,048,940
Transfer to First Source Fund from Parks Tax Fund 14,093 Transfer to First Source Fund from Capital Improvement Fund 26,943 Transfer to First Source Fund from Marina Fund 1,875
Transfer to Public Art Fund from Parks Tax Fund 21,140
Transfer to Public Art Fund from Capital Improvement Fund 40,414 Transfer to Public Art Fund from Marina Fund 2,813
Subtotal Transfers to Other Funds: 78,770,497
Sub-Total Dual Appropriations 84,605,606
Grand Total Dual Appropriations 145,344,730
Transfer to Phone System Replacement - VOIP from General Fund Transfer to Police Employee Retiree Health Assistance Plan from General Fund Transfer from Special Tax Bonds CFD#1 ML-ROOS to CFD#1 District Fire Protect Bond (Measure Q)
Transfer to Catastrophic Loss Fund from Permit Service Center Fund Transfer to Catastrophic Loss Fund from Unified Program (CUPA) Fund Transfer to Private Sewer Lateral Fund from Sewer Fund
Transfer to Berkeley Repertory Theater Debt Service Fund from CIP Fund Transfer to Measure U1 Fund from General Fund
Transfer to Sports Field Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund Transfer to Marina Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund
Transfer to Parking Meter Fund from American Rescue Plan Fund Transfer to Paramedic Tax Fund from Measure FF - Public Safety Fund Transfer to Gilman Field Reserve Fund from Sports Field Fund Transfer to Workers' Compnesation Fund from Measure U1 Fund Transfer to Playground Camp Fund from Catastrophic Reserve Fund

24 Ordinance No. 7,811-N.S. Page 9 of 9
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on May 10, 2022, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Droste, Hahn, Harrison, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, Wengraf, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

25 EXHIBIT A
2nd AAO
FY 2022 Other Total FY 2022
ERMA
Fund # Fund
Revised #1 Reappropriations Adjustments Amend. Revised #2 11 General Fund Discretionary 259,763,888 - 6,976,452 6,976,452 266,740,340 16 Measure U1 - Housing 9,089,089 - 250,000 250,000 9, 339,089 17 Climate Equity Action 0 - 600,000 600,000 600, 000 99 Catastrophic Reserve Fund 0 - 2,700,000 2, 700,000 2,700,000 101 Library - Tax 25,152,140 - - - 25,152,140 103 Library - Grants 64,889 - - - 64,889 104 Library - Friends & Gift 150,197 - - - 150,197 105 Library - Foundation 350,046 - - - 350,046 106 Asset Forefeiture 364,165 - - - 364,165 107 Special Tax Measure E 1,451,853 - 100,000 100,000 1,551,853 108 First Source Fund 46,675 - - - 46,675 110 Sec 108 Loan Gty Asst. 553,108 - - - 553,108 111 Fund Raising Activities 74,875 - 54,167 54,167 129,042 113 Sports Field (Vendor Oper) 625,781 - 25,000 25,000 650,781 114 Gilman Fields Reserve 2,694 - - - 2,694 115 Animal Shelter 57,920 - - - 57,920 116 Paramedic Tax 4,916,665 - - - 4,916,665 117 CA Energy Commission 44,249 - - - 44,249 119 Domestic Violence Prev - Vit Stat 22,587 - - - 22,587 120 Affor
dable Housing Mitigation 5,373,924 - - - 5,373,924 121 Affordable Child Care 13,275 - - - 13,275 122 Inclusionary Housing Program 550,501 - - - 550,501 123 Condo Conversion 1,107,597 - - - 1,107,597 124 Park
ing In-Lieu Fee 82,010 - - - 82,010 125 Playground Camp 29,823,415 - 753,055 753,055 30,576,470 126 State-Prop 172 Pub.Safety 942,880 - 500,000 500,000 1,442,880 127 State Transportation Tax 9,201,033 - 439,397 439,397 9,640,430 128 CDBG 4,854,839 - 1,232,491 1,232,491 6,087,330 129 Rental Housing Safety Program 2,231,853 - 25,000 25,000 2,256,853 130 Measure B - Local St & Road 5,632,887 150,000 - 150,000 5, 782,887 131 Measure B - Bike and Pedestrian 317,541 - - - 317,541 132 Measure B - Paratransit 543,039 - - - 543,039 133 Measure F Alameda County VRF St & Rd 956,556 - 50,000 50,000 1, 006,556 134 Measure BB - Local St & Road 10,873,305 - 2,676,242 2, 676,242 13,549,547 135 Meaure BB - Bike & Pedestrian 1,253,739 - 332,834 332,834 1, 586,573 136 Measure BB - Paratransit 476,161 - 43,000 43,000 519, 161 137 One Time Funding 19,080 - - - 19,080 138 Parks Tax 18,779,226 22,253 298,986 321,239 19,100,465 139 Street and Open Space Improvement 1,702 - - - 1,702 140 Measure GG - Fire Prep Tax 5,407,799 - 600,000 600,000 6,007,799 142 Streetlight Assesment District 3,195,968 - - - 3,195,968 143 Berkeley Bus Ec Dev 680,937 - - - 680,937 145 Bayer (Miles Lab) 9,452 - - - 9,452 146 Employee Training 961,840 - - - 961,840 147 UC Settlement 5,044,285 - - - 5,044,285 148 Private Percent - Art Fund 850,618 - - - 850,618 149 Private Party Sidewalks 350,000 - - - 350,000 150 Public Art Fund 155,161 - - - 155,161 152 Vital & Health Statistics Trust Fund 29,813 - - - 29,813 156 Hlth State Aid Realign Trust 3,806,205 - - - 3,806,205 157 Tobacco Cont.Trust 398,017 46,371 - 46,371 444,388 158 Mental Health State Aid Realign 3,451,968 - 550,987 550,987 4,002,955 159 Citi
zens Option Public Safety Trust 531,636 - - - 531,636 161 Alameda Cty Abandoned Vehicle Abatement 100,597 - - - 100,597 162 Shelter Operations 170,953 - - - 170,953 164 Measure FF 12,750,000 - - - 12,750,000 165 Fair Elections 505,002 - - - 505,002 302 Operating Grants - State 292,181 - 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,292,181 305 Capital Grants - Federal 7,062,518 - - - 7,062,518 306 Capital Grants - State 2,836,204 - 615,130 615,130 3,451,334 307 Capital Grants - Local 639,254 - 841,000 841,000 1,480,254 309 OTS DUI Enforcement Education Prg. 311,245 - - - 311,245 310 HUD/Home 835,218 - - - 835,218 311 ESGP 4,117,298 678,819 - 678,819 4,796,117 312 Health (General) 4,001,104 4,382 53,394 57,777 4,058,880 313 Target Case Management Linkages 919,016 - 4,000 4,000 923,016 314 Alameda County Tay Tip 35,812 - - - 35,812

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
22AAO#2 Working Docs Rev 5.3.22 Final.xlsx

26 EXHIBIT A
2nd AAO
FY 2022 Other Total FY 2022
ERMA
Fund # Fund
Revised #1 Reappropriations Adjustments Amend. Revised #2

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
315 Mental Health Service Act 12,074,902 - 4,483,441 4, 483,441 16,558,343 316 Health (Short/Doyle) 5,043,891 - - - 5,043,891 317 EPSDT Expansion Proposal 389,139 - - - 389,139 318 Alcoholic Bev Ctr OTS/UC 125,244 - - - 125,244 319 Youth Lunch 354,536 - - - 354,536 320 Sr. Nutrition Title III 107,003 - 10,799 10,799 117,802 321 CFP Title X 180,790 - 50,000 50,000 230,790 324 BUSD Grant 362,343 - - - 362,343 325 Vector Control 348,745 - - - 348,745 326 Alameda County Grants 631,318 - 13,600 13,600 644,918 327 Senior Supportive Social Services 64,339 - 6,000 6,000 70,339 328 Family Care Support Program 75,212 - 10,828 10,828 86,040 329 CA Integrated Waste Management 20,640 - - - 20,640 331 Housing Mitigation 1,126,763 - - - 1,126,763 333 CALHOME 363,100 - - - 363,100 334 Community Action 533,722 - - - 533,722 336 One-Time Grant: No Cap Exp 7,883,266 - 8,112,046 8, 112,046 15,995,312 338 Bay Area Air Quality Management 60,000 - 117,000 117,000 177,000 339 MTC 540,134 - 349,000 349,000 889,134 340 FEMA 804,697 - 168,272 168,272 972,969 341 Alameda Cty Waste Mgt. 285,000 - - - 285,000 343 State Dept Conserv/Recylg 28,000 - 60,710 60,710 88,710 344 Caltrans Grant 752,612 465,152 75,138 540,290 1,292,902 345 Meas WW - Park Bond - Grant 1,220 - - - 1,220 346 Caltrans Safe Routes 2 Schools 9,757 - - - 9,757 347 Shelter+Care HUD 6,271,483 - - - 6,271,483 348 Shelter+Care County 855,792 - - - 855,792 349 JAG Grant 52,500 - - - 52,500 350 Bioterrorism Grant 598,920 - 209,784 209,784 808, 704 351 UASI Regional Fund 35,703 9,192 - 9,192 44, 895 354 ARPA - Local Fiscal Recovery Fund 46,300,355 - - - 46,300,355 501 Capital Improvement Fund 17,500,834 267,707 231,148 498,855 17,999,689 502 Phone System Replacement 452,916 - - - 452,916 503 FUND$ Replacement 5,608,470 - - - 5,608,470 504 PEG-Public, Education & Government 100,000 - - - 100,000 506 Meas M - Street and Watershed Imprv 30,335 - - - 30,335 511 Measure T1 - Infra & Facil. 20,433,950 853,735 585,000 1,438,735 21,872,685 512 Measure O 22,115,110 - 5,452,871 5,452,871 27,567,981 552 09 Measure FF Debt Service 1,343,638 - - - 1,343,638 553 2015 GORBS 2,051,966 - - - 2,051,966 554 2012 Lease Revenue Bonds BJPFA 502,238 - - - 502,238 555 2015 GORBS - 2002 G.O. Refunding Bonds 379,561 - - - 379,561 556 2015 GORBS (2007, Series A) 142,865 - - - 142,865 557 2015 GORBS (2008 Measure I) 481,286 - - - 481,286 558 2010 COP (Animal Shelter) 406,991 - - - 406,991 559 Measure M GO Street & Water Imps 740,738 - - - 740,738 560 Infrastucture & Facilities Measure T1 1,731,181 - - - 1,731,181 561 Measure O - Housing Bonds 2,023,940 - - - 2,023,940 601 Zero Waste 51,371,398 - 2,129,991 2,129,991 53,501,389 606 Mar -Coastal Conservancy 7,868 - - - 7,868 607 Mar - Dept of Boating & Waterway 93,460 - 62,000 62,000 155,460 608 Marina Operation 12,151,035 - 440,579 440,579 12,591,614 611 Sewer 44,890,262 2,269,671 214,643 2,484,314 47,374,576 612 Private Sewer Lateral FD 193,658 - - - 193,658 616 Clean Storm Water 5,895,328 - - - 5,895,328 621 Permit Service Center 22,961,785 - - - 22,961,785 622 Unified Program (CUPA) 828,769 - 50,000 50,000 878,769 627 Off Street Parking 7,304,672 - - - 7,304,672 631 Parking Meter 10,645,212 - - - 10,645,212 636 Building Purchases and Management 3,481,724 - - - 3,481,724 671 Equipment Replacement 16,510,385 - 345,188 345,188 16,855,573 672 Equipment Maintenance 9,990,781 - - - 9,990,781 673 Buildi
ng Maintenance Fund 4,686,074 - - - 4,686,074 674 Central Services 388,107 - - - 388,107 676 Workers Compensation 6,706,769 - - - 6,706,769 678 Public Liability 4,212,789 - - - 4,212,789 680 Information Technology 16,937,191 - - - 16,937,191 22AAO#2 Working Docs Rev 5.3.22 Final.xlsx

27 EXHIBIT A
2nd AAO
FY 2022 Other Total FY 2022
ERMA
Fund # Fund
Revised #1 Reappropriations Adjustments Amend. Revised #2

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
762 Successor Agency - Savo DSF 57,120 - - - 57,120 776 Thousand Oaks Underground 98,448 - - - 98,448 777 Measure H - School Tax 500,002 - - - 500,002 778 Measure Q - CFD#1 Dis. Fire Protect Bond 2,078,385 - - - 2,078,385 779 Spl Tax Bds. CFD#1 ML-ROOS 2,823,820 - - - 2,823,820 781 Berkeley Tourism BID 208,771 - 456,165 456, 165 664, 936 782 Elmwood Business Improvement District 62,389 - - - 62,389 783 Solano Ave BID 32,809 - - - 32,809 784 Telegraph Avenue Bus. Imp. District 761,808 - - - 761,808 785 North Shattuck BID 321,335 - - - 321,335 786 Downtown Berkeley Prop & Improv. District 1,509,001 - - - 1,509,001 801 Rent Board 6,862,718 - - - 6,862,718 GROSS EXPENDITURE: 852,116,502 4,767,283 48,355,338 53,122,621 905,239,122

Dual Appropriations (75,174,972) - (9,430,634) (9,430,634) (84,605,606) Revolving & Internal Service Funds (60,393,936) - (345,188) (345,188) (60,739,124)

NET EXPENDITURE: 716,547,594 4,767,283 38,579,516 43,346,798 759,894,392 22AAO#2 Working Docs Rev 5.3.22 Final.xlsx

28 Ordinance No. 7,812-N.S. Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 7,812-N.S.

PUBLIC ART FUNDING FOR MUNICIPAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; ADDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.13
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 6.13 is added as follows:

6.13 APPROPRIATION FOR PUBLIC ART FOR MUNICIPAL CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

6.13.010 Purpose.

The City of Berkeley believes that the cultivation and development of a livable city is enhanced by the presence of public art and creative expressions available for the enjoyment of all members of the community. Public art enhances community vitality, fosters a sense of belonging, and provides opportunities to meaningfully involve community members in the design of their environment. Furthermore, public art provides professional opportunities for artists, which contributes to the economic sustainability of the arts community. The City of Berkeley is committed to strengthening its municipal public art program by enhancing the funds available for public art and ensuring flexibility to provide equitable public art experiences in the City of Berkeley that are timely, meaningful, and relevant. Therefore, it is the purpose of this Chapter and the policy of this City to provide for the allocation of one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the estimated cost of construction associated with municipal capital improvement projects to be paid into the Public Art Fund, which shall be used for art and cultural enrichment of public buildings, parks, streets, and other public spaces in the City of Berkeley.

6.13.020 Public Art Fund Allocation.
(a) It shall be City policy to set aside one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of its estimated capital improvement project (CIP) budgets, as defined in this section, for the purpose of providing public art. Except as provided in this section, all CIP projects shall be subject to this policy, including but not limited to buildings, shelters, parking garages and lots, restrooms, small structures, parks, medians, landscaping, plazas, gateways, bridges, walls, tunnels, street and road construction. CIP projects include new construction, as well as renovations and alterations. Salaries and benefits of public employees supporting CIP projects shall not be included in the CIP budget subject to this ordinance. This policy shall apply to all capital improvement projects included in the annual capital improvement program (CIP) budget, as well as capital improvement projects funded through any amendment to the annual appropriation ordinance.
(b) The following CIP projects are excluded from this policy:
(i) ADA compliance projects (not including projects where ADA compliance is a portion of a larger project).

29 Ordinance No. 7,812-N.S. Page 2 of 5
(ii) Emergency repair projects.
(iii) Cyclical replacement and repair of trails, outdoor furnishings, or fencing (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project). (iv) Studies and environmental review.
(v) Roof replacement (not including projects where roof replacement is a portion of a larger project).
(vi) Mechanical, security, A/V equipment, and HVAC, upgrades and repairs (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project). (vii) Utilities projects, except where the project includes construction or reconstruction of a building.
(viii) Vehicle repair and replacement.
(ix) IT purchases and installations.
(x) Seismic upgrades and waterproofing (not including projects where these are a portion of a larger project).
(xi) Projects where the majority (more than 50%) of the cost is allocated to elements located underground.
(xii) Projects where prohibited by federal or state law, including projects or portions of projects funded by grants from non-city sources that prohibit expenditure of funds for art.

6.13.030 Reasonable efforts to include funds for public art. (a) City staff shall use reasonable efforts to obtain appropriate approvals from any funding source for any capital improvement project, to allow use of one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of such funds for the acquisition of public art as provided in this title. Such efforts shall include, without limitation, identifying public art in grant applications for capital improvement projects, efforts to include expenditures for public art in developer funded infrastructure projects, and efforts to allocate for public art in developer-constructed infrastructure and public facilities. (b) If the city enters into an agreement with another public entity, whereby city funds are transferred to such other public entity for the capital improvement project that would otherwise be deemed subject to the public art requirements under this title, city staff shall use reasonable efforts to include in such agreement, whenever it is lawful to do so, a requirement that the recipient entity or its successor in interest shall take appropriate measures to insure that not less than one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the city funds so transferred are expended for acquisition of public art.

30 Ordinance No. 7,812-N.S. Page 3 of 5
(c) Before proposing a bond issue or making a request for an appropriation for the construction of any of the projects set forth in this Chapter, the officer, board or commission concerned shall add thereto for the Public Art allocation associated with the proposed CIP project, one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the gross estimated construction cost. Where funding eligibility is limited by law or funding agency rules, the Public Art allocation shall be based upon one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of eligible construction costs. For any public bond raising funds for capital percentage, the designated Public Art allocation percentage will be stated in the bond language presented to voters.
(d) Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the city council from adopting an ordinance or resolution establishing a public art contribution for any project otherwise excluded from this policy or setting the public art contribution for any project at greater than one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of the CIP budget. (e) Aggregation of Funds. Funds shall be deposited into the Public Art Fund. Per BMC Chapter 6.14, the Civic Art Commission shall determine public or publicly-accessible sites for art funded by the one and three quarters percent (1.75%) for art policy. Funds may be expended on public art at any appropriate site within the city. Funds from two or more CIP projects may be pooled to fund a single work of art. Funds may be used for permanent or temporary public art.
(f) The Civic Arts Commission shall recommend and the Council, by resolution, shall adopt guidelines for the administration and implementation of this chapter.

6.13.040 Definitions. For purposes of this Section:
 "Alteration" of a building, aboveground structure, or transportation improvement project shall include substantial changes to elements such as walls, partitions, or ceilings on 2/3 or more of the total floor space, excluding basements. "Substantial changes" shall include additions to, renovation of, removal of, and modification of such elements.
 "Construction cost" shall mean the total estimated construction contract award amount, including the costs of all built-in fixtures, unless otherwise agreed to by the Civic Arts Commission. "Construction cost" shall not include movable or personal property or construction cost contingency.
 "Public Art" shall mean the acquisition and installation of original works of art (including limited editions), or temporary installation, display, or presentation of the same, on City property for aesthetic and cultural enhancement of public buildings and public spaces and engagement of the public with the creative work of artists, as approved by the Civic Arts Commission.

31 Ordinance No. 7,812-N.S. Page 4 of 5
 "Public Art Collection" shall mean the various artworks owned by the City under the jurisdiction of the Civic Arts Commission that are accessioned by action of the Commission into the Public Art Collection.
 "Transportation improvement project" refers to Public Works projects which include both aboveground and below-ground transportation-related projects; boarding ramps; transit platforms; terminals and transportation systems with their attendant passenger amenities, such as shelters, seating, lighting, landscaping, and signage; transportation-related structures such as maintenance and operating facilities; power substations; and street/highway-related transit improvements such as bridges and overpasses.

6.13.050 Administrative Fees.

The Civic Arts Commission shall supervise and control the expenditure of all funds appropriated for public art and shall allocate up to twenty percent (20%) of said funds for all necessary and reasonable administrative costs incurred in connection therewith unless such administrative fee is limited or prohibited by the funding source.

6.13.060 Maintenance and Conservation Funds.

The Civic Arts Commission may set aside and expend up to ten percent (10%) of the total public art allocation for each project for maintenance and conservation of artworks in the Public Art Collection. When permitted by the funding source, funds set aside pursuant to this Section shall be invested in an interest-bearing account when the total of such funds set aside exceeds $10,000.

6.13.070 Miscellaneous Provisions.
(a) Construction and installation of public art shall comply with the requirements of all applicable building codes, laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. (b) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit or abridge the jurisdiction of the officer, board or commission of the participating City department to supervise and control the expenditure of project funds other than the one and three quarters percent (1.75%) allocation for public art.
(c) This ordinance shall not be applied retroactively to projects for which a public art allocation previously would not have been required, nor to those projects for which project funding has been approved by prior voter action but not yet appropriated or expended. Nor shall this ordinance be construed to allow for an increase in the total public art allocation for a project that is already underway or for which the public art allocation has already been established.
(d) Ownership. All art acquired pursuant to this chapter shall be acquired in the name of the City of Berkeley as part of the Public Art Collection and title shall vest in the City of Berkeley.

32 Ordinance No. 7,812-N.S. Page 5 of 5

6.13.080 Superseding Effect.

The ordinance codified in this chapter shall supersede and supplant Resolution No. 60,048-N.S. adopted by City Council on June 1, 1999.

Section 2. The provisions of this Ordinance apply to all municipal capital appropriations approved for Fiscal Year 2023 and beyond.

Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on May 10, 2022, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Droste, Hahn, Harrison, Kesarwani, Robinson, Taplin, Wengraf, and Arreguin.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

33 34
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance
Subject: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on May 24, 2022

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.

Total estimated cost of items included in this report is $300,000.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On May, 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S. effective June 6, 2008, which increased the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services to $50,000. As a result, this required report submitted by the City Manager to Council is now for those purchases in excess of $100,000 for goods; and $200,000 for playgrounds and construction; and $50,000 for services. If Council does not object to these items being sent out for bid or proposal within one week of them appearing on the agenda, and PROJECT Fund Source Amount
Emergency As Needed
Restoration Companies
673
616
611
Building
Maintenance
Clean Storm Water
Sanitary Sewer
Operation
$300,000
Total: $300,000

35 Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals CONSENT CALENDAR Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council May 24, 2022 Approval on May 24, 2022
upon final notice to proceed from the requesting department, the IFB (Invitation for Bid) or RFP (Request for Proposal) may be released to the public and notices sent to the potential bidder/respondent list.

BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S., amending the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Finance Department reviews all formal bid and proposal solicitations to ensure that they include provisions for compliance with the City’s environmental policies. For each contract that is subject to City Council authorization, staff will address environmental sustainability considerations in the associated staff report to City Council.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Need for the services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Darryl Sweet, General Services Manager, Finance, 510-981-7329 Attachments:
1: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled For Possible Issuance After Council Approval on May 24, 2022
a. Emergency As Needed Restoration CompaniesB
Note: Original of this attachment with live signature of authorizing personnel is on file in General Services.

36 NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: May 24, 2022
Internal Attachment 1
1 of 2

SPECIFICATI
ON NO.

DESCRIPTION

OF GOODS /

SERVICES
BEING

PURCHASED
APPROX.

RELEASE
DATE
APPROX.

BID

OPENING
DATE

INTENDED USE ESTIMATED COST BUDGET CODE TO BE

CHARGED
DEPT. /

DIVISION

CONTACT
NAME &
PHONE
22-11522 Emergency As
Needed
Restoration
Companies.
5/25/2022 6/15/2022 Clean up response to fires,
sewage spills, flooding,
water damage, other
emergency facilities
response.
$150,000 x 2
$300,000
3 Year Contracts
673-54-624-692-0000-000-
474-624110-
616-54-625-713-0000-000-
472-612990-
611-54-625-712-0000-000-
472-612990-
Public Works /
Facilities
Joy Brown
981-6629
Dept TOTAL $300,000.00
TOTAL $300,000.00

37 InternalPage 4 of 4
38 Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Department Subject: Donation from Berkeley Echo Lake Camp Association for Echo Lake Camp Youth Scholarships

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to accept a cash donation of $10,000 from the Berkeley Echo Lake Camp Association (BELCA), for Echo Lake Camp youth scholarships.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This cash donation in the amount of $10,000 from BELCA will be deposited into the Camps Fund donation revenue budget code 125-52-543-582-0000-000-000-481110.

The donation will be appropriated in the Second Amendment to the FY 2022 Annual Appropriations Ordinance.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Berkeley Echo Lake Camp Association wishes to provide a donation of $10,000 for Echo Lake Camp youth scholarships. The City’s Open Governance Ordinance (OGO) requires City Council approval of any gift to the City in excess of $1,000 (BMC Section

2.06.150, Ord. 7,166- N.S.)

BACKGROUND
Since 1922, Tuolumne and Echo Lake Camps have provided unique ways for Berkeley youth and families to experience family camp in the beautiful Sierra Mountain setting.

The Berkeley Echo Lake Camp Association (BELCA) is dedicated to preserving and enhancing the Berkeley Echo Lake Camp experience for all campers of the Berkeley community. Their efforts focus on financial support, general advocacy, and enhancements to the programs and physical site of Berkeley Echo Lake Camp. Their goal is to contribute to Berkeley’s environmental and social awareness through the continued success of the camp, and the preservation of the camp’s history and natural beauty.

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

39 Donation - Friends of Berkeley Tuolumne Camp – Scholarships CONSENT CALENDAR to Echo Lake Camp May 24, 2022

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This donation will cover the cost of twelve youth attending Echo Lake Camp Teen Weekend in 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Denise Brown, Recreation and Youth Services Manager, 510-981-6717 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

ACCEPTING A DONATION OF $10,000 TO THE CITY OF BERKELEY FROM THE

BERKELEY ECHO LAKE CAMP ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Echo Lake Camp Association (BELCA) is dedicated to preserving and enhancing the Berkeley Camps experience for all campers of the Berkeley community; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Echo Lake Camp Association has offered to donate $10,000 to support the Berkeley Echo Lake Youth Camp Scholarship program; and WHEREAS, the City’s Open Governance Ordinance (OGO) requires City Council approval of any gift to the City in excess of $1,000 (BMC Section 2.06.150, Ord. 7,166- N.S.).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley to accept a cash donation of $10,000 from the Berkeley Echo Lake Camp Association for Echo Lake Camp youth scholarships.

41 42

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police
Subject: Contract: Care Systems Inc. for an Electronic Scheduling Solution

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any necessary amendments with Care Systems Inc. to provide an Electronic Scheduling (E- Staffing) System for a three-year contract with an option to extend the contract for a two-year period for a maximum length of five years, for a total not to exceed $191,740.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal impact to the General Fund consists of a one-time implementation cost of $84,620, implementation travel costs of $4,750 and an average annual maintenance cost of $20,474 over a five-year period. The overall fiscal impact to the General Fund will be $191,740 in order to support this contract and will be allocated in the Police Department budget expenditure code 011-71-705-820-0000-000-421-666110. The total contract amount will not exceed $191,740 for the five-year contract duration.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Police Department is seeking to implement a new electronic scheduling system for the purposes of managing day-to-day scheduling needs as well as overtime, shift trading, shift bidding, vacation bidding, and court scheduling. BPD currently lacks a process to regularly assess the efficacy of minimum staffing levels, and has no suitable system in place in order to adhere to overtime controls.

A new E-Staffing system will provide the following benefits:
 Improve efficiency of the scheduling process
 Ensure equitable distribution of work shifts
 Rapidly address falling below minimum staffing levels  Fill open shifts under short notice by sending out notifications  Tools to manage overtime and mitigate risks of officer fatigue and burnout Supervisors will be able to enter personnel information and day-off assignments for each shift to establish the required staffing levels. Payroll information will then be imported into the City’s payroll system (Tyler ExecuTime) at regular intervals.

43 Contract: Care Systems, Inc. for an Electronic Scheduling Solution CONSENT CALENDAR May 24, 2022

This automated process greatly increases accuracy, efficiency and improves they payroll data entry process.

Employees will be able to view their schedule for approved absences, overtime, and trades. Employees will be able to request time off and route that request to their supervisor for review/approval. The results of actions taken (approval or not) will update the schedule, if applicable, and notify the employee.

When overtime is available, qualified employees will be notified (via email, text message, or phone) and able to bid for it. Shift trading, shift bidding, and vacation bidding will be supported and conform to our existing rules and policies. A complete audit trail of all scheduling activities, related notes and comments will be maintained.

BACKGROUND
The goal is to replace the current paper system for police scheduling with a new electronic scheduling system. All aspects of scheduling will be handled including creating regular shifts, posting available overtime shifts, processing overtime requests, shift trading, shift bidding, vacation bidding, and court scheduling. Currently the police department utilizes printed hardcopies of various Microsoft Word and Excel documents.

The current process is laborious, subject to errors, and is an inefficient use of resources.

On March 22, 2022, the Berkeley City Auditor released a report entitled “Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities.” The report outlined several areas in which BPD would benefit from improvement, including the following:
 Managing costs associated with compensatory time and the impact of vacancies on overtime
 Collecting and monitoring data on how often compensatory time leads to additional backfill overtime and develop a plan to monitor it  Filling vacancies deemed necessary and/or reallocate staff pending the reimagining process and a determination of appropriate staffing levels  Increasing transparency on work for outside entities. BPD should regularly evaluate their billing and explore ways to track revenues and expenses  Reconciling invoices with the amounts received for work with outside entities at regular intervals, including procedures to check invoices for errors prior to billing Recommendation 3.2 of the report specifically recommends for BPD to implement an E- Staffing system:

3.2 Work to implement a staffing software solution that integrates overtime management and scheduling software. Develop management reports that provide timely, accurate, and complete information on overtime usage. Develop a process for filling overtime shifts on a voluntary and mandatory basis, including supervisor approval.

44 Contract: Care Systems, Inc. for an Electronic Scheduling Solution CONSENT CALENDAR May 24, 2022

Build in warnings for when an individual is approaching overtime limits and an approval process for allowing individuals to exceed limits when deemed necessary according to the policy.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
An Electronic Scheduling Solution allows the opportunity for the Police Department to reduce or eliminate the need for printer paper and replacement printer cartridges as this system utilizes electronic records.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Police Department sought qualified candidates through a competitive RFP selection process. We received ten proposals. The Police Department formed a selection committee representing different member ranks, department divisions and bargaining units. The committee ranked and evaluated all submitted proposals. They observed demonstrations from the top proposals and collected feedback from police department employees.

The selection committee gave Care Systems Inc. the highest recommendation based on the criteria established within the RFP. The vendor’s proposed solutions in response to the RFP not only met, but exceeded the Police Department’s requirements for an Electronic Scheduling Solution.

The Care Systems Inc. solution will meet and address the following recommendations from the Berkeley City Auditor’s report: Recommendations 1.1, 1.2, 3.2, 4.4 and 4.5. At the time of the report, the vendor’s proposed implementation timeline for the E-Staffing system was 18 months. Upon start of this project, Care Systems Inc. is proposing a more optimal implementation timeline of six to eight months.

The analytic reports provided by the solution will facilitate reporting of outside billing costs, tracking overtime and compensatory time, and will provide other management reports in order to promote and facilitate transparency. The creation of analytical reports will lessen the possibility of human error and provide information to staff in timely manner.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered as the current workflow is a manual process and an electronic solution would be most efficient alternative.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Interim Chief of Police, Police Department, (510) 981-5700 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT: CARE SYSTEMS INC. FOR AN ELECTRONIC SCHEDULING SOLUTION WHEREAS, a report by Berkeley City Auditor entitled “Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities,” released on March 22, 2022, recommended improvements to BPD’s method for identifying and maintaining minimum staffing levels, collecting and monitoring data on overtime, increasing transparency with work for outside entities; and
WHEREAS, Recommendation 3.2 of the report recommends the need to implement a staffing software solution that integrates overtime management, provides reports in a timely, accurate, and complete manner regarding overtime usage; and WHEREAS, the staffing system should be able to develop a process for filling overtime shifts on a voluntary and mandatory basis, including supervisor approval; build in warnings for when an individual is approaching overtime limits; an approval process for allowing individuals to exceed limits when deemed necessary according to the policy; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) #22-11468-C for an Electronic Scheduling Solution in September, 2021; and WHEREAS, ten prospective vendors submitted proposals meeting the minimum qualifications in response to the RFP to provide an Electronic Scheduling Solution; and WHEREAS, key stakeholders within all divisions of the Police Department comprised a selection committee, which evaluated the proposals and interviewed the vendors; and WHEREAS, Care Systems Inc. was ranked highest by the selection committee as being the most responsive to the specifications listed in the RFP; and WHEREAS, funding for this contract includes implementation costs of $84,620, travel expenses of $4,750 and an average annual maintenance cost of $20,474 over a five-year period; $191,740 is required from the General Fund to be deposited in the Police Department’s Budget, under budget code 011-71-705-820-0000-000-421-666110.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments with Care Systems Inc. to provide an Electronic Scheduling Solution for up to five years and a total amount not to exceed $191,740.

46 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 Parks and Waterfront Commission

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Parks and Waterfront Commission
Submitted by: Gordon Wozniak, Chairperson

ACTION CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
Subject: Proposal to allocate revenues generated by the Transient Occupancy Tax in the Waterfront Area to the Marina Fund to avoid insolvency, rebuild its fund balance and to stabilize its finances

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopt a Resolution adopting a policy that all Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT hotel tax) generated at the Berkeley Waterfront be allocated to the City’s Marina Enterprise Fund. All other property, sales, utility users, and parking taxes, as well as business license and franchise fees, would continue to be allocated to the City’s General Fund.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On April 28, 2022, the Budget & Finance Policy Committee took the following action:

M/S/C (Harrison/Arreguin) to forward the item to Council with a qualified positive recommendation to consider as part of the budget process including the following amendments 1. that Public Works consider including trash pick-up at the Marina in the 218 process; 2. that the Marina Fund be excluded from road work repairs within the larger marina territory; and 3. that $1.5M be allocated from the General Fund to the Marina Fund for operating expenses in 2024.

Vote: Ayes – Harrison, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent – Droste.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Allocating funding from the Transient Occupancy Tax annually, generated at the Waterfront, will create a healthy Marina Fund that is able to operate, maintain, and keep safe the existing assets. The sizeable past and ongoing contributions from Waterfront- generated revenues to the City’s General Fund should be taken into consideration when assessing the financial implications.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The area now comprising the Berkeley Waterfront was granted to the City by the State of California in 1913, as a grant of state tidelands. In 1962, the City obtained a state

47 Allocate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) generated at the Waterfront CONSENT CALENDAR back to the Marina Fund May 24, 2022
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 loan to develop the current marina with 1,000 slips, parking lots, launch ramps, restrooms, parks, and several commercial plots for lease.  By 1966, 15 boat dock systems were constructed.
 By 1970, two restaurants, a hotel, and an office building were developed.  By 1980, the two sailing clubs and sailing docks, the boat yard, and a third restaurant were developed.
 By 1991, the City landfill at the marina was capped and graded to become North Waterfront Park. In 1996, it was renamed Cesar Chavez Park.

The total area under City management includes the entrance to the Marina (University Avenue and the Bay Trail, from Frontage Road to Marina Blvd) and all the infrastructure and Marina waters west of Marina Blvd. In all, there are:
 100 acres of open space and parks,
 over 1,000 berths in the Berkeley Marina,
 a large hotel, 4 restaurants,
 the Adventure Playground,
 Shorebird Nature Center,
 the Berkeley Marine Center boat yard,
 a two-story office building,
 a 4-lane public launch ramp,
 9 restroom buildings, and
 11 parking lots.

The Waterfront requires the daily administration of what essentially is a “small city”.

Marina Fund
A requirement of the State Tidelands Grant is that revenue generated at the Waterfront be spent at the Waterfront. The Marina Enterprise Fund was set up to comply with this requirement for managing revenue and expenditures at the Berkeley Waterfront. Marina Revenues come primarily from boat slip rental fees and business leases, and a number of smaller sources. Community users of the open space and amenities at the Berkeley Waterfront such as independent fishermen, windsurfers, small boat users, tourists, walkers, runners, dogwalkers, and other park users do not provide direct income to the Marina Fund.

By FY2019, one-third of the total revenue generated annually at the Waterfront was being transferred to the General fund as follows:
 $10.9 Million in Total Waterfront Revenue
 $6.9 Million allocated to the Marina Fund
 $4 Million allocated to the General Fund
In addition, $0.59 Million was being transferred annually from the Marina Fund to the City’s internal service funds.

48 Allocate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) generated at the Waterfront CONSENT CALENDAR back to the Marina Fund May 24, 2022
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 In FY2020, the Covid Pandemic decimated the hospitality industry and the lease portion of the Marina revenue. While revenues have plummeted during the pandemic, community use of recreation and open space at the Waterfront has soared.

Marina Fund Financial Sustainability
From FY18-20, the Marina Fund contributed ~$11 Million to the General Fund. Now, the Marina Fund needs help from the General Fund to survive this pandemic-induced fiscal crisis.

To immediately avoid the eminent insolvency of the Marina Fund, the TOT tax generated in the Waterfront should be allocated to the Marina Fund.

Waterfront Capital Fund
The estimated $87.5 M - $131 M in future infrastructure costs are too large to be solved by stabilizing the Marina operations budget. To fund such large capital costs, a Reserve Fund needs to be created with new revenues developed as a result of the BMASP process that is underway.

Commission
At a regular meeting on March 10, 2021, the Parks and Waterfront Commission M/S/C to send this action to Council for consideration: (McGrath/Kamen/U). Ayes: Cox; Diehm; Kamen; Kawczynska; Landoni; McGrath; Skjerping; Srioudom; Wozniak; Noes: None;

Absent: None; Leave of Absence: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No environmental impacts or opportunities were identified as a result of this recommendation.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
See body of report

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager recommends referring the contents of this commission report to the budget process because this action will potentially impact revenue available to the General Fund. The Marina Fund revenue losses associated with Covid-19 are projected to exceed $3.6M from FY20-23 in comparison to FY 19 and a potential funding source to offset actual and projected revenue losses is the American Rescue Plan. Additionally, City Council may want to explore other long-term revenue sources to stabilize the Marina Fund, as discussed during February 16, 2021 work session presentation on the Berkeley Marina Area Specific Plan.

49 Allocate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) generated at the Waterfront CONSENT CALENDAR back to the Marina Fund May 24, 2022
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

CONTACT PERSON
Roger Miller, Secretary, Parks and Waterfront Commission, (510) 981-6704 Gordon Wozniak, Chairperson, (510) 654-4103
Attachments
1: Resolution

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

ALLOCATE REVENUES GENERATED BY THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX IN

THE WATERFRONT AREA TO THE MARINA FUND TO AVOID INSOLVENCY,

REBUILD ITS FUND BALANCE, AND STABILIZE ITS FINANCES
WHEREAS, the Parks and Waterfront Commission reviews the policies, projects, programs, planning efforts, activities, funding and the physical condition of parks, pools, camps, recreation centers, the Marina, and public greenery, and advises the City Council on these matters; and
WHEREAS, a requirement of the State Tidelands Grant is that revenue generated in the Waterfront be spent at the Waterfront; and
WHEREAS, in FY2019, one-third of the total revenue ($10.9 million) generated annually at the Waterfront was transferred to the General Fund (GF) and an additional $0.58 million was transferred to the City’s Internal Service Funds; and WHEREAS, in FY2020, Waterfront revenues have plummeted due the shutdown of the hospitality industry by the Covid Pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the Marina Fund is projected to be insolvent in FY2022 and beyond; and WHEREAS, over the last three years, the revenues generated in the Waterfront Area contributed ~$11 million to the City’s General Fund; and WHEREAS, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) was generated annually at the Waterfront during pre-pandemic times; and
WHEREAS, by allocating the TOT revenue generated at the Waterfront to the Marina fund, it could be made solvent; and
WHEREAS the Marina Fund is facing an unprecedented financial crisis, with more than $100M of unfunded capital need and an annual structural deficit of $1 million.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley hereby adopts a policy that all Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT hotel tax) generated at the Berkeley Waterfront be allocated to the City’s Marina Enterprise Fund. All other property, sales, utility users, and parking taxes, as well as business license and franchise fees, would continue to be allocated to the City’s General Fund.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other property, sales, utility users, and parking taxes, as well as business license and franchise fees, would continue to be allocated to the General Fund.

51 52

Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember, District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
MAY 24, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author) and Councilmembers Lori Droste, Terry Taplin and Susan Wengraf (Co-Sponsors) SUBJECT: Budget Referral: Street Maintenance Funding to Prevent Further Deterioration of Pavement Condition to Save Tax Dollars and Our Streets

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY 2022-23 budget process to establish a three-year plan (FY 2022-23 through FY 2024-25) to fully fund an adequate street paving budget that prevents further deterioration of the City’s pavement condition. At the end of the three-year period, the fiscal plan should allocate a minimum total of $8 million in additional ongoing annual General Fund—bringing the total street paving annual budget to at least $15.1 million—the minimum amount needed to maintain pavement condition, as identified by our Public Works Department.1
We recommend that the City slightly exceed the $8 million General Fund need by contributing $3 million in ongoing funds in FY 2022-23, an additional $3 million of ongoing funds in FY 2023-24, and a final addition of $3 million in ongoing funds in FY 2024-25. This total of $9 million, in addition to the existing allocation of $7.3 million for annual street maintenance2, will provide the City with about $1.2 million more than the minimum total of $15.1 million to account for inflation.

A three-year plan is suggested to give the City time to gradually enhance street paving resources, and annual inflation adjustments are recommended in out-years in order to ensure that maintenance funds remain adequate over time as construction 1 Garland, Liam, Turning Vision 2050 into Reality: Public Works Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2022 (p. 6), March 16, 2021 Worksession Item 3b,
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/City_Council__03-16-2021_- _Special_(WS)_Meeting_Agenda.aspx and Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p.6, Jan. 2021
2 Garland, Liam, Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy and Five-Year Paving Plan p. 1, City Council Meeting Jan. 20, 2022, Item Aa

53 2
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
costs rise. A dollar of maintenance early in a street’s life-cycle saves $8 later in the street’s life-cycle due to avoided rehabilitation and/or reconstruction costs associated with failing streets, making this budget request an urgent matter of fiscal oversight.3

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On April 19, 2022, the Budget & Finance Policy Committee moved (M/S/C Arreguin/Harrison) to send the item to Council with a positive recommendation to: 1.

Formally refer the item to FY 23-24 Biennial Budget Process; 2. State the Committee’s recommendation that the City Council prioritize available General Fund revenues to supplement the street paving budget to prevent further deterioration; 3.

To recommend that Council consider this proposed approach to develop an expenditure plan for street paving; 4. Set a goal of allocating an additional $3-8 Million in ongoing General Fund revenues. Vote: All Ayes.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Berkeley’s Streets Are Rated Among the Worst in the Bay Area, Costing Motorists an Extra $1,049 Annually for Vehicle Repair and Increasing Risk of Injury for Bicyclists and Pedestrians. Compared to other jurisdictions in the Bay Area, Berkeley has the 15th worst Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating out of 101 cities in the nine-county jurisdiction covered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the federally designated transportation planning organization for the Bay Area.4 The general condition of streets is measured by PCI, a numerical rating from 0 to 100, as shown in Exhibit 1. Berkeley’s streets were rated in 2021 at an average of 56 out of 100, meaning they are “at risk”—defined as deteriorated pavement that requires immediate attention, including rehabilitative work. At this rating, ride quality is significantly inferior compared to better pavement ratings, impacting all roadway users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. At-risk pavement conditions make it more likely for bicyclists and pedestrians to suffer injuries. For drivers, at-risk conditions cost $1,049 annually, according to TRIP, a national transportation research group, due to vehicle repair costs, accelerated vehicle deterioration and depreciation, increased maintenance costs, and additional fuel consumption.5 This pavement condition disproportionately harms lower-income residents for whom extra vehicle costs consume a greater share of income. In Attachment 1, we include a list of all City streets and their respective PCI rating in 2020, provided by the Public Works Department.
3 L. Galehouse, J. S. Moulthrop, and R. G. Hicks, “Principles of pavement preservation: definitions, benefits, issues, and barriers,” TR News, pp. 4–15, 2003 as cited in City Manager, Discuss Vision 2050, Infrastructure Priorities, Stakeholder and Community Engagement, and City’s Bonding Capacity; and Seek Direction on November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) Presentation slide 4, City Council Worksession Item 1, Jan. 20, 2022
4 Berkeley City Auditor, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, p. 2, Nov. 19, 2020
5 Berkeley City Auditor, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, p. 3, Nov. 19, 2020

54 3
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 1: Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a Numerical Rating for the General Condition of Streets
Source: Berkeley City Auditor, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, p. 5, Nov. 19, 2020
With Current Street Maintenance Budget, Berkeley’s Streets Will Continue to Deteriorate. In recent fiscal years, the total annual amount that the City of Berkeley has budgeted for street maintenance has fluctuated from $4.9 million in FY 2018-19

55 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
to as much as $11.3 million in FY 2015-16, as shown in Exhibit 2.6 The City has added one-time bond funding to enhance the annual street paving budget through Measures M and T1 in recent fiscal years. However, the General Fund contribution to street maintenance has remained flat at $1.9 million, shown as Capital Improvement Fund in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2: General Fund Contribution to Street Maintenance Has Remained Flat at $1.9 Million Since FY 2013-14 (Dollars in Millions)
Funding Source FY
2013-14
FY
2014-15
FY
2015-16
FY
2016-17
FY
2017-18
FY
2018-19
FY
2019-20 Total
Non-Recurring Funding $2.5 $6.0 $6.1 $6.0 $4.4 $2.8 $27.8 Measure M $2.5 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $4.4 $24.9
Measure T1 $2.6 $2.6
Measure T1 - AAO #1 $0.3 $0.3
Successor Agency - WBIP $0.1 $0.1
Recurring Funding $3.5 $4.0 $5.2 $5.2 $4.3 $4.9 $7.0 $34.1 State Transportation Tax
Fund $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $4.7
State Transportation Tax
Fund - SB1 $1.5 $1.5
Measure B $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $5.0
Measure BB $1.6 $1.6 $1.1 $1.6 $2.2 $8.1
Measure F $0.1 $0.6 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $1.3
Capital Improvement Fund1 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $13.5 Total $6.0 $10.0 $11.3 $11.2 $8.7 $4.9 $9.8 $61.9
1Capital Improvement Fund is from the City’s General Fund.

Source: Berkeley City Auditor
Significantly, the total annual street paving budget has never approached the full $15.1 million needed to maintain the existing PCI of 56 and prevent further deterioration.7 At the funding level proposed for FY 2022-23 through FY 2026-27 of $7.3 million annually8, the City’s pavement condition will continue to fall:
● The City’s PCI will deteriorate to 51 by the year 2025, as shown in Exhibit 3 for the Current Budget Scenario9; and
● The City’s PCI will deteriorate to 30 by the year 2050. 10 6 Berkeley City Auditor, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, p. 6, Nov. 19, 2020.
7 Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p.6, Jan. 2021
8 Garland, Liam, Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy and Five-Year Paving Plan p. 1, City Council Meeting Jan. 20, 2022, Item Aa
9 Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 6, Jan. 2021
10 Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 9, Jan. 2021

56 5
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 3: With Current Street Maintenance Budget, City’s Pavement Condition Index is Projected to Continue to Decline

Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 6, Jan. 2021
City Council Approved Paving Plan for Next Three Fiscal Years (FY 2022-23 through FY 2024-25) Prioritizes Residential and Collector Streets at Expense of Arterials Due to Insufficient Maintenance Funds. Because of the inadequate street paving budget, the City makes difficult choices about which streets to pave and which to allow to deteriorate further. Over the next three fiscal years, residential streets (roads that run through neighborhoods and carry few buses or trucks11, other than refuse vehicles) and collector streets (which serve to “collect” traffic from residential streets and deposit them onto arterials) will receive 97 percent of paving resources, as shown in Exhibit 4. Arterial streets, which carry the most car, truck, and bus traffic, and typically provide an outlet on to state highways and freeways, will receive 3 percent of paving resources over the next three fiscal years. This action was taken because residential streets have historically been underfunded to the point that they now have a lower average PCI (55) than arterial streets (PCI of 63) and collector streets (PCI of 61).12
11 Anecdotally, some residential streets are heavily impacted by trucks shortcutting arterial streets.

This is especially true of Addison West, and other streets along major commercial roads in Central and South Berkeley.
12 Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 14, Jan. 2021

57 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 4: Arterial Streets Will Only Receive 3 Percent of Paving Funds Over Next Three Fiscal Years (FY 2022-23 through FY 2024-25) Mileage Estimated Cost % Cost
Arterial 0.31 $784,871 3%
Collector 3.4 $10,963,742 42%
Residential 6.82 $14,258,806 55%
Total 10.53 $26,007,419 100%
Source: Garland, Liam, Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy and Five-Year Paving Plan pgs. 9-11, City Council Meeting Jan. 20, 2022, Item Aa
Deferring Street Maintenance Makes Street Paving and Repair Eight Times More Expensive Later. The City’s inability to adequately maintain a street early in its life-cycle leads to escalating costs that are eight times higher later in a street’s life- cycle, as shown in Exhibit 5.13 In the case of arterial streets that will not be maintained over the next three fiscal years, a predictable outcome is that they will deteriorate precipitously due to lack of investment and costs to repair them will rise exponentially, absent additional resources for street maintenance.

Exhibit 5: Conducting Street Paving and Repair Later in a Street’s Life Cycle is Eight Times More Expensive
Source: L. Galehouse, J. S. Moulthrop, and R. G. Hicks, “Principles of pavement preservation:
definitions, benefits, issues, and barriers,” TR News, pp. 4–15, 2003 as cited in City Manager, Discuss Vision 2050, Infrastructure Priorities, Stakeholder and Community Engagement, and City’s Bonding Capacity; and Seek Direction on November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) Presentation slide 4, City Council Worksession Item 1, Jan. 20, 2022
13 : L. Galehouse, J. S. Moulthrop, and R. G. Hicks, “Principles of pavement preservation: definitions, benefits, issues, and barriers,” TR News, pp. 4–15, 2003 as cited in City Manager, Discuss Vision 2050, Infrastructure Priorities, Stakeholder and Community Engagement, and City’s Bonding Capacity; and Seek Direction on November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) Presentation slide 4, City Council Worksession Item 1, Jan. 20, 2022

58 7
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Inadequate Street Paving Budget Has Led to an Estimated $268 Million in Deferred Maintenance and Growing. Because the City’s street paving budget has historically been underfunded for the last 15 years, a significant backlog of deferred street maintenance has accumulated that is now estimated at about $268 million.14 This amount is as large as the City’s entire revised General Fund budget for FY 2021-22 of $269 million.15 Deferred street maintenance has grown exponentially over the last decade. In a 2011 audit Failing Streets: Time to Change Direction to Achieve Sustainability, the City Auditor found that Berkeley needed an estimated total of $54 million to address the backlog of street maintenance and improve the average PCI from 58 to 75.16 Over the past 11 years, that amount has grown five times to a $268 million unfunded liability in 2022 and will continue to grow precipitously in the future:
● In five years in 2027, deferred street maintenance is estimated to total $396 million.
● In 10 years in 2032, deferred street maintenance is estimated to total $503 million.
● By 2050, deferred street maintenance is estimated to total $1.1 billion, as shown in Exhibit 6.
14 Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 10, Jan. 2021. We note that the estimate of $268 million in deferred street maintenance only accounts for paving, not other “Complete Streets” infrastructure. Public Works staff are currently revising this deferred maintenance estimate to reflect the recently adopted Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy target of citywide average PCI in the good condition, 70-79. 15 City Manager, Amendment: FY 2022 Annual Appropriations Ordinance, City Council Meeting Dec. 14, 2021, Item 45, Revised Material (Supp 3),
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/12_Dec/City_Council__12-14-2021_- _Regular_Meeting_Agenda.aspx
16 Hogan, Anne-Marie, Failing Streets: Time to Change Direction to Achieve Sustainability, Nov. 15, 2011

59 8
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 6: With Current Street Paving Budget, Deferred Maintenance Grows to More than $1 Billion by 2050
Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 10, Jan. 2021
Regardless of Any Future Possible Infrastructure Revenue Measure, City Must Demonstrate Fiscal Commitment to Adequate Street Maintenance. The City is considering a revenue ballot measure for the November 2022 election to fund infrastructure liabilities. While the amount has yet to be determined, if successful, the measure would effectively increase residents’ taxes as a way to reduce the backlog of deferred street maintenance and increase the average PCI. However, without an adequate annual street maintenance budget of at least $15.1 million, even a large revenue measure would only have a temporary effect on the City’s average pavement condition. In Exhibit 7, a 30-year projection for various funding scenarios shows that the scenario of a $325 million general obligation bond with no increase to the City’s annual street maintenance budget would lead to a PCI of 58 by the year 2050—the green line; this would essentially return the City to its current street pavement condition.

60 9
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 7: A Large Revenue Measure Without Adequate Maintenance Funds Only Temporarily Stalls PCI Decline
Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 10, Jan. 2021

BACKGROUND
Lessons Learned from 2012 Measure M for Streets. Measure M raised $30 million in general obligation bond funds for street maintenance, falling short of the $54 million of identified deferred maintenance.17 A Complete Streets approach was also applied, which—at the time—funded sidewalk repair, green infrastructure, as well as bike and pedestrian improvements. This approach meant that about 75 to 85 percent of the $30 million went toward street paving, with the remaining funds paying for Complete Streets improvements. Because the funding was inadequate to fully clear the backlog of deferred street paving, and additional annual maintenance funding was not added to the budget, Measure M only succeeded in temporarily stalling the decline in the City’s pavement condition. Today, sidewalk improvements are budgeted separately from street paving, and the City has a clear understanding of the cost of funding Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan upgrades; however, the cost of green infrastructure improvements are harder to predict. The City should be aware of the additional costs associated with green infrastructure as well as the Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan when planning and budgeting for deferred street maintenance. 17 City Auditor Report, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, p. 13, Nov. 19, 2020

61 10
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]

FISCAL IMPACT
City Needs a Minimum Total of $15.1 Million Annually to Avoid Further Pavement Deterioration. Regardless of the outcome of a possible infrastructure revenue measure on the November 2022 ballot, it is recommended that the City begin to address the shortfall of street maintenance funds to avoid further deterioration of the pavement condition. At a minimum, we recommend that the City slightly exceed the $8 million additional need by contributing $3 million of ongoing funds in FY 2022-23, an additional $3 million of ongoing funds in FY 2023-24, and a final addition of $3 million in ongoing funds in FY 2024-25, as displayed in Exhibit 8 below. This total of $9 million, in addition to the existing allocation of $7.3 million for annual street maintenance18, will provide the City with about $1.2 million more than the minimum total of $15.1 million to account for inflation.19 Exhibit 8: Minimum Recommendation for Fiscal Plan to Adequately Fund Street Maintenance (Dollars in Millions)
Ongoing Amount
FY 2022-23 $3
FY 2023-24 $3
FY 2024-25 $3
Subtotal $9
Existing Budget $7.3
Total $16.31
1Includes more than $15.1 million to account for inflation. $15.1 Million Annually Maintains Current Pavement Condition, But Deferred Maintenance Grows By 23 Percent. To maintain a PCI of 57, it is projected by Pavement Engineering Inc. that an average funding level of $15.1 million annually is needed, as shown in Exhibit 9 below. At this funding level, the backlog of deferred street maintenance grows from $250 million in 2021 to $307 million in 2025, an increase of 23 percent.
18 Garland, Liam, Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy and Five-Year Paving Plan p. 1, City Council Meeting Jan. 20, 2022, Item Aa
19 Garland, Liam, Turning Vision 2050 into Reality: Public Works Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2022 (p. 6), March 16, 2021 Worksession Item 3b,
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/03_Mar/City_Council__03-16-2021_- _Special_(WS)_Meeting_Agenda.aspx and Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p.6, Jan. 2021

62 11
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 9: $15.1 Million Annually Maintains PCI of 57
Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 8, Jan. 2021
$24 Million Annually Gradually Increases Pavement Condition, With Deferred Maintenance Growing at a Slower Rate of 7 Percent. To increase the PCI by 5 points from 57 to 62, it is projected by Pavement Engineering Inc. that an average funding level of $24 million annually would be needed.20 At this funding level, the backlog of deferred street maintenance grows from $244 million in 2021 to $260 million in 2025, an increase of 7 percent.

Street Paving and Maintenance is a Core Service that Aligns with our Strategic Plan. Providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities is one of the priorities articulated in our Strategic Plan, adopted in January 2018. This plan sets forth the long-term goals that Berkeley City government will achieve on behalf of its residents and acts as a conceptual guide to help ensure these goals are met.21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Good street conditions will improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, users of micro- mobility devices, and public transit users. Using alternatives to driving cars will decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, which aligns with another of the City’s 20 Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 8, Jan. 2021
21 See City of Berkeley 2018-2019 Strategic Plan presented to Berkeley City Council on January 16, 2018.

63 12
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Strategic Plan priorities to be a global leader in addressing climate change, protecting the environment, and advancing environmental justice.

CONTACT
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, District 1 (510) 981-7110 Attachment:

Attachment 1 - City of Berkeley Roads (by PCI as of 2020) from Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, pgs. 39-78, Jan. 2021

64 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 1 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
10TH ST 047 DELAWARE ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 950 36 R 15
10TH ST 045 VIRGINIA ST DELAWARE ST 2 675 36 R 16
10TH ST 060 DWIGHT WAY HEINZ AVE 2 2520 36 R 19
10TH ST 044 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 675 36 R 51
10TH ST 042 CAMELIA ST CEDAR ST 2 1320 36 R 68
10TH ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE DWIGHT WAY 2 3005 36 R 94
10TH ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT HARRISON ST 2 450 36 R 95
10TH ST 033 HARRISON ST CAMELIA ST 2 1270 36 R 95
2ND ST 043 PAGE ST CEDAR ST 2 820 40 R 8
2ND ST 044 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 740 40 R 9
2ND ST 047 DELAWARE ST HEARST AVE 2 475 42 R 12
2ND ST 040 CAMELIA ST PAGE ST 2 450 40 R 28
2ND ST 048 HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE 2 490 40 R 33
2ND ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST 2 450 35 R 34
2ND ST 035 GILMAN ST CAMELIA ST 2 655 40 R 41
2ND ST 045 VIRGINIA ST HEARST AVE 2 1115 42 R 46
2ND ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST 2 1305 63 R 50
4TH ST 054 ADDISON ST CHANNING WAY 2 1810 36 C 33
4TH ST 056 CHANNING WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 615 36 C 66
4TH ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST 2 450 35 R 70
4TH ST 044 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 665 36 R 73
4TH ST 040 CAMELIA ST CEDAR ST 2 1330 36 R 79
4TH ST 030 HARRISON ST CAMELIA ST 2 1375 36 R 82
4TH ST 048 DELAWARE ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 950 28 R 89
4TH ST 046 VIRGINIA ST DELAWARE ST 2 665 36 R 90
4TH ST 060 DWIGHT WAY PARKER ST 2 600 21 NCR 96
5TH ST 040 CAMELIA ST CEDAR ST 2 1320 48 R 27
5TH ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE DWIGHT WAY 2 2990 34 R 29
5TH ST 065 END NORTH OF ANTHONY ST POTTER ST 2 390 36 R 35 5TH ST 044 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 675 44 R 71
5TH ST 045 VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 1650 44 R 76
5TH ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT HARRISON ST 2 400 41 R 82
5TH ST 033 HARRISON ST CAMELIA ST 2 1305 48 R 86
62ND ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY CITY LIMIT (DOVER ST) 2 525 36 R 30 62ND ST 050 WEST CITY LIMIT (CALIFORNIA) ADELINE ST 2 985 36 R 36 63RD ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY CITY LIMIT (DOVER ST) 2 400 36 R 28 63RD ST 050 WEST CITY LIMIT (CALIFORNIA) ADELINE ST 2 1220 36 R 40 65TH ST 060 ADELINE ST 680' E/O ADELINE ST 2 680 36 R 32 65TH ST 045 WEST CITY LIMIT (IDAHO) IDAHO ST 2 191 33 R 47 66TH ST 045 WEST CITY LIMIT (MABEL) SACRAMENTO ST 2 1418 36 R 54 67TH ST 045 WEST CITY LIMIT (MABEL) SACRAMENTO ST 2 1465 30 R 85 6TH ST 044 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 4 675 59 C 54
6TH ST 045 VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE 4 1625 59 C 63
6TH ST 040 CAMELIA ST CEDAR ST 2 1320 48 C 75
6TH ST 035 GILMAN ST CAMELIA ST 2 640 48 C 84
6TH ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST 2 1140 42 R 85

65 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 2 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
6TH ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE ALLSTON WAY 2 1000 48 C 93
6TH ST 055 ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1955 48 C 97
7TH ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE BANCROFT WAY 2 1670 36 R 31
7TH ST 055 BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1330 36 R 32
7TH ST 045 VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 1625 36 R 36
7TH ST 030 HARRISON ST CAMELIA ST 2 1350 34 R 37
7TH ST 070 ASHBY AVE FOLGER AVE 2 364 34 C 38
7TH ST 040 CAMELIA ST VIRGINIA ST 2 1995 36 R 41
7TH ST 060 DWIGHT WAY GRAYSON ST 2 1844 41 C 74
7TH ST 065 GRAYSON ST HEINZ AVE 2 690 41 C 80
7TH ST 067 HEINZ AVE ASHBY AVE 2 1010 46 C 84
8TH ST 042 PAGE ST JONES ST 2 460 35 R 16
8TH ST 045 VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 1625 37 R 18
8TH ST 044 JONES ST VIRGINIA ST 2 1095 35 R 19
8TH ST 055 COLUMBUS SCHOOL DWIGHT WAY 2 1705 36 R 20
8TH ST 063 CARLETON ST PARDEE ST 2 304 34 R 25
8TH ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE ALLSTON WAY 2 1010 36 R 29
8TH ST 034 GILMAN ST CAMELIA ST 2 625 35 R 35
8TH ST 040 CAMELIA ST PAGE ST 2 440 34 R 42
8TH ST 065 PARDEE ST HEINZ AVE 2 962 36 R 75
8TH ST 061 DWIGHT WAY PARKER ST 2 660 36 R 78
8TH ST 062 PARKER ST CARLETON ST 2 545 33 R 80
8TH ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST 2 1185 36 R 84
9TH ST 063 PARDEE ST HEINZ AVE 2 1000 48 R 24
9TH ST 048 HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE 2 480 48 R 65
9TH ST 046 DELAWARE ST HEARST AVE 2 480 48 R 68
9TH ST 043 CEDAR ST DELAWARE ST 2 1330 48 R 70
9TH ST 069 ASHBY ST MURRAY ST 2 150 36 R 79
9TH ST 052 UNIVERSITY AVE BANCROFT WAY 2 1635 48 R 80
9TH ST 056 CHANNING WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 665 48 R 85
9TH ST 040 CAMELIA ST CEDAR ST 2 1330 47 R 86
9TH ST 060 DWIGHT WAY PARDEE ST 2 1444 43 R 86
9TH ST 066 HEINZ AVE JOG JUST NORTH OF
ANTHONY 2 410 36 R 87
9TH ST 054 BANCROFT WAY CHANNING WAY 2 705 48 R 87
9TH ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT CAMELIA ST 2 1720 46 R 89
9TH ST 068 JOG JUST NORTH OF ANTHONY ASHBY ST 2 340 38 R 95 ACACIA AVE 070 CRAGMONT AVE EUCLID AVE 2 500 22 R 16
ACROFT CT 040 ACTON ST DEAD END (ACTON ST) 2 270 20 R 63 ACTON CIRCLE 050 DEAD END (ACTON CRESCENT) ACTON CRESCENT 2 120 21 R 29 ACTON CRESCENT 040 ACTON ST EAST DEAD END (ACTON ST) 2 470 21 R 30 ACTON ST 063 PARKER ST WARD ST 2 895 36 R 15
ACTON ST 061 BLAKE ST PARKER ST 2 325 36 R 17
ACTON ST 065 WARD ST RUSSELL ST 2 1154 36 R 19
ACTON ST 055 BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1330 36 R 20
ACTON ST 035 HOPKINS ST ROSE ST 2 640 28 R 22
ACTON ST 038 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 635 34 R 23

66 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 3 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
ACTON ST 052 ADDISON ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 340 30 R 42
ACTON ST 060 DWIGHT WAY BLAKE ST 2 320 36 R 42
ACTON ST 050 ADDISON ST BANCROFT WAY 2 1350 26 R 43
ACTON ST 040 CEDAR ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 2260 34 R 44
ACTON ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT HOPKINS ST 2 1085 36 R 65 ACTON ST 069 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 491 36 R 79
ACTON ST 070 ASHBY ST 66TH ST 2 1234 36 R 86
ADA ST 045 ORDWAY ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 1350 30 R 25
ADA ST 055 CALIFORNIA ST MC GEE ST 2 360 36 R 71
ADA ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST CALIFORNIA ST 2 500 36 R 79
ADDISON ST 030 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1642 36 R 16
ADDISON ST 025 4TH ST 6TH ST 2 680 36 R 19
ADDISON ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE CURTIS ST 2 730 36 R 23
ADDISON ST 062 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 700 31 R 35
ADDISON ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2620 36 R 40 ADDISON ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 670 37 R 52 ADDISON ST 044 BROWNING ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 1900 36 R 55 ADDISON ST 010 AQUATIC PARK RRX 2 466 36 R 75
ADDISON ST 015 RRX 4TH ST 2 322 36 R 83
ADDISON ST 066 SHATTUCK AVE OXFORD ST 2 490 37 R 90
ADDISON ST 064 SHATTUCK AVE SHATTUCK AVE 2 180 39 R 100 ADELINE (NB) 076 ALCATRAZ AVE MLK/ ADELINE ST 2 890 37 A 75 ADELINE ST 070 ASHBY AVE MLK/ ADELINE ST 4 1420 85 A 73 ADELINE ST 078 ALCATRAZ AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT (KING ST) 5 1045 70 A 75 ADELINE ST 060 DERBY ST STUART ST 4 750 85 A 100
ADELINE ST 064 STUART ST ASHBY AVE 4 1480 84 A 100
ADELINE ST (SB) 074 ADELINE ST/ MARTIN LUTHER
KING J ALCATRAZ AVE 2 945 36 A 69
AJAX PL 080 AJAX LANE SUMMIT RD 2 305 20 R 13
ALAMO AVE 010 SPRUCE ST HALKIN LANE 2 840 20 R 20
ALBINA AVE 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT HOPKINS ST 2 730 32 R 82 ALCATRAZ AVE 080 CITY LIMIT (COLLEGE AVE) CLAREMONT AVE 2 670 36 C 56 ALCATRAZ AVE 050 SACRAMENTO ST ADELINE ST 2 1840 38 C 65 ALCATRAZ AVE 045 WEST CITY LIMIT (IDAHO) SACRAMENTO ST 2 1225 38 C 90 ALCATRAZ AVE 060 ADELINE ST CITY LIMIT (DOVER ST) 2 910 48 C 95 ALLSTON WAY 020 DEAD END 6TH ST 2 930 36 R 20
ALLSTON WAY 030 6TH ST 9TH ST 2 985 36 R 21
ALLSTON WAY 035 9TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 657 36 R 24
ALLSTON WAY 040 SAN PABLO AVE STRAWBERRY CK PARK 2 1430 36 R 33 ALLSTON WAY 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 715 36 R 45
ALLSTON WAY 045 STRAWBERRY CK PARK ACTON ST 2 530 36 R 69 ALLSTON WAY 047 ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 640 36 R 69
ALLSTON WAY 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2660 36 R 90 ALLSTON WAY 065 SHATTUCK AVE OXFORD ST 2 590 32 R 100
ALLSTON WAY 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 660 42 R 100 ALTA RD 070 SPRUCE ST CRAGMONT AVE 2 390 22 R 20
ALVARADO RD 094 BRIDGE RD NORTH CITY LIMIT AB WILLOW
W 2 1890 24 R 44

67 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 4 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
ALVARADO RD 092 NORTH CITY LIMIT BRIDGE RD 2 450 24 R 93 ALVARADO RD 090 TUNNEL RD NORTH CITY LIMIT 2 770 24 R 95 AMADOR AVE 060 SUTTER ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 920 32 R 57
ANTHONY ST 030 5TH ST 7TH ST 2 650 36 R 19
ANTHONY ST 040 7TH ST 9TH ST 2 564 36 R 37
ARCADE AVE 030 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD FAIRLAWN DR 2 310 23 R 100 ARCH ST 030 GLEN AVE CEDAR ST 2 1995 36 R 11
ARCH ST 020 SPRUCE ST EUNICE ST 2 1175 35 R 16
ARCH ST 040 CEDAR ST HEARST AVE 2 1735 31 R 79
ARDEN RD 050 MOSSWOOD RD PANORAMIC WAY 2 610 15 R 97
ARLINGTON AVE 010 NORTH CITY LIMIT (BOYNTON) THOUSAND OAKS BLVD 2 2695 44 C 69 ARLINGTON AVE 015 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD THE CIRCLE 2 2940 49 C 69 ASHBY PL 080 ASHBY AVE & ELMWOOD AVE ASHBY AVE & PIEDMONT AVE 2 600 34 R 90 ATHERTON ST 050 CHANNING WAY HASTE ST 2 325 35 R 20
ATLAS PL 080 HILL RD SUMMIT RD 2 200 20 R 10
AVALON AVE 083 OAK KNOLL TERR CLAREMONT BLVD 2 525 36 R 28 AVALON AVE 082 AVALON WALK OAK KNOLL TERR 2 630 20 R 30 AVALON AVE 084 CLAREMONT BLVD CLAREMONT AVE 2 300 25 R 37 AVENIDA DR 080 QUEENS RD GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 2 1315 24 R 38 AVENIDA DR 034 CAMPUS DR QUEENS RD 2 445 24 R 81
AVIS RD 060 SAN ANTONIO AVE SAN LUIS RD 2 440 20 R 80
BAKER ST 075 66TH ST SOUTH CITY LIMIT (ALCATRAZ) 2 1019 36 R 62 BANCROFT WAY 080 PIEDMONT AVE COLLEGE AVE 2 670 36 C 26 BANCROFT WAY 082 PIEDMONT AVE WARRING ST 2 350 36 R 28
BANCROFT WAY 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2640 36 R 33 BANCROFT WAY 065 FULTON ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 500 40 C 41
BANCROFT WAY 060 MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE 2 710 40 C 46
BANCROFT WAY 076 BOWDITCH ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 670 40 C 48 BANCROFT WAY 030 6TH ST 7TH ST 2 660 36 R 52
BANCROFT WAY 078 COLLEGE AVE BOWDITCH ST 2 670 40 C 54
BANCROFT WAY 035 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1000 36 R 55
BANCROFT WAY 040 SAN PABLO AVE WEST ST 2 1524 36 R 56
BANCROFT WAY 022 AQUATIC PARK 3RD ST (RR TRACKS) 2 300 36 R 75 BANCROFT WAY 045 WEST ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 1121 36 R 75
BANCROFT WAY 024 3RD ST (RR TRACKS) 6TH ST 2 1000 36 R 78 BANCROFT WAY 072 TELEGRAPH AVE DANA ST 2 1200 48 C 90
BANCROFT WAY 074 DANA ST FULTON ST 2 1305 48 C 90
BANCROFT WAY 086 PROSPECT ST PANORAMIC WAY 2 135 30 R 97 BATAAN AVE 030 7TH ST 8TH ST 2 330 22 R 16
BATEMAN ST 070 WEBSTER ST 108 N/O PRINCE ST. 2 475 18 R 85 BATEMAN ST 080 108 N/O PRINCE ST. WOOLSEY 2 323 20 R 88 BAY ST 010 ASHYBY AVE OVERPASS POTTER ST 2 560 26 A 95
BAY VIEW PL 070 SCENIC AVE EUCLID AVE 2 800 30 R 74
BELROSE AVE 060 DERBY ST CLAREMONT BLVD/ GARBER
ST 2 650 40 C 97
BELVEDERE AVE 035 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 350 30 R 47
BELVEDERE AVE 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 660 30 R 68

68 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 5 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
BENVENUE AVE 060 DWIGHT WAY RUSSELL ST 2 2660 36 R 34
BENVENUE AVE 065 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 530 36 R 42
BENVENUE AVE 070 ASHBY AVE CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY ST) 2 1165 36 R 47 BERKELEY WAY 046 WEST ST PATHWAY SACRAMENTO ST 2 1320 30 R 23 BERKELEY WAY 050 SACRAMENTO ST GRANT ST 2 1920 32 R 41
BERKELEY WAY 045 CHESTNUT ST WEST ST PATHWAY 2 435 24 R 48 BERKELEY WAY 058 GRANT ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 670 36 R 48 BERKELEY WAY 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA WAY 2 700 34 R 65 BERKELEY WAY 063 MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE 2 645 40 R 70
BERKELEY WAY 065 SHATTUCK AVE OXFORD ST 2 740 47 R 76
BERRYMAN ST 063 MILVIA ST HENRY ST 2 303 36 R 57
BERRYMAN ST 064 HENRY ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 367 36 R 76
BERRYMAN ST 055 WEST END MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 495 36 R 80 BERRYMAN ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 640 36 R 82 BEVERLY PL 050 WEST CITY LIMIT COP W/O
MONTER HOPKINS ST 2 1830 36 R 68
BLAKE ST 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 688 48 R 19
BLAKE ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 665 48 R 19 BLAKE ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE SACRAMENTO ST 2 2442 36 R 19 BLAKE ST 070 FULTON ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 1910 36 R 20
BLAKE ST 055 MC GEE ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 1280 36 R 20 BLAKE ST 065 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 575 36 R 34
BLAKE ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MC GEE ST 2 1270 36 R 76
BOISE ST 075 66TH ST HARMON ST 2 505 36 R 65
BONAR ST 051 UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST 2 314 36 R 97
BONAR ST 053 ADDISON ST ALLSTON WAY 2 670 36 R 97
BONAR ST 055 ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1982 36 R 97
BONITA AVE 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 670 36 R 19
BONITA AVE 034 ROSE ST VINE ST 2 660 36 R 26
BONITA AVE 036 VINE ST CEDAR ST 2 655 36 R 78
BONITA AVE 032 BERRYMAN ST ROSE ST 2 665 36 R 79
BONITA AVE 030 YOLO AVE BERRYMAN ST 2 745 30 R 82
BONITA AVE 045 UNIVERSITY AVE NORTH END 2 210 36 R 87
BONITA AVE 055 DELAWARE ST SOUTH END 2 180 36 R 92
BONITA AVE 050 BERKLEY WAY NORTH OF HEARST 2 475 36 R 93 BONNIE LANE 010 HILLDALE AVE MARIN AVE 2 750 21 R 61
BOWDITCH ST 050 BANCROFT WAY DURANT AVE 2 330 36 R 20
BOWDITCH ST 052 DURANT AVE HASTE ST 2 660 36 R 23
BOWDITCH ST 056 HASTE ST DWIGHT WAY 2 330 36 R 40
BOYNTON AVE 015 COLORADO AVE FLORIDA AVE 2 280 26 R 59
BOYNTON AVE (NB) 010 ARLINGTON AVE COLORADO AVE 2 1540 16 R 42 BOYNTON AVE (SB) 011 COLORADO AVE ARLINGTON AVE 2 1540 16 R 44 BRET HARTE RD 070 KEITH AVE CREGMONT AVE 2 300 21 R 65
BRET HARTE RD 075 CRAGMONT AVE KEELER RD 2 750 22 R 79
BRIDGE RD 070 ALVARADO RD TUNNEL RD 2 450 24 R 95
BROOKSIDE AVE 080 CLAREMONT AVE DEAD END (CLAREMONT AVE) 2 425 26 R 95 BROOKSIDE CT 070 DEAD END NR BROOKSIDE DR BROOKSIDE DR 2 110 24 R 95

69 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 6 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
BROOKSIDE DR 070 CLAREMONT AVE CLAREMONT AVE 2 535 24 R 95 BROWNING ST 050 ADDISON ST DWIGHT WAY 2 2650 36 R 33
BUENA AVE 055 MCGEE AVE CYPRESS ST 2 400 25 R 27
BUENA AVE 050 WEST DEAD END (HOLLY ST) MCGEE AVE 2 904 37 R 95 BUENA VISTA WAY 078 260' NORTH OF PRIVATE PROP PRIVATE PROPERTY 2 260 14 R 8 BUENA VISTA WAY 074 DELMAR AVE 260' NORTH OF PRIVATE PROP 2 470 22 R 10 BUENA VISTA WAY 070 EUCLID AVE DEL MAR AVE 2 3775 30 R 21 BURNETT ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE MABEL ST 2 874 36 R 22
BURNETT ST 042 MABEL ST ACTON ST 2 704 36 R 76
BYRON ST 055 CHANNING WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 660 30 R 17
BYRON ST 050 ADDISON ST BANCROFT WAY 2 1320 36 R 85
CALIFORNIA ST 066 OREGON ST ASHBY AVE 2 950 42 R 35
CALIFORNIA ST 045 HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE 2 600 42 R 37 CALIFORNIA ST 040 CEDAR ST OHLONE PARK 2 1455 42 R 58
CALIFORNIA ST 030 ADA ST CEDAR ST 2 1405 45 R 71
CALIFORNIA ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE DWIGHT WAY 2 3015 48 R 71 CALIFORNIA ST 072 ASHBY AVE ALCATRAZ AVE 2 2000 42 R 77 CALIFORNIA ST 076 ALCATRAZ AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT 2 840 42 R 77 CALIFORNIA ST 020 HOPKINS ST ADA ST 2 345 40 R 83
CALIFORNIA ST 060 DWIGHT WAY OREGON ST 2 2270 42 R 83
CAMELIA ST 024 3RD ST (RR TRACKS) 4TH ST 2 330 36 R 18
CAMELIA ST 020 2ND ST 3RD ST (RR TRACKS) 2 345 35 R 19
CAMELIA ST 034 8TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1030 36 R 19
CAMELIA ST 030 6TH ST 8TH ST 2 620 36 R 27
CAMELIA ST 026 4TH ST 6TH ST 2 637 36 R 48
CAMELIA ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE SANTA FE AVE 2 1050 36 R 89 CAMPUS DR 030 SHASTA RD QUAIL AVE 2 370 22 R 42
CAMPUS DR 032 QUAIL AVE GLENDALE AVE 2 450 24 R 46
CAMPUS DR 033 GLENDALE AVE DELMAR AVE 2 1090 24 R 79
CAMPUS DR 035 DELMAR AVE AVENIDA DRIVE 2 525 22 R 85
CAMPUS DR 036 AVENIDA DR PARNASSUS RD 2 540 22 R 93
CAMPUS DR 037 PARNASSUS RD DEAD END, U C PLOT 82 2 760 19 R 93 CANYON RD 080 PANORAMIC WAY RIM ROAD (UC CAMPUS) 2 275 30 R 97 CANYON RD 085 RIM ROAD (UC CAMPUS) DEAD END 2 583 15 R 97 CAPISTRANO AVE 050 PERALTA AVE THE ALAMEDA 2 2645 26 R 38 CAPISTRANO AVE 060 THE ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA AVE 2 340 19 R 74 CARLETON ST 070 FULTON ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 1720 36 R 16
CARLETON ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 665 42 R 24 CARLETON ST 042 MATHEWS ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 1912 36 R 28 CARLETON ST 078 TELEGRAPH AVE DEAD END ABOVE TELEGRAPH
A 2 160 27 R 29
CARLETON ST 050 7TH ST SAN PABLO 2 1330 36 R 33
CARLETON ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2540 36 R 35 CARLETON ST 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 675 42 R 57
CARLETON ST 065 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 622 36 R 60
CARLETON ST 040 5TH ST 7TH ST 2 615 36 R 77
CARLETON ST 030 3RD ST 5TH ST 2 630 36 NCR 80

70 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 7 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
CARLETON ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE MATHEWS ST 2 500 36 R 82
CARLOTTA AVE 020 POSEN AVE HOPKINS ST 2 865 36 R 71
CARLOTTA AVE 030 HOPKINS ST ROSE ST 2 880 30 R 73
CARRISON ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST 2 1528 36 R 73
CATALINA AVE 050 COLUSA AVE THE ALAMEDA 2 980 27 R 97
CATHERINE DR 030 KEONCREST DR (N) KEONCREST DR (S) 2 410 25 R 20 CEDAR ST 078 END W/O LA VEREDA LA VEREDA 2 105 12 R 19
CEDAR ST 020 EAST FRONTAGE RD (STATE P/L) 4TH ST 2 925 36 A 23 CEDAR ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2600 40 C 24 CEDAR ST 025 4TH ST 6TH ST 2 670 43 A 42
CEDAR ST 070 SPRUCE ST EUCLID AVE 2 1380 35 C 70
CEDAR ST 075 EUCLID AVE LA LOMA AVE 2 920 34 C 74
CEDAR ST 065 OXFORD ST SPRUCE ST 2 335 36 C 86
CEDAR ST 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 660 36 C 90
CEDAR ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 665 36 C 91 CEDAR ST 045 CHESTNUT ST ACTON ST 2 1140 37 C 93
CEDAR ST 064 SHATTUCK AVE OXFORD ST 2 635 38 C 93
CEDAR ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE CHESTNUT ST 2 1485 37 C 95
CEDAR ST 049 ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 665 34 C 95
CEDAR ST 030 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1650 37 C 100
CEDARWOOD LANE 030 HARRISON ST PARK WAY 2 330 36 R 0
CENTER ST 064 SHATTUCK AVE OXFORD ST 2 620 47 R 64
CENTER ST 062 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 730 47 R 100
CENTER ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 670 53 R 100 CHABOLYN TERRACE 080 SOUTH CITY LIMIT SOUTH CITY LIMIT 2 420 26 R 90 CHANNING WAY 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 670 36 R 17 CHANNING WAY 057 ROOSEVELT AVE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 1000 36 R 18 CHANNING WAY 084 PIEDMONT AVE PROSPECT ST 2 630 36 R 30 CHANNING WAY 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 710 36 R 30
CHANNING WAY 050 SACRAMENTO ST ROOSEVELT AVE 2 1620 36 R 34 CHANNING WAY 040 SAN PABLO AVE SACRAMENTO ST 2 2775 36 R 50 CHANNING WAY 038 10TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 330 36 R 56
CHANNING WAY 030 6TH ST 10TH ST 2 1397 36 R 69
CHANNING WAY 078 BOWDITCH ST COLLEGE AVE 2 670 37 R 76
CHANNING WAY 080 COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE 2 630 36 R 78 CHANNING WAY 075 DANA ST BOWDITCH ST 2 1340 40 R 78
CHANNING WAY 020 3RD ST 6TH ST 2 935 36 R 87
CHANNING WAY 070 FULTON ST DANA ST 2 1340 36 R 93
CHANNING WAY 066 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 560 36 R 93
CHAUCER ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE CURTIS ST 2 550 30 R 21
CHERRY ST 065 STUART ST RUSSELL ST 2 500 36 R 85
CHESTNUT ST 035 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 350 34 R 20
CHESTNUT ST 044 VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 1620 36 R 24 CHESTNUT ST 042 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 650 36 R 39
CHILTON WAY 060 BLAKE ST PARKER ST 2 335 30 R 27
CLAREMONT AVE 065 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 425 56 C 24

71 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 8 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
CLAREMONT AVE 060 EAST CITY LIMIT NR GARBER RD RUSSELL AVE 2 600 38 C 27 CLAREMONT AVE 070 ASHBY AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT (ALCATRAZ) 4 2985 56 C 54 CLAREMONT BLVD 060 DERBY ST CUL-DE-SAC 2 560 40 R 32
CLAREMONT BLVD 065 BELROSE AVE CLAREMONT AVE 2 875 37 C 94

CLAREMONT
CRESCEN 070 CLAREMONT AVE ASHBY AVE 2 410 24 R 90
CODORNICES RD 030 DEAD END (EUCLID AVE) EUCLID AVE 2 600 15 R 72 COLBY ST 070 ASHBY AVE WEBSTER ST. 2 299 36 R 52
COLBY ST 080 WEBSTER ST. END 2 385 32 R 80
COLLEGE AVE 060 DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST (S) 2 1430 36 A 40
COLLEGE AVE 070 ASHBY AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT (ALCATRAZ) 2 2155 36 A 42 COLLEGE AVE 065 DERBY ST (S) ASHBY AVE 2 1785 36 A 45
COLLEGE AVE 050 BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1340 36 C 89
COLORADO AVE 065 VERMONT AVE MICHIGAN AVE 2 260 24 R 55 COLORADO AVE 060 BOYNTON AVE VERMONT AVE 2 250 24 R 58
COLUMBIA CIRCLE 080 COLUMBIA PATH FAIRLAWN DR 2 230 21 R 91 COLUSA AVE 025 MONTEREY AVE POSEN AVE 2 1233 36 C 23
COLUSA AVE 026 POSEN AVE HOPKINS ST 2 520 36 C 25
COLUSA AVE 010 NORTH CITY LIMIT (VISALIA) SOLANO AVE 2 3565 36 C 37 COLUSA AVE 022 MARIN AVE MONTEREY AVE 2 870 46 C 56
COLUSA AVE 020 SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE 2 670 46 C 73
COMSTOCK CT 035 JAYNES ST CEDAR ST 2 300 24 R 80
CONTRA COSTA AVE 010 YOSEMITE RD SOLANO AVE 2 2375 20 R 89 CONTRA COSTA AVE 018 SOLANO AVE LOS ANGELES AVE 2 185 25 R 95 CORNELL AVE 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST 2 765 30 R 46 CORNELL AVE 036 PAGE ST HOPKINS ST 2 695 30 R 72
CORNELL AVE 035 GILMAN ST PAGE ST 2 1000 30 R 74
CORNELL AVE 039 HOPKINS ST CEDAR ST 2 345 29 R 98
CORNELL AVE 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 660 30 R 98
CORONA CT 070 ARCH ST DEAD END (ARCH ST) 2 320 24 R 50
COWPER ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE BYRON ST 2 370 30 R 91
CRAGMONT AVE 010 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD MARIN AVE 2 4100 22 C 38 CRAGMONT AVE 027 BRET HARTE RD SHASTA RD 2 1625 21 R 85 CRAGMONT AVE 021 MARIN AVE SANTA BARBARA RD 2 1110 23 R 87 CRAGMONT AVE 023 SANTA BARBARA RD EUCLID AVE 2 830 22 R 87 CRAGMONT AVE 025 EUCLID AVE BRET HARTE RD 2 1420 20 R 88 CRESTON RD 020 SUNSET LANE GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD (S) 2 2699 22 R 57 CRESTON RD 010 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD (N) SUNSET LANE 2 1910 22 R 61 CRYSTAL WAY 020 EUCLID AVE (WEST) EUCLID AVE (EAST) 1 80 24 R 37 CURTIS ST 038 HOPKINS ST CEDAR ST 2 370 30 R 11
CURTIS ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE DWIGHT WAY 2 2990 36 R 14
CURTIS ST 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 660 30 R 16
CURTIS ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT HOPKINS ST 2 2400 29 R 28 CURTIS ST 045 VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 1615 36 R 66 CYPRESS ST 031 ROSE ST BUENA AVE 2 325 26 R 81
DANA ST 050 BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1320 36 R 47
DANA ST 060 DWIGHT WAY BLAKE ST 2 330 36 R 56

72 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 9 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
DANA ST 065 BLAKE ST WARD ST 2 1320 36 R 61
DANA ST 070 WEBSTER ST CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY ST) 2 765 32 R 70 DEAKIN ST 075 PRINCE ST CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY ST) 2 385 36 R 79 DEAKIN ST 070 ASHBY AVE PRINCE ST 2 820 36 R 89
DEAKIN ST 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 525 36 R 100
DEL MAR AVE 085 GLENDALE AVE CAMPUS DR 2 480 24 R 12
DEL MAR AVE 083 BUENA VISTA WAY GLENDALE AVE 2 795 21 R 22 DEL NORTE CT 020 DEL NORTE ST DEAD END (DEL NORTE ST) 2 110 12 R 74 DEL NORTE ST 020 THE CIRCLE SUTTER ST 2 690 28 C 91
DELAWARE ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST 2 2435 48 C 28
DELAWARE ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 665 34 R 38 DELAWARE ST 063 MILVIA ST WALNUT ST 2 975 34 R 40
DELAWARE ST 048 ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 665 48 C 57
DELAWARE ST 030 6TH ST 9TH ST 2 955 48 C 76
DELAWARE ST 035 9TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 670 48 C 76
DELAWARE ST 052 DEAD END WEST OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA ST 2 375 36 R 93 DELAWARE ST 055 CALIFORNIA ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2000 36 R 97 DERBY ST 070 FULTON ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 1630 36 R 15
DERBY ST 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 633 42 R 16
DERBY ST 075 TELEGRAPH AVE HILLEGASS AVE (S) 2 860 38 R 19 DERBY ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2510 36 R 20 DERBY ST 065 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 675 36 R 22
DERBY ST 078 HILLEGASS AVE (S) COLLEGE AVE 2 760 36 R 23 DERBY ST 082 PIEDMONT AVE WARRING ST 2 322 37 R 27
DERBY ST 080 COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE 2 653 37 R 31
DERBY ST 045 MABEL ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 1311 36 R 32
DERBY ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 665 42 R 86 DERBY ST 085 WARRING ST BELROSE AVE &
TANGLEWOOD R 2 1205 36 A 95
DERBY ST 042 SAN PABLO AVE MATHEWS ST 2 455 36 R 97
DERBY ST 044 MATHEWS ST MABEL ST 2 608 36 R 97
DOHR ST 065 WARD ST RUSSELL ST 2 1170 36 R 19
DOHR ST 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 489 22 R 21
DOHR ST 070 ASHBY AVE PRINCE ST 2 764 26 R 100
DOMINGO AVE 068 CITY LIMIT NR RUSSELL ST TUNNEL RD 2 220 40 R 39 DOMINGO AVE 070 TUNNEL RD THE PLAZA DR 2 1130 40 R 73
DOVER ST 075 ALCATRAZ AVE CITY LIMIT (63RD ST) 2 130 32 R 21 DOWLING PL 070 TELEGRAPH AVE DANA ST 2 385 36 R 84
DURANT AVE 060 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 710 47 C 15
DURANT AVE 064 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 530 48 C 29
DURANT AVE 070 FULTON ST BOWDITCH ST 2 2650 48 C 52
DURANT AVE 078 BOWDITCH ST COLLEGE AVE 2 670 48 C 64
DURANT AVE 080 COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE 2 640 33 C 67
DWIGHT CRESCENT 055 6TH ST 7TH ST 2 420 45 C 98
DWIGHT WAY 020 4TH ST 6TH ST 2 650 36 C 12
DWIGHT WAY 083 PIEDMONT AVE HILLSIDE AVE 2 765 36 R 14
DWIGHT WAY 085 HILLSIDE AVE DEAD END ABOVE HILLSIDE
AVE 2 590 36 R 18

73 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 10 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
DWIGHT WAY 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2615 39 A 23 DWIGHT WAY 030 6TH ST 7TH ST 2 310 36 C 30
DWIGHT WAY 032 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1350 36 A 43
DWIGHT WAY 064 MILVIA WAY SHATTUCK AVE 2 710 38 A 57
DWIGHT WAY 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 665 36 A 59 DWIGHT WAY 073 DANA ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 670 40 A 79
DWIGHT WAY 070 FULTON ST DANA ST 2 1325 40 A 85
DWIGHT WAY 075 TELEGRAPH AVE BOWDITCH ST 2 660 36 A 86
DWIGHT WAY 066 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 600 40 A 91
DWIGHT WAY 080 COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE 2 775 36 A 93
DWIGHT WAY 078 BOWDITCH ST COLLEGE AVE 2 660 36 A 93
DWIGHT WAY 040 SAN PABLO AVE SACRAMENTO ST 2 2430 36 A 95 DWIGHT WAY 090 PANORAMIC WAY EAST CITY LIMIT 2 100 28 R 97 EAST BOLIVAR DR 050 ADDISON ST DEAD END NR CHANNING 2 1800 24 R 29 EAST FRONTAGE RD 040 GILMAN ST HEARST AVE 2 3696 34 C 30 EAST FRONTAGE RD 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST 2 1350 32 C 43 EAST PARNASSUS CT 080 PARNASSUS RD DEAD END (PARNASSUS RD) 2 210 22 R 93 EDITH ST 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 638 30 R 55
EDITH ST 030 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 1295 32 R 71
EDWARDS ST 055 BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1330 36 R 56
EL CAMINO REAL 070 DOMINGO AVE THE UPLANDS 2 1840 24 R 86 EL CAMINO REAL 075 THE UPLANDS DEAD END ABOVE THE
UPLANDS 2 485 24 R 87
EL DORADO AVE 060 THE ALAMEDA SUTTER ST 2 1290 33 R 25
EL PORTAL CT 030 DEAD END (LA LOMA AVE) LA LOMA AVE 2 250 18 R 10 ELLIS ST 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 650 37 R 47
ELLIS ST 070 ASHBY AVE ALCATRAZ AVE 2 2005 37 R 78
ELLSWORTH ST 050 BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1320 36 R 22 ELLSWORTH ST 062 CARLETON ST WARD ST 2 620 42 R 87
ELLSWORTH ST 060 DWIGHT WAY CARLETON ST 2 1000 36 R 90
ELLSWORTH ST 065 WARD ST ASHBY AVE 2 1520 42 R 92
ELMWOOD AVE 080 ASHBY AVE & ASHBY PL PIEDMONT AVE 2 570 34 R 20 ELMWOOD CT 070 ASHBY AVE DEAD END (ASHBY AVE) 2 270 32 R 76 EMERSON ST 065 SHATTUCK AVE WHEELER ST 2 575 36 R 24
EMERSON ST 060 ADELINE ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 805 36 R 55
ENCINA PL 070 THE PLAZA DR THE UPLANDS 2 350 40 R 93
ENSENADA AVE 020 SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE 2 545 36 R 27
ENSENADA AVE 010 PERALTA AVE SOLANO AVE 2 2255 27 R 62
EOLA ST 040 VIRGINIA ST FRANCISCO ST 2 325 22 R 28
ESSEX ST 064 SHATTUCK AVE WHEELER ST 2 585 36 R 26
ESSEX ST 062 TREMONT ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 580 36 R 61
ESSEX ST 060 ADELINE ST TREMONT ST 2 340 36 R 68
ETNA ST 062 DWIGHT WAY PARKER ST 2 665 36 R 29
ETNA ST 064 PARKER ST DERBY ST 2 665 36 R 31
ETON AVE 070 WOOLSEY ST CLAREMONT AVE 2 750 36 R 86
ETON CT 070 CLAREMONT AVE DEAD END (CLAREMONT AVE) 2 150 25 R 25 EUCALYPTUS RD 070 HILLCREST RD SOUTH CITY LIMIT 2 440 25 R 56

74 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 11 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
EUCLID AVE 032 BAYVIEW PL CEDAR ST 2 1890 34 C 28
EUCLID AVE 040 CEDAR ST HEARST AVE 2 1625 35 C 41
EUCLID AVE 015 MARIN AVE REGAL RD 2 600 32 R 73
EUCLID AVE 020 REGAL RD CRAGMONT AVE 2 1475 40 C 74
EUCLID AVE 010 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD MARIN AVE 2 3054 32 C 77 EUCLID AVE 024 CRAGMONT AVE BEG OF DIVIDED ROAD 2 650 41 R 77 EUCLID AVE 028 END OF DIVIDED ROAD EUNICE ST 2 900 42 R 83 EUCLID AVE 030 EUNICE ST BAYVIEW PL 2 870 36 C 100
EUCLID AVE (NB) 026 BEG OF DIVIDED ROAD END OF DIVIDED ROAD 2 850 18 R 82 EUCLID AVE (SB) 027 BEG OF DIVIDED ROAD END OF DIVIDED ROAD 2 845 31 R 81 EUNICE ST 070 SPRUCE ST EUCLID AVE 2 1235 35 R 26
EUNICE ST 064 HENRY ST SPRUCE ST 2 1370 34 R 39
EUNICE ST 060 MILVIA ST CUL-DE-SAC 2 225 36 R 93
EVELYN AVE 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT SANTA FE AVE 2 980 30 R 90 FAIRLAWN DR 038 AVENIDA DR OLYMPUS DR 2 615 23 R 46
FAIRLAWN DR 030 QUEENS RD AVENIDA DR 2 2575 21 R 93
FAIRVIEW ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST ADELINE ST 2 2145 36 R 23 FAIRVIEW ST 060 ADELINE ST CITY LIMIT (DOVER ST) 2 530 36 R 27 FAIRVIEW ST 047 BAKER ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 630 36 R 73
FLORANCE ST 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 530 36 R 30
FLORIDA AVE 060 SANTA BARBARA RD DEAD END (FLORIDA WALK) 2 400 26 R 82 FOLGER AVE 024 HOLLIS ST 7TH ST 2 365 42 C 86
FOLGER AVE 025 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1325 42 C 87
FOLGER AVE 020 WEST END HOLLIS ST 2 365 42 R 97
FOREST AVE 080 COLLEGE AVE CLAREMONT BLVD 2 1875 36 R 39 FORREST LANE 073 GRIZZY PARK CRESTON RD 2 337 22 R 18
FORREST LANE 072 KEELER AVE GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 2 615 22 R 22 FORREST LANE 070 HILLDALE AVE KEELER AVE 2 520 19 R 38
FRANCISCO ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE CHESTNUT ST 2 1370 30 R 19 FRANCISCO ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2610 36 R 21 FRANCISCO ST 045 CHESTNUT ST DEAD END 2 1130 30 R 25
FRANCISCO ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 670 36 R 27 FRANCISCO ST 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 670 36 R 28
FRANKLIN ST 042 CEDAR ST FRANCISCO ST 2 1025 38 R 80
FRANKLIN ST 044 FRANCISCO ST HEARST AVE 2 745 38 R 87
FRESNO AVE 022 MARIN AVE SONOMA AVE 2 1310 36 R 33
FRESNO AVE 020 SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE 2 900 36 R 45
FULTON ST 060 DWIGHT WAY BLAKE ST 2 312 36 R 54
FULTON ST 063 PARKER ST STUART ST 2 1318 36 R 54
FULTON ST 061 BLAKE ST PARKER ST 2 348 36 R 63
FULTON ST 070 ASHBY ST PRINCE ST 2 810 36 R 75
FULTON ST 048 KITTREDGE ST BANCROFT WAY 4 315 67 A 83
FULTON ST 065 STUART ST ASHBY AVE 2 1166 36 R 85
FULTON ST 050 BANCROFT WAY DURANT AVE 2 330 54 A 90
FULTON ST 052 DURANT AVE DWIGHT WAY 2 990 36 A 90
GARBER ST 085 WEST END OAK KNOLL TERRACE 2 550 22 R 32

75 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 12 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
GARBER ST 080 COLLEGE AVE EAST END 2 1010 36 R 33
GARBER ST 088 BELROSE AVE EAST CITY LIMIT
(TANGLEWOOD) 2 450 24 R 36
GILMAN ST 035 8TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 995 48 A 38
GILMAN ST 045 SANTA FE AVE HOPKINS ST 2 1595 36 A 43
GILMAN ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE SANTA FE AVE 2 1445 38 A 48 GILMAN ST 015 ENTRANCE OF FWY 2ND ST 2 700 62 R 59
GILMAN ST 024 3RD ST (RR TRACKS) 6TH ST 2 1000 48 A 59
GILMAN ST 020 2ND ST 3RD ST (RR TRACKS) 2 485 48 A 70
GILMAN ST 030 6TH ST 8TH ST 2 655 48 A 74
GLEN AVE 033 CORNER BETWEEN
SUMMER/ARCH SPRUCE ST 2 380 23 R 12
GLEN AVE 030 EUNICE ST CORNER BETWEEN
SUMMER/ARC 2 620 22 R 14
GLEN AVE 020 OAK ST EUNICE ST 2 510 28 R 90
GLENDALE AVE 034 LA LOMA AVE DEL MAR AVE 2 675 22 R 31
GLENDALE AVE 030 CAMPUS DR LA LOMA AVE 2 640 32 C 88
GRANT ST 042 VIRGINIA ST FRANCISCO ST 2 318 36 R 25
GRANT ST 060 DWIGHT WAY OREGON ST 2 2266 36 R 33
GRANT ST 053 ADDISON ST ALLSTON WAY 2 665 42 R 43
GRANT ST 061 N. END RUSSELL ST 2 196 36 R 43
GRANT ST 057 BANCROFT WAY CHANNING WAY 2 670 42 R 45
GRANT ST 041 LINCOLN ST VIRGINIA ST 2 320 36 R 48
GRANT ST 030 NORTH END ROSE ST 2 310 36 R 54
GRANT ST 040 CEDAR ST LINCOLN ST 2 318 36 R 56
GRANT ST 032 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 1325 36 R 65
GRANT ST 048 HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE 2 600 36 R 78
GRANT ST 059 CHANNING WAY DWIGHT 2 665 42 R 83
GRANT ST 055 ALLSTON WAY BANCROFT WAY 2 670 42 R 90
GRANT ST 051 UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST 2 335 42 R 93
GRANT ST 044 FRANCISCO ST OHLONE PARK 2 525 36 R 97
GRAYSON ST 020 3RD ST (WEST END) SAN PABLO AVE 2 2568 36 R 70

GREENWOOD
TERRACE 030 ROSE ST BUENA VISTA WAY 2 850 17 R 21
GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 015 EUCLID AVE KEELER AVE 2 1250 30 C 19 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 017 KEELER AVE MARIN AVE 2 1400 33 C 19 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 010 NORTH CITY LIMIT (SPRUCE ST) EUCLID AVE 2 1050 35 C 24 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 035 HILL RD EAST CITY LIMIT 2 2515 32 C 51 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 029 SHASTA RD (S) ARCADE AVE 2 1065 32 C 76 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 020 MARIN AVE SHASTA RD (S) 2 4065 34 C 88 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 032 ARCADE AVE (EXTENTION OF EUNICE) HILL RD 2 785 32 C 94
HALCYON CT 070 WEBSTER ST PRINCE ST 2 460 57 R 89
HALKIN LANE 070 SPRUCE ST CRAGMONT AVE 2 515 22 R 52
HARDING CIRCLE 030 OLYMPUS AVE END 2 65 38 R 48
HARMON ST 045 IDAHO ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 1025 36 R 15
HARMON ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST ADELINE ST 2 1985 36 R 67
HAROLD WAY 050 ALLSTON WAY KITTREDGE ST 2 325 36 R 53
HARPER ST 070 ASHBY AVE WOOLSEY ST 2 935 36 R 64
HARPER ST 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 665 36 R 70
HARPER ST 072 WOOLSEY ST FAIRVIEW ST 2 306 36 R 78

76 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 13 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
HARRISON ST 020 EASTSHORE HWY 2ND ST 2 270 49 R 48
HARRISON ST 022 3RD ST 6TH ST 2 935 34 R 73
HARRISON ST 030 6TH ST 8TH ST 2 645 35 R 78
HARRISON ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE STANNAGE AVE 2 495 36 R 83 HARRISON ST 034 8TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 990 35 R 84
HARVARD CIRCLE 030 FAIRLAWN DR & SENIOR AVE FAIRLAWN DR 2 100 30 R 38 HASKELL ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST 2 1505 36 R 77
HASTE ST 060 FULTON ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 580 36 A 29
HASTE ST 070 BOWDITCH ST FULTON ST 2 2680 40 A 35
HASTE ST 078 COLLEGE AVE BODWITCH ST 2 670 39 A 41
HASTE ST 080 PIEDMONT AVE COLLEGE AVE 2 650 36 A 43
HASTE ST 065 MILVIA ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 670 36 A 76 HASTE ST 063 SHATTUCK AVE MILVIA ST 2 705 36 A 83

HAWTHORNE
TERRACE 030 LE ROY AVE EUCLID AVE 2 365 24 R 62

HAWTHORNE
TERRACE 035 EUCLID AVE CEDAR ST 2 1465 24 R 87
HAZEL RD 090 CLAREMONT AVE DOMINGO AVE 2 830 30 R 85
HEARST AVE 030 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1650 36 C 25
HEARST AVE 045 ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 676 36 R 26
HEARST AVE 040 SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST 2 2350 36 R 29
HEARST AVE 020 EAST FRONTAGE RD (STATE P/L) 6TH ST 2 1515 48 C 33 HEARST AVE 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 670 34 A 47 HEARST AVE 052 SACRAMENTO ST CALIFORNIA ST 2 600 36 C 67 HEARST AVE 055 MC GEE AVE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 1355 36 C 68 HEARST AVE 054 CALIFORNIA ST MC GEE AVE 2 660 36 C 71
HEARST AVE 078 HIGHLAND PL DEAD END (COP @ CL) 2 140 23 R 82 HEARST AVE 077 LA LOMA AVE HIGHLAND PL 2 340 35 A 83
HEARST AVE 064 HENRY ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 330 55 A 93
HEARST AVE 065 SHATTUCK AVE WALNUT ST 2 325 57 A 93
HEARST AVE 067 WALNUT ST OXFORD ST 2 355 57 A 93
HEARST AVE 068 OXFORD ST SPRUCE ST 2 250 58 A 93
HEARST AVE 070 SPRUCE ST ARCH ST 2 425 56 A 93
HEARST AVE 075 EUCLID AVE LA LOMA AVE 2 975 39 A 93
HEARST AVE 062 MILVIA ST HENRY ST 2 335 46 A 100
HEARST AVE (EB) 072 ARCH ST EUCLID AVE 2 1160 20 A 95
HEARST AVE (WB) 073 EUCLID AVE ARCH ST 2 1160 23 A 95
HEINZ AVE 040 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1368 36 R 22
HEINZ AVE 030 3RD ST (WEST END) 7TH ST 2 1197 36 R 83
HENRY ST 030 EUNICE ST ROSE ST 2 1375 62 A 36
HENRY ST 045 HEARST AVE BERKELEY WAY 2 335 34 R 73
HENRY ST 034 ROSE ST VINE ST 2 660 36 R 97
HENRY ST 035 VINE ST CEDAR ST 2 655 36 R 97
HIGH COURT 020 DEAD END OAK ST 2 645 24 R 26
HIGHLAND PL 040 NORTH END RIDGE RD 2 215 15 R 5
HIGHLAND PL 042 RIDGE RD HEARST AVE 2 345 36 R 97
HILGARD AVE 070 ARCH ST SCENIC AVE 2 440 36 R 61
HILGARD AVE 072 SCENIC AVE EUCLID AVE 2 595 36 R 81

77 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 14 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
HILGARD AVE 074 EUCLID AVE LA LOMA AVE 2 1050 35 R 88
HILGARD AVE 078 LA LOMA AVE LA VEREDA 2 490 17 R 93
HILGARD AVE 080 LA VEREDA DEAD END 2 220 24 R 97
HILL CT 070 EUCLID AVE DEAD END (EUCLID AVE) 2 310 15 R 100 HILL RD 025 SHASTA RD DEAD END 2 575 18 R 9
HILL RD 030 DEAD END NR AJAX LANE GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD (SOUTH) 2 945 20 R 22 HILLCREST CT 070 THE FOOTWAY HILLCREST RD 2 190 20 R 47 HILLCREST RD 088 ROANOK RD DEAD END ABOVE ROANOK RD 2 390 24 R 30 HILLCREST RD 080 CLAREMONT AVE ROANOK RD 2 3150 25 R 45 HILLDALE AVE 020 MARIN AVE REGAL RD 2 1265 20 R 17
HILLDALE AVE 010 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD MARIN AVE 2 1870 21 R 20 HILLEGASS AVE 060 DWIGHT WAY ASHBY AVE 2 3200 36 R 67
HILLEGASS AVE 070 ASHBY AVE CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY ST) 2 855 36 R 75 HILLSIDE AVE 050 PROSPECT ST DWIGHT WAY 2 760 30 R 90
HILLSIDE CT 050 DEAD END (HILLSIDE AVE) HILLSIDE AVE 2 290 16 R 95 HILLVIEW RD 020 WOODSIDE RD PARK HILLS RD 2 1265 22 R 88 HOLLIS ST 070 FOLGER AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT 2 175 43 C 74 HOLLY ST 030 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 910 36 R 7
HOPKINS CT 020 ALBINA AVE HOPKINS ST 2 570 25 R 87
HOPKINS ST 047 GILMAN ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 530 36 R 29
HOPKINS ST 060 THE ALAMEDA SUTTER ST 2 1375 60 C 30
HOPKINS ST 050 HOPKINS CT MONTEREY AVE 2 250 36 C 41
HOPKINS ST 055 CARLOTTA AVE JOSEPHINE ST 2 1525 45 C 41 HOPKINS ST 049 SACRAMENTO ST HOPKINS CT 2 200 36 A 45
HOPKINS ST 053 MC GEE AVE CARLOTTA AVE 2 320 45 C 45
HOPKINS ST 052 MONTEREY AVE MC GEE AVE 2 250 40 C 46
HOPKINS ST 059 JOSEPHINE ST THE ALAMEDA 2 335 60 C 49
HOPKINS ST 046 PERALTA AVE GILMAN ST 2 1442 36 R 51
HOPKINS ST 042 STANNAGE AVE NORTHSIDE AVE 2 915 40 R 69 HOPKINS ST 045 NORTHSIDE AVE PERALTA AVE 2 545 35 R 72
HOPKINS ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE STANNAGE AVE 2 500 40 R 74 HOWE ST 070 ELLSWORTH ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 545 36 R 23
IDAHO ST 072 66TH ST ALCATRAZ AVE 2 823 36 R 18
IDAHO ST 076 ALCATRAZ AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT 2 135 36 R 85 INDIAN ROCK AVE 064 SAN LUIS RD SANTA BARBARA RD 2 565 30 R 20 INDIAN ROCK AVE 062 ARLINGTON AVE SAN LUIS RD 2 1600 30 R 51 JAYNES ST 050 CALIFORNIA ST EDITH ST 2 990 36 R 91
JEFFERSON AVE 050 UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST 2 335 24 R 35 JEFFERSON AVE 052 ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 2000 39 R 35 JONES ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE STANNAGE AVE 2 505 36 R 66
JONES ST 030 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1650 36 R 68
JONES ST 020 EASTSHORE HWY 2ND ST 2 280 37 R 97
JONES ST 025 4TH ST 6TH ST 2 685 36 R 97
JOSEPHINE ST 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 660 36 R 30
JOSEPHINE ST 036 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 1320 36 R 67
JOSEPHINE ST 032 HOPKINS ST ROSE ST 2 1290 36 R 82

78 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 15 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
JOSEPHINE ST 020 THE ALAMEDA HOPKINS ST 2 575 36 R 97
JUANITA WAY 035 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 595 25 R 29
JULIA ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST KING ST 2 1415 36 R 80
KAINS AVE 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 660 30 R 72
KAINS AVE 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT HOPKINS ST 2 2730 30 R 86 KALA BAGAI WAY 052 ADDISON ST CENTER ST 2 330 48 A 100
KALA BAGAI WAY 050 UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST 3 356 50 A 100 KEELER AVE 020 MARIN AVE MILLER AVE 2 1025 19 R 14
KEELER AVE 023 MILLER AVE POPPY LANE 2 600 18 R 18
KEELER AVE 025 STERLING AVE BRET HARTE RD 2 400 20 R 46 KEELER AVE 027 BRET HARTE RD SHASTA RD 2 1760 25 R 55
KEELER AVE 010 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD MARIN AVE 2 1350 20 R 89 KEITH AVE 020 SPRUCE ST EUCLID AVE 2 1472 22 C 75
KEITH AVE 025 EUCLID AVE SHASTA RD 2 2570 25 C 80
KELSEY ST 060 STUART ST RUSSELL ST 2 500 36 R 80
KENTUCKY AVE 010 VASSAR AVE MARYLAND AVE 2 475 26 R 55
KENTUCKY AVE (NB) 015 MARYLAND AVE MICHIGAN AVE 2 840 15 R 48 KENTUCKY AVE (SB) 020 MICHIGAN AVE MARYLAND AVE 2 840 15 R 50 KEONCREST DR 040 ROSE ST ACTON ST 2 950 25 R 24
KING ST 075 FAIRVIEW ST SOUTH CITY LIMIT (62ND ST) 2 1500 37 R 75 KING ST 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 635 37 R 77
KING ST 070 ASHBY AVE FAIRVIEW ST 2 1325 37 R 78
KITTREDGE ST 066 SHATTUCK AVE FUTON ST 2 440 32 R 17
KITTREDGE ST 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 705 36 R 27
LA LOMA AVE 036 END PCC BUENA VISTA WAY 2 630 28 C 30
LA LOMA AVE 038 BUENA VISTA WAY CEDAR ST 2 765 32 C 34
LA LOMA AVE 045 VIRGINIA ST LA CONTE 2 273 25 C 40
LA LOMA AVE 050 LA CONTE HEARST AVE 2 729 36 C 52
LA LOMA AVE 030 GLENDALE AVE EL PORTAL CT 2 250 36 C 71 LA LOMA AVE 032 EL PORTAL CT QUARRY RD 2 155 35 C 77
LA LOMA AVE 034 START PCC END PCC 2 575 27 C 79
LA LOMA AVE 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 660 34 C 84
LA VEREDA RD 030 LA LOMA AVE CEDAR ST 2 550 18 R 80
LA VEREDA RD 040 CEDAR ST DEAD END ABOVE VIRGINIA ST 2 820 18 R 93 LASSEN ST 020 MARIN AVE EL DORADO AVE 2 370 32 R 44
LATHAM LANE 080 MILLER AVE GRIZZLY PEAK 2 485 21 R 45
LATHAM LANE 083 CRESTON RD OVERLOOK RD 2 275 23 R 70
LAUREL LN 010 CAPISTRANO AVE SAN PEDRO AVE 2 500 20 R 32 LAUREL ST 020 OAK ST EUNICE ST 2 510 32 R 37
LE CONTE AVE 074 SCENIC AVE EAST END 2 2147 36 R 80
LE CONTE AVE 072 ARCH ST & HEARST AVE SCENIC AVE 2 746 32 R 90 LE ROY AVE 044 CUL-DE-SAC RIDGE RD 2 805 35 R 26
LE ROY AVE 032 ROSE ST HAWTHORNE TERRACE 2 390 30 R 51
LE ROY AVE 040 CEDAR ST HILGARD AVE 2 375 34 R 84
LE ROY AVE 034 HAWTHORNE TERRACE CEDAR ST 2 1235 30 R 92 LE ROY AVE 048 RIDGE RD HEARST AVE 2 350 37 R 93

79 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 16 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
LEWISTON AVE 070 WOOLSEY ST ALCATRAZ AVE 2 880 36 R 87
LINCOLN ST 045 ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 750 24 R 46
LINCOLN ST 040 CHESTNUT ST DEAD END 2 440 36 R 47
LINCOLN ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST GRANT ST 2 1935 36 R 87
LINCOLN ST 060 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 665 32 R 93
LINDEN AVE 070 ASHBY AVE WEBSTER ST 2 660 27 R 31
LORINA ST 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 550 30 R 55
LOS ANGELES AVE 060 THE ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA AVE 2 420 48 R 39 LOS ANGELES AVE 065 THE CIRCLE SPRUCE ST 2 1755 30 C 74 LOS ANGELES AVE 065 CONTRA COSTA AVE THE CIRCLE 2 845 24 R 76 MABEL ST 062 PARKER ST DERBY ST 2 650 36 R 21
MABEL ST 060 DWIGHT WAY PARKER ST 2 645 36 R 31
MABEL ST 065 WARD ST RUSSELL ST 2 1197 36 R 31
MABEL ST 064 DERBY ST WARD ST 2 295 36 R 33
MABEL ST 067 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 523 36 R 33
MABEL ST 070 ASHBY ST 66TH ST 2 1248 36 R 74
MADERA ST 050 TULARE AVE COLUSA AVE 2 827 32 R 75
MAGNOLIA ST 070 ASHBY AVE WEBSTER ST 2 660 24 R 40
MARIN AVE 078 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD CRESTON RD 2 330 28 R 19 MARIN AVE 079 CRESTON RD DEAD END (PACIFIC
LUTHERAN) 2 450 30 R 42
MARIN AVE 074 EUCLID AVE GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 2 1078 23 C 45 MARIN AVE 065 THE CIRCLE SPRUCE ST 2 1646 23 C 58
MARIN AVE 070 SPRUCE ST EUCLID AVE 2 1050 23 C 65
MARIN AVE 050 WEST CITY LIMIT (TULARE AVE) THE ALAMEDA 2 1655 60 A 86 MARIN AVE 060 THE ALAMEDA THE CIRCLE 2 1150 60 A 87
MARINA BLVD 010 SPINNAKER WAY UNIVERSITY AVE 2 2250 27 C 39 MARIPOSA AVE 020 LOS ANGELES AVE AMADOR AVE 2 1070 36 R 84

MARTIN LUTHER KING
J 075 63RD ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 520 24 R 35

MARTIN LUTHER KING
J 050 UNIVERSITY AVE ALLSTON WAY 4 1000 60 A 41

MARTIN LUTHER KING
J 030 YOLO AVE CEDAR ST 2 2610 40 A 54

MARTIN LUTHER KING
J 060 DWIGHT WAY ASHBY AVE 4 3383 56 A 54

MARTIN LUTHER KING
J 055 ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY 4 1980 56 A 56

MARTIN LUTHER KING
J 040 CEDAR ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 2955 56 A 64

MARTIN LUTHER KING
J 070 ASHBY AVE WOOLSEY ST & ADELINE ST 2 985 65 A 67

MARTIN LUTHER KING
J 078 ADELINE ST SOUTH CITY LIMIT 3 335 72 A 71
MARYLAND AVE 060 VERMONT AVE KENTUCKY AVE 2 635 26 R 50 MASONIC AVE 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT SANTA FE AVE 2 480 30 R 88 MATHEWS ST 060 DWIGHT WAY PARKER ST 2 645 36 R 17
MATHEWS ST 063 PARKER ST WARD ST 2 954 36 R 20
MATHEWS ST 066 WARD ST RUSSELL ST 2 1208 36 R 29
MC GEE AVE 035 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 1105 36 R 14
MC GEE AVE 050 UNIVERSITY AVE DWIGHT WAY 2 3005 42 R 32 MC GEE AVE 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 645 36 R 42
MC GEE AVE 043 VIRGINIA ST OHLONE PARK 2 848 36 R 43
MC GEE AVE 065 DERBY ST RUSSELL ST 2 1343 36 R 49
MC GEE AVE 030 HOPKINS ST ROSE ST 2 807 36 R 60

80 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 17 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
MC GEE AVE 060 DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST 2 1350 36 R 60
MC GEE AVE 047 HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE 2 600 36 R 63
MC KINLEY AVE 050 ADDISON ST DWIGHT WAY 2 2670 42 R 41
MENDOCINO AVE 015 ARLINGTON AVE LOS ANGELES AVE 2 1650 24 R 23 MENDOCINO PL 017 MENDOCINO AVE LOS ANGELES AVE 2 110 26 R 25 MENLO PL 050 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD SANTA ROSA AVE 2 490 24 R 93 MENLO PL 055 SANTA ROSA AVE THE ALAMEDA 2 450 24 R 93
MERCED ST 020 MADERA ST SONOMA AVE 2 965 32 R 24
MICHIGAN AVE 010 MARYLAND AVE SPRUCE ST 2 1480 24 R 100 MIDDLEFIELD RD 022 THE CROSSWAYS THE SHORTCUT 2 360 21 R 60 MIDDLEFIELD RD 025 THE SHORTCUT PARK HILLS RD 2 545 21 R 82 MIDDLEFIELD RD 020 DEAD END THE CROSSWAYS 2 415 18 R 86 MILLER AVE 070 POPPY LN SHASTA RD 2 3510 21 R 45
MILVIA ST 034 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 1325 36 R 24
MILVIA ST 040 CEDAR ST HEARST AVE 2 1665 36 C 31
MILVIA ST 025 YOLO AVE EUNICE ST 2 217 32 R 53
MILVIA ST 047 HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE 2 615 40 C 69
MILVIA ST 058 CHANNING WAY BLAKE ST 2 990 36 C 85
MILVIA ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE CENTER ST 2 660 40 C 86
MILVIA ST 052 CENTER ST CHANNING WAY 2 1655 51 C 88
MILVIA ST 030 EUNICE ST BERRYMAN ST 2 670 26 R 90
MILVIA ST 032 BERRYMAN ST ROSE ST 2 665 36 R 90
MILVIA ST 020 HOPKINS ST YOLO AVE 2 435 32 R 91
MILVIA ST 060 BLAKE ST RUSSELL ST 2 2340 36 R 100
MIRAMAR AVE 010 SAN LORENZO AVE CAPISTRANO AVE 2 380 26 R 40 MIRAMONTE CT 030 ADA ST SOUTH DEAD END (ADA ST) 2 180 21 R 71 MODOC ST 020 SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE 2 560 36 R 97
MONTEREY AVE 020 MARIN AVE THE ALAMEDA 2 500 61 C 93
MONTEREY AVE 022 THE ALAMEDA HOPKINS ST 2 3035 48 C 100 MONTROSE RD 060 SAN LUIS RD SANTA BARBARA RD 2 375 23 R 45 MONTROSE RD 065 SANTA BARBARA RD SPRUCE ST 2 640 24 R 51 MOSSWOOD RD 070 PANORAMIC WAY DEAD END ABOVE ARDEN RD 2 800 15 R 97 MUIR WAY 080 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD PARK HILLS RD 2 385 25 R 63 MURRAY ST 030 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1322 29 R 97
MYSTIC ST 080 ROCKWELL ST DEAD END NR ETON CT 2 110 26 R 78 NAPA AVE 060 HOPKINS ST BLOCKADE @ THE ALAMEDA 2 970 32 R 42 NEILSON ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT BARTD 2 890 26 R 14
NEILSON ST 035 BARTD HOPKINS ST 2 1200 26 R 24
NEILSON ST 010 VISALIA AVE SOLANO AVE 2 2635 26 R 71
NEWBURY ST 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 550 30 R 55
NOGALES ST 070 THE PLAZA DR PARKSIDE DR 2 285 40 R 77
NORTH ST 035 NORTH DEAD END (JAYNES ST) JAYNES ST 2 155 24 R 94 NORTH VALLEY ST 050 NORTH DEAD END (ALLSTON) ALLSTON WAY 2 375 23 R 73 NORTHAMPTON AVE 060 SANTA BARBARA RD SPRUCE ST 2 1150 23 R 27 NORTHBRAE TUNNEL 065 CONTRA COSTA AVE DEL NORTE ST 2 1410 24 C 95 NORTHGATE AVE 080 DEAD END (NORTHGATE PATH) SHASTA RD 2 880 21 R 93

81 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 18 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
NORTHSIDE AVE 035 BARTD HOPKINS ST 2 880 30 R 27
NORTHSIDE AVE 030 GILMAN ST BARTD 2 430 30 R 29
OAK KNOLL TERRACE 060 GARBER ST AVALON AVE 2 475 36 R 21 OAK RIDGE RD 070 TUNNEL RD DEAD END (OAK RIDGE STEPS) 2 1200 17 R 81 OAK ST 075 WEST END HIGH CT 2 141 24 R 8
OAK ST 070 ARCH ST GLEN ANE 2 313 24 R 11
OAKVALE AVE 090 CLAREMONT AVE DOMINGO AVE 2 1190 30 R 87 OLYMPUS AVE 035 FAIRLAWN DR DEAD END (U C PLOT 82) 2 760 21 R 20 OLYMPUS AVE 030 AVENIDA DR FAIRLAWN DR 2 825 25 R 31
ORDWAY ST 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT HOPKINS ST 2 1390 36 R 24 ORDWAY ST 035 HOPKINS ST ROSE ST 2 490 26 R 67
OREGON ST 052 CALIFORNIA ST GRANT ST 2 1319 36 R 13
OREGON ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE MABEL ST 2 790 36 R 18
OREGON ST 045 PARK ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 977 36 R 24
OREGON ST 055 GRANT ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 450 36 R 36 OREGON ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 675 42 R 39 OREGON ST 066 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 850 36 R 40
OREGON ST 063 MILVIA ST ADELINE ST 2 560 42 R 60
OREGON ST 064 ADELINE ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 262 42 R 76
OREGON ST 070 FULTON ST REGENT ST 2 2050 36 R 79
OREGON ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST CALIFORNIA ST 2 620 36 R 86 OTIS ST 065 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 700 36 R 40
OVERLOOK RD 020 END NORTH OF THE
CROSSWAYS PARK HILLS RD 2 1715 22 R 60
OXFORD ST 010 INDIAN ROCK AVE MARIN AVE 2 975 23 R 46
OXFORD ST 041 CEDAR ST 161' N/O HEARST AVE 2 1326 43 A 48 OXFORD ST 030 EUNICE ST ROSE ST 2 1350 36 R 50
OXFORD ST 035 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 2 1318 33 A 63
OXFORD ST 048 BERKELEY WAY UNIVERSITY AVE 4 315 69 A 72 OXFORD ST 020 MARIN AVE LOS ANGELES AVE 2 1400 23 R 76
OXFORD ST 025 LOS ANGELES AVE EUNICE ST 2 1170 30 R 79
OXFORD ST 052 UNIVERSITY AVE ADDISON ST 4 350 64 A 80
OXFORD ST 054 ADDISON ST KITTREDGE ST 4 1015 62 A 82
OXFORD ST 045 HEARST AVE BERKELEY WAY 4 290 68 A 83
OXFORD ST 042 161' N/O HEARST AVE HEARST AVE 2 161 43 A 100 PAGE ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE CORNELL AVE 2 765 36 R 43
PAGE ST 035 10TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 335 36 R 54
PAGE ST 030 6TH ST 10TH ST 2 1335 30 R 69
PAGE ST 028 4TH ST 6TH ST 2 637 30 R 71
PAGE ST 020 EAST FRONTAGE RD 2ND ST 2 270 36 R 95
PAGE ST 022 2ND ST RAILROAD TRACKS 2 345 16 R 95
PAGE ST 026 3RD ST 4TH ST 2 330 30 R 97
PALM CT 080 KELSEY ST DEAD END (KELSEY ST) 2 150 25 R 87 PANORAMIC WAY 082 CANYON RD 1ST TURN 2 670 17 R 97
PANORAMIC WAY 084 1ST TURN ARDEN RD 2 1215 15 R 97
PANORAMIC WAY 086 ARDEN RD BEG OF PCC (DWIGHT WAY) 2 342 15 R 97 PANORAMIC WAY 090 END OF PCC EAST CITY LIMIT 2 836 15 R 97

82 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 19 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
PANORAMIC WAY 088 BEG OF PCC (DWIGHT WAY) END OF PCC (#222) 2 517 15 R 98 PARDEE ST 030 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1330 30 R 20
PARK GATE 020 PARK HILLS RD SHASTA RD 2 920 40 R 86
PARK HILLS RD 023 MIDDLEFIELD RD PARK GATE 2 1305 22 R 67 PARK HILLS RD 025 PARK GATE SHASTA RD 2 920 22 R 70
PARK HILLS RD 020 WILDCAT CANYON RD MIDDLEFIELD RD 2 850 22 R 87 PARK ST 065 WARD ST BURNETTE ST 2 1363 36 R 20
PARK WAY 020 3RD ST 4TH ST 2 250 36 R 0
PARKER ST 078 HILLEGASS AVE COLLEGE AVE 2 760 36 R 8
PARKER ST 045 MABEL ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 1320 36 R 20
PARKER ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE MATHEWS ST 2 560 36 R 21
PARKER ST 042 MATHEWS ST MABEL ST 2 560 36 R 21
PARKER ST 074 ELLSWORTH ST DANA ST 2 670 36 R 28
PARKER ST 075 DANA ST HILLEGASS AVE 2 1175 36 R 56
PARKER ST 035 7TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1350 36 R 71
PARKER ST 030 4TH ST 25' W/O 7TH ST 2 975 36 NCR 77
PARKER ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2560 36 R 78 PARKER ST 032 25' W/O 7TH ST 7TH ST 4 25 50 R 78
PARKER ST 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK ST 2 718 42 R 81
PARKER ST 060B 374' E/O MARTIN LUTHER KING
JR W MILVIA WAY 2 291 42 R 85
PARKER ST 066 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 650 36 R 88
PARKER ST 072 FULTON ST ELLSWORTH ST 2 660 36 R 90
PARKER ST 060A MARTIN LUTHER KING 374' E/O MARTIN LUTHER KING JR 2 374 42 R 90
PARKER ST 085 PIEDMONT AVE WARRING ST 2 325 36 R 93
PARKER ST 080 COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE 2 665 36 R 94
PARKSIDE DR 080 ENCINA PL THE PLAZA DR 2 1700 28 R 85
PARNASSUS RD 030 DEL MAR AVE CAMPUS DR 2 1145 24 R 93
PERALTA AVE 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT HOPKINS ST 2 1750 42 R 23 PERALTA AVE 010 COLUSA AVE SOLANO AVE 2 2250 26 R 77
PIEDMONT AVE 070 ASHBY AVE WEBSTER ST 2 660 34 R 32
PIEDMONT AVE 063 DERBY ST STUART ST 2 825 36 R 47
PIEDMONT AVE 065 STUART ST RUSSELL ST 2 455 36 R 60
PIEDMONT AVE 040 AT END OF GAYLEY RD BANCROFT WAY 2 723 46 C 69 PIEDMONT AVE 066 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 325 36 R 76
PIEDMONT AVE 060 BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1392 46 C 82 PIEDMONT AVE 060 DWIGHT WAY PARKER ST 2 622 36 R 93
PIEDMONT AVE 062 PARKER ST DERBY ST 2 708 36 R 93

PIEDMONT
CRESCENT 060 DWIGHT WAY WARRING ST 2 285 56 C 93
PINE AVE 070 ASHBY AVE WEBSTER ST 2 660 26 R 29
PINE AVE 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 325 32 R 45
POE ST 040 BONAR ST DEAD END (BONAR ST) 2 175 30 R 97
POPLAR ST 080 EUCLID AVE HILLDALE AVE 2 575 20 R 23
POPLAR ST 070 CRAGMONT AVE EUCLID AVE 2 545 20 R 26
POPPY LANE 070 HILLDALE AVE KEELER AVE 2 980 22 R 43
PORTLAND AVE 050 WEST CITY LIMIT (NEILSON) COLUSA AVE 2 1250 36 R 60 POSEN AVE 050 WEST CITY LIMIT (MONTEREY) COLUSA AVE 2 683 49 R 28

83 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 20 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
POTTER ST 030 BAY ST I-80 FREEWAY RAMP 2 700 23 A 90
POTTER ST 020 3RD ST (WESTEND) 9TH ST 2 1700 34 R 93
PRINCE ST 070 TELEGRAPH AVE DANA ST 2 406 36 R 40
PRINCE ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2220 36 R 45 PRINCE ST 075 DANA ST BATEMAN ST 2 771 24 R 46
PRINCE ST 045 ACTON ST STANTON ST 2 523 24 R 90
PRINCE ST 080 CLAREMONT AVE COLLEGE AVE 2 1510 36 R 93
PRINCE ST 065 TREMONT ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 601 36 R 95
PRINCE ST 067 SHATTUCK AVE TELEGRAPH AVE 2 1784 36 R 97 PROSPECT ST 056 HILLSIDE AVE DWIGHT WAY 2 530 36 R 92
PROSPECT ST 052 BANCROFT WAY HILLSIDE AVE 2 710 36 R 97 QUAIL AVE 085 CAMPUS DR QUEENS RD 2 325 23 R 54
QUAIL AVE 080 NORTHGATE AVE CAMPUS DR 2 340 21 R 82
QUARRY RD 030 DEAD END (LA LOMA AVE) LA LOMA AVE 2 340 12 R 39 QUEENS RD 030 SHASTA RD QUAIL AVE 2 640 22 R 38
QUEENS RD 031 QUAIL AVE FAIRLAWN DR 2 880 21 R 38
QUEENS RD 033 FAIRLAWN DR AVENIDA DR 2 975 21 R 51
REGAL RD 070 SPRUCE ST MARIN AVE 2 1050 24 R 21
REGAL RD 075 MARIN AVE EUCLID AVE 2 550 24 R 32
REGAL RD 076 EUCLID AVE CRAGMONT AVE 2 1325 22 R 34
REGENT ST 065 WILLARD PARK SCHOOL (WARD
ST) ASHBY AVE 2 1440 36 R 32
REGENT ST 060 DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST 2 1345 36 R 36
REGENT ST 070 ASHBY AVE DEAD END 2 720 36 R 66
REGENT ST 075 DEAD END CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY ST) 2 370 36 R 69 RIDGE RD 070 SCENIC AVE EUCLID AVE 2 670 36 R 93
RIDGE RD 072 EUCLID AVE LA LOMA AVE 2 975 36 R 93
RIDGE RD 077 LA LOMA AVE HIGHLAND PL 2 340 36 R 93
ROANOKE RD 070 HILLCREST RD & THE UPLANDS SOUTH CITY LIMIT 2 300 24 R 41 ROBLE CT 090 DEAD END (ROBLE RD) ROBLE RD 2 430 24 R 8
ROBLE RD 070 TUNNEL RD SOUTH CITY LIMIT (ROBLE CT) 2 920 24 R 95 ROCK LANE 010 POPLAR ST CRAGMONT AVE 2 800 22 R 20
ROOSEVELT AVE 050 ADDISON ST CHANNING WAY 2 1995 42 R 29 ROOSEVELT AVE 058 CHANNING WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 660 42 R 70 ROSE ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2559 36 C 21 ROSE ST 065 SHATTUCK AVE SPRUCE ST 2 945 36 C 87
ROSE ST 040 HOPKINS ST CHESTNUT ST 2 703 36 R 90
ROSE ST 070 SPRUCE ST ARCH ST 2 315 36 R 90
ROSE ST 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 675 40 C 90
ROSE ST 072 ARCH ST SCENIC AVE 2 455 24 R 91
ROSE ST 044 CHESTNUT ST ORDWAY 2 655 36 R 93
ROSE ST 045 ORDWAY ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 1250 36 R 93
ROSE ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 665 40 C 93 ROSE ST 075 LE ROY AVE EAST END 2 750 18 R 100
ROSEMONT AVE 070 CRESTON RD VISTAMONT AVE 2 540 24 R 38 ROSLYN CT 080 THE SOUTH CROSSWAYS CHABOLYN TERRACE 2 150 20 R 90 RUGBY AVE 010 NORTH CITY LIMIT (VERMONT) VERMONT AVE 2 210 25 R 97

84 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 21 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
RUSSELL ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE PARK ST 2 1230 36 R 29
RUSSELL ST 045 PARK ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 1021 36 R 31
RUSSELL ST 063 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 855 36 R 32
RUSSELL ST 070 FULTON ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 1265 36 R 32
RUSSELL ST 088 CLAREMONT BLVD EAST CITY LIMIT (DOMINGO
AVE) 2 135 36 R 35
RUSSELL ST 062 ADELINE ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 465 36 R 44
RUSSELL ST 080 COLLEGE AVE PIEDMONT AVE 2 585 36 R 59
RUSSELL ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 715 36 R 71 RUSSELL ST 075 TELEGRAPH AVE HILLEGASS AVE 2 1125 35 R 72 RUSSELL ST 085 PIEDMONT AVE CLAREMONT BLVD 2 1590 36 R 73 RUSSELL ST 076 HILLEGASS AVE BENVENUE AVE 2 360 35 R 76 RUSSELL ST 077 BENVENUE AVE COLLEGE AVE 2 360 35 R 93
RUSSELL ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2375 36 R 93 RUSSELL ST 061 MILVIA ST ADELINE ST 2 115 38 R 98
SACRAMENTO ST 035 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 660 68 A 50
SACRAMENTO ST 030 HOPKINS ST ROSE ST 2 789 36 A 60
SACRAMENTO ST 034 ROSE ST CEDAR ST 4 845 66 A 69
SACRAMENTO ST 050 UNIVERSITY AVE DWIGHT WAY 4 3001 56 A 76 SACRAMENTO ST 070 ASHBY AVE SOUTH CITY LIMIT (ALCATRAZ) 4 2164 64 A 89 SACRAMENTO ST 064 OREGON ST ASHBY AVE 4 1021 63 A 90
SACRAMENTO ST 040 VIRGINIA ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 1587 80 A 93 SACRAMENTO ST (NB) 062 OREGON ST DWIGHT WAY 2 2310 33 A 87 SACRAMENTO ST (SB) 060 DWIGHT WAY OREGON ST 2 2310 32 A 78 SAN ANTONIO AVE 062 ARLINGTON AVE 300 FT +/- EAST OF AVIS RD 2 525 17 R 34 SAN ANTONIO AVE 060 SAN RAMON AVE & THE
ALAMEDA ARLINGTON AVE 2 865 24 R 70
SAN BENITO RD 020 MARIN AVE SPRUCE ST 2 810 24 R 61
SAN DIEGO RD 010 SOUTHAMPTON AVE INDIAN ROCK AVE 2 1850 19 R 56 SAN FERNANDO AVE 010 ARLINGTON AVE YOSEMITE RD 2 1055 24 R 87 SAN JUAN AVE 060 SANTA CLARA AVE SAN FERNANDO AVE 2 900 24 R 91 SAN LORENZO AVE 052 PERALTA AVE THE ALAMEDA 2 2145 26 R 56 SAN LORENZO AVE 050 WEST CITY LIMIT (NEILSON) PERALTA AVE 2 370 26 R 70 SAN LUIS RD 010 ARLINGTON AVE INDIAN ROCK AVE 2 3430 22 R 64 SAN MATEO RD 010 DEAD END (CUL-DE-SAC) INDIAN ROCK AVE 2 780 24 R 18 SAN MIGUEL AVE 010 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD SANTA ROSA AVE 2 470 22 R 88 SAN PEDRO AVE 050 COLUSA AVE THE ALAMEDA 2 1050 26 R 81 SAN RAMON AVE 060 SAN ANTONIO AVE & THE
ALAMEDA SAN FERNANDO AVE 2 1060 24 R 34
SANTA BARBARA RD 025 SPRUCE ST CRAGMONT AVE 2 605 24 R 20 SANTA BARBARA RD 010 ARLINGTON AVE FLORIDA AVE 2 1040 26 R 40 SANTA BARBARA RD 020 MARIN AVE SPRUCE ST 2 510 24 R 61
SANTA BARBARA RD 012 FLORIDA AVE MARIN AVE 2 3250 26 R 62 SANTA CLARA AVE 010 SAN RAMON AVE THOUSAND OAKS BLVD 2 870 24 R 91 SANTA FE AVE 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST 2 587 30 R 97 SANTA FE AVE 035 GILMAN ST CORNELL AVE & PAGE ST 2 1450 31 R 100 SANTA ROSA AVE 020 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD SAN LORENZO AVE 2 1280 24 R 86 SANTA ROSA AVE 015 MENLO PLACE THOUSAND OAKS BLVD 2 455 22 R 87 SCENIC AVE 040 CEDAR ST HEARST AVE 2 1600 36 R 16

85 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 22 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
SCENIC AVE 030 BAYVIEW PL/ ROSE ST VINE ST 2 1030 24 R 66 SCENIC AVE 035 VINE ST CEDAR ST 2 645 36 R 82
SEAWALL DR 010 NORTH END UNIVERSITY AVE 2 1350 28 R 22
SEAWALL DR 020 UNIVERSITY AVE SOUTH END 2 1100 31 R 23
SENIOR AVE 080 FAIRLAWN DR GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 2 700 24 R 31 SHASTA RD 072 TAMALPAIS RD KEITH AVE 2 565 20 R 51
SHASTA RD 070 TAMALPAIS RD AND ROSE ST TAMALPAIS RD 2 1540 22 R 51 SHASTA RD 073 KEITH AVE CRAGMONT AVE 2 1000 24 C 56
SHASTA RD 076 QUEENS RD GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 2 1130 25 C 75 SHASTA RD 074 CRAGMONT AVE KEELER AVE 2 680 25 C 87
SHASTA RD 075 KEELER AVE QUEENS RD 2 1315 24 C 90
SHASTA RD 077 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD PARK GATE 2 250 29 C 100 SHASTA RD 079 PARK GATE EAST CITY LIMIT (GOLF
COURSE) 2 565 20 C 100
SHATTUCK AVE 038 VINE ST CEDAR ST 4 660 60 A 23
SHATTUCK AVE 040 CEDAR ST HEARST AVE 4 1670 60 A 23
SHATTUCK AVE 036 ROSE ST VINE ST 4 660 60 A 33
SHATTUCK AVE 010 INDIAN ROCK AVE MARIN AVE 2 615 24 R 35 SHATTUCK AVE 048 HEARST AVE UNIVERSITY AVE 4 620 60 A 35 SHATTUCK AVE 030 EUNICE ST ROSE ST 2 1335 40 R 48
SHATTUCK AVE 050 ALLSTON WAY DWIGHT WAY 4 1980 48 A 49
SHATTUCK AVE 070 ASHBY AVE CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY ST) 2 1210 46 C 54 SHATTUCK AVE 060 DWIGHT WAY WARD ST 4 1340 48 A 57
SHATTUCK AVE 066 WARD ST ASHBY AVE 2 1510 46 C 64
SHATTUCK AVE 025 LOS ANGELES AVE EUNICE ST 2 1590 30 R 77 SHATTUCK AVE 020 MARIN AVE LOS ANGELES AVE 2 950 24 R 80 SHATTUCK AVE 055 CENTER ST ALLSTON WAY 4 340 69 A 100
SHATTUCK AVE (SB) 057 UNIVERSITY AVE CENTER ST 3 660 52 A 100 SHATTUCK PL 030 HENRY ST & ROSE ST SHATTUCK AVE 4 525 61 A 24 SHORT ST 045 DELAWARE ST HEARST ST 2 345 36 R 23
SHORT ST 040 LINCOLN AVE VIRGINIA ST 2 360 30 R 87
SIERRA ST 020 MADERA ST SONOMA AVE 2 940 30 R 58

SOJOURNER TRUTH
CT 065 WARD ST CUL DE SAC 2 440 30 R 67
SOLANO AVE 060 THE ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA AVE 2 510 43 C 71 SOLANO AVE 055 COLUSA AVE THE ALAMEDA 2 756 60 C 82
SOLANO AVE 050 TULARE AVE COLUSA AVE 2 762 57 C 83
SOMERSET PL 060 SOUTHAMPTON AVE DEAD END (JOHN HINKEL
PARK) 2 425 22 R 84
SONOMA AVE 050 WEST CITY LIMIT (TULARE AVE) JOSEPHINE ST 2 1975 36 R 80

SOUTH HOSPITAL
DRIV 075 COLBY ST REGENT ST 2 300 30 R 66
SOUTHAMPTON AVE 068 SAN LUIS RD SANTA BARBARA RD 2 400 24 R 76 SOUTHAMPTON AVE 060 ARLINGTON AVE SAN LUIS RD 2 2050 24 R 84 SPAULDING AVE 050 ADDISON ST DWIGHT WAY 2 2675 48 R 36
SPINNAKER WAY 010 BREAKWATER DR MARINA BLVD 2 1500 40 R 18 SPRING WAY 030 DEAD END SCENIC AVE 2 220 18 R 85
SPRUCE ST 025 ARCH ST EUNICE ST 2 980 37 C 37
SPRUCE ST 030 EUNICE ST ROSE ST 2 1365 36 C 66
SPRUCE ST 045 VIRGINIA ST HEARST AVE 2 1040 36 R 69

86 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 23 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
SPRUCE ST 036 VINE ST CEDAR ST 2 660 36 R 69
SPRUCE ST 033 ROSE ST VINE ST 2 665 36 R 71
SPRUCE ST 010 GRIZZLY PEAK AVE ALTA RD 2 800 36 C 75
SPRUCE ST 015 ALTA RD MARIN AVE 2 4375 36 C 79
SPRUCE ST 020 MARIN AVE ARCH ST 2 1738 36 C 85
SPRUCE ST 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 670 36 R 93
STANNAGE AVE 038 HOPKINS ST CEDAR ST 2 210 30 R 63
STANNAGE AVE 034 GILMAN ST HOPKINS ST 2 1685 30 R 82
STANNAGE AVE 040 CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 2 660 30 R 83
STANNAGE AVE 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT GILMAN ST 2 700 30 R 85 STANTON ST 067 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 560 26 R 71
STANTON ST 070 ASHBY AVE PRINCE ST 2 706 26 R 73
STANTON ST 065 OREGON ST RUSSELL ST 2 428 30 R 74
STATION PL 010 CATALINA AVE SOUTH DEAD END (CATALINA
AV 2 210 36 R 97
STERLING AVE 020 KEELER AVE SHASTA RD 2 2310 20 R 35
STEVENSON AVE 020 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD MILLER AVE 2 520 24 R 49 STODDARD WAY 020 DEAD END GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 2 260 20 R 24 STUART ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2405 36 R 20 STUART ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 660 42 R 28 STUART ST 078 HILLEGASS AVE COLLEGE AVE 2 715 36 R 30
STUART ST 070 FULTON ST HILLEGASS AVE 2 2450 36 R 37
STUART ST 065 ADELINE ST FULTON ST 2 995 36 R 43
STUART ST 080 COLLEGE AVE KELSEY ST & PALM CT 2 900 36 R 56 STUART ST 063 MILVIA ST ADELINE ST 2 385 42 R 56
SUMMER ST 070 SPRUCE ST GLEN AVE 2 660 25 R 18
SUMMIT LANE 030 SUMMIT RD NR GRIZZLY PEAK DEAD END 2 180 6 R 21 SUMMIT RD 038 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD END SOUTH OF GRIZZLY PEAK BL 2 740 26 R 13
SUMMIT RD 032 ATLAS PL GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD 2 2530 23 R 18 SUMMIT RD 030 AJAX LANE ATLAS PL 2 240 20 R 20
SUNSET LANE 075 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD WOODMONT RD 2 344 22 R 20 SUNSET LANE 070 WOODMONT RD WILDCAT CANYON RD 2 370 17 R 27 SUTTER ST 020 DEL NORTE ST EUNICE ST 4 1340 50 A 28
TACOMA AVE 055 COLUSA AVE THE ALAMEDA 2 1010 26 R 42
TACOMA AVE 050 SOLANO AVE COLUSA AVE 2 1360 26 R 73
TALBOT AVE 030 NORTH CITY LIMIT SANTA FE AVE 2 1350 30 R 85 TAMALPAIS RD 030 SHASTA RD ROSE ST 2 2075 22 R 43
TANGLEWOOD RD 060 BELROSE AVE EAST CITY LIMIT (CLAREMONT) 2 900 26 R 39 TELEGRAPH AVE 065 WARD ST ASHBY AVE 4 1580 74 A 25
TELEGRAPH AVE 060 DWIGHT WAY WARD ST 4 1725 68 A 26
TELEGRAPH AVE 050 DWIGHT WAY BANCROFT WAY 2 1320 31 C 38 TELEGRAPH AVE 070 ASHBY AVE CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY ST) 4 1255 68 A 39 TEVLIN ST 035 WATKINS ST END SOUTH OF GILMAN ST 2 425 25 R 3 TEVLIN ST 030 NORTH END WATKINS ST 2 300 21 R 6
THE ALAMEDA 028 HOPKINS ST YOLO AVE 2 210 66 A 71
THE ALAMEDA 015 CAPISTRANO AVE TACOMA AVE 2 245 36 R 75 THE ALAMEDA 012 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD CAPISTRANO AVE 2 1510 28 R 76

87 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 24 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
THE ALAMEDA 010 SAN ANTONIO AVE THOUSAND OAKS BLVD 2 1385 24 R 78 THE ALAMEDA 016 TACOMA AVE SOLANO AVE 2 1250 36 R 95
THE ALAMEDA 018 SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE 2 935 60 A 95
THE ALAMEDA 020 MARIN AVE HOPKINS ST 4 1370 61 A 95
THE CIRCLE 060 INTERSECTION MARIN AVE, ETC. INTERSECTION ARLINGTON AVE 2 246 50 A 75
THE CRESCENT 020 PARK HILLS RD (NORTH) PARK HILLS RD (SOUTH) 2 1020 23 R 88 THE CROSSWAYS 080 OVERLOOK RD MIDDLEFIELD RD 2 230 21 R 58 THE PLAZA DR 080 ENCINA PL PARKSIDE DR 2 1380 40 R 85
THE SHORT CUT 080 MIDDLEFIELD RD PARK HILLS RD 2 200 22 R 85 THE SPIRAL 080 DEAD END WILDCAT CANYON RD 2 305 25 R 93 THE UPLANDS 099 TUNNEL RD DEAD END 2 340 14 R 20
THE UPLANDS 090 CLAREMONT AVE ENCINA PL 2 320 56 R 39
THE UPLANDS 093 HILLCREST RD EL CAMINO REAL 2 495 28 R 39 THE UPLANDS 097 EL CAMINO REAL TUNNEL RD 2 1048 25 R 40 THE UPLANDS 091 ENCINA PL HILLCREST RD 2 1685 28 R 61

THOUSAND OAKS
BLVD 050 WEST CITY LIMIT (NEILSON) COLUSA AVE 2 450 36 R 48

THOUSAND OAKS
BLVD 055 VINCENTE AVE THE ALAMEDA 2 850 24 C 73

THOUSAND OAKS
BLVD 053 COLUSA AVE VINCENTE AVE 2 380 24 C 76

THOUSAND OAKS
BLVD 060 THE ALAMEDA ARLINGTON AVE 2 1605 26 C 79
TOMLEE DR 045 JUANITA WAY ACTON ST 2 330 25 R 19
TREMONT ST 070 EMERSON ST CITY LIMIT (WOOLSEY ST) 2 925 34 R 29 TULARE AVE 020 SOLANO AVE SONOMA AVE 2 1715 36 R 95
TWAIN AVE 070 KEELER AVE STERLING AVE 2 740 20 R 26
TYLER ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST KING ST 2 1333 36 R 29
UNIVERSITY AVE 015 MARINA BLVD WEST FRONTAGE RD 2 1600 66 C 8 UNIVERSITY AVE 010 SEAWALL DR MARINA BLVD 2 1950 40 C 31 UNIVERSITY AVE 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 4 715 63 A 36 UNIVERSITY AVE 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 4 630 63 A 37 UNIVERSITY AVE 025 3RD ST 5TH ST 4 400 115 A 52
UNIVERSITY AVE 028 5TH ST 6TH ST 4 185 84 A 52
UNIVERSITY AVE 040 SAN PABLO AVE SACRAMENTO ST 4 2940 69 A 54 UNIVERSITY AVE 064 SHATTUCK AVE SHATTUCK AVE 4 260 70 A 55 UNIVERSITY AVE 065 SHATTUCK AVE OXFORD ST 4 450 65 A 59 UNIVERSITY AVE 030 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 4 1638 72 A 66
UNIVERSITY AVE 052 SACRAMENTO ST MCGEE AVE 4 1325 73 A 72 UNIVERSITY AVE 055 MCGEE AVE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 4 1329 63 A 72

UNIVERSITY AVE
OVER 018 I-80 ON/OFF RAMPS 6TH ST 4 2100 52 A 46
VALLEJO ST 060 THE ALAMEDA SAN RAMON AVE 2 460 24 R 30
VALLEY ST 055 NORTH DEAD END (BANCROFT) DWIGHT WAY 2 1245 36 R 45 VASSAR AVE (NB) 010 NORTH CITY LIMIT (KENTUCKY) KENTUCKY AVE 2 375 19 R 78 VASSAR AVE (NB) 012 KENTUCKY AVE SPRUCE ST 2 1160 16 R 79 VASSAR AVE (SB) 011 KENTUCKY AVE NORTH CITY LIMIT (KENTUCKY) 2 375 17 R 78 VASSAR AVE (SB) 013 SPRUCE ST KENTUCKY AVE 2 1160 14 R 79 VERMONT AVE 015 MARYLAND AVE COLORADO AVE 2 750 25 R 27 VERMONT AVE 010 NORTH WEST DEAD END
(RUGBY) MARYLAND AVE 2 770 23 R 97
VICENTE RD 075 EAST CITY LIMIT NR GRAND
VIEW TUNNEL RD 2 1310 24 R 30

88 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 25 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
VICENTE RD 070 ALVARADO RD EAST CITY LIMIT NR GRAND
VIEW 2 550 24 R 45
VINCENTE AVE 013 THOUSAND OAKS BLVD COLUSA AVE 2 1165 24 R 70 VINCENTE AVE 010 NORTH END (VINCENTE WALK) THOUSAND OAKS BLVD 2 1400 24 R 75 VINCENTE AVE 016 COLUSA AVE PERALTA AVE 2 1000 24 R 77
VINE ST 063 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 670 36 R 25
VINE ST 055 GRANT ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 665 36 R 29 VINE ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 665 36 R 32 VINE ST 052 EDITH ST GRANT ST 2 335 36 R 33
VINE ST 065 SHATTUCK AVE WALNUT ST 2 335 36 R 49
VINE ST 067 WALNUT ST SPRUCE ST 2 665 36 R 63
VINE ST 070 SPRUCE ST SCENIC AVE 2 635 36 R 68
VINE ST 050 MC GEE AVE EDITH ST 2 575 26 R 91
VINE ST 080 SCENIC AVE HAWTHORNE TERRACE 2 315 30 R 95
VIRGINIA GARDENS 040 NORTH DEAD END (CEDAR) VIRGINIA ST 2 470 20 R 90 VIRGINIA ST 030 6TH ST SAN PABLO AVE 2 1650 36 R 36
VIRGINIA ST 030 2ND ST 6TH ST 2 1325 36 R 39
VIRGINIA ST 076 EUCLID AVE LA LOMA AVE 2 1000 34 R 47
VIRGINIA ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MC GEE AVE 2 1270 36 C 54 VIRGINIA ST 055 MC GEE AVE GRANT ST 2 665 36 C 66
VIRGINIA ST 064 SHATTUCK AVE SPRUCE ST 2 1000 36 R 67
VIRGINIA ST 070 SPRUCE ST ARCH ST 2 450 36 R 68
VIRGINIA ST 072 ARCH ST EUCLID AVE 2 1060 36 R 68
VIRGINIA ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 680 36 R 71 VIRGINIA ST 047 ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 710 51 R 76
VIRGINIA ST 057 GRANT ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 670 36 C 83 VIRGINIA ST 062 MILVIA ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 615 36 R 83
VIRGINIA ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST 2 2500 36 R 85
VIRGINIA ST 078 LA LOMA AVE DEAD END (AT LA VEREDA) 2 220 17 R 95 VIRGINIA ST 020 EAST FRONTAGE RD (STATE P/L) 2ND ST 2 350 37 R 98 VISALIA AVE 053 WEST CITY LIMIT COP W/O
NEILSON COLUSA AVE 2 325 24 R 27
VISALIA AVE 055 COLUSA AVE VINCENTE AVE 2 890 24 R 48
VISTAMONT AVE 110 NORTH END WOODMONT AVE 2 415 22 R 14
VISTAMONT AVE 010 WOODMONT AVE WOODMONT AVE NR SUNSET
LA 2 1340 22 R 42
WALKER ST 060 DERBY ST WARD ST 2 330 18 R 40
WALLACE ST 065 WARD ST RUSSELL ST 2 1220 35 R 18
WALNUT ST 049 BERKELEY WAY UNIVERSITY AVE 2 315 36 R 20 WALNUT ST 020 SHATTUCK AVE EUNICE ST 2 900 33 R 27
WALNUT ST 030 EUNICE ST CEDAR ST 2 2645 36 R 44
WALNUT ST 040 CEDAR ST HEARST AVE 2 1680 36 R 54
WARD ST 075 ELLSWORTH ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 880 36 R 14
WARD ST 046 ACTON ST SACRAMENTO ST 2 727 36 R 18
WARD ST 070 FULTON ST ELLSWORTH ST 2 660 36 R 21
WARD ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 2437 36 R 25 WARD ST 060 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY MILVIA ST 2 660 42 R 27 WARD ST 066 SHATTUCK AVE FULTON ST 2 780 36 R 30
WARD ST 063 MILVIA ST ADELINE ST 2 500 45 R 62

89 1/31/2022 City of Berkeley Roads page 26 of 26
Road Name Section
ID Beg Location End Location Lanes Length Width Funct.

Class PCI
WARD ST 040 SAN PABLO AVE ACTON ST 2 1658 36 R 100
WARRING ST 050 BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1270 36 R 27
WARRING ST 060 DWIGHT WAY DERBY ST 2 1545 43 C 95
WATKINS ST 040 NEILSON ST TEVLIN ST 2 250 26 R 21
WEBSTER ST 078 HILLEGASS AVE COLLEGE AVE 2 600 36 R 59
WEBSTER ST 074 TELEGRAPH AVE COLBY ST 2 645 36 R 63
WEBSTER ST 076 REGENT ST DEAD END 2 202 20 R 85
WEBSTER ST 077 DEAD END HILLEGASS AVE 2 268 36 R 85
WEBSTER ST 080 COLLEGE AVE CLAREMONT AVE 2 1760 36 R 92 WEBSTER ST 072 DEAKIN ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 670 36 R 93
WEST BOLIVAR DR 050 GATE END NR ANTHONY ST 2 6515 22 R 83 WEST BOLIVAR DR 040 PARKER ST GATE 2 50 22 R 89
WEST FRONTAGE RD 040 GILMAN ST UNIVERSITY AVE 2 4400 30 C 55 WEST FRONTAGE RD 050 UNIVERSITY AVE OPP DWIGHT WAY 2 3170 26 C 59 WEST FRONTAGE RD 060 OPP DWIGHT WAY SOUTH CITY LIMIT 2 4250 26 C 59 WEST PARNASSUS CT 080 PARNASSUS PATH PARNASSUS RD 2 230 22 R 93 WEST ST 053 ADDISON ST DEAD END 2 265 21 R 93
WEST ST 055 BANCROFT WAY DWIGHT WAY 2 1325 32 R 100
WHEELER ST 068 RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 2 530 36 R 30
WHEELER ST 070 ASHBY AVE WOOLSEY ST 2 1105 36 R 72
WHITAKER AVE 020 MILLER AVE STERLING AVE 2 550 18 R 35
WHITNEY ST 070 WOOLSEY ST SOUTH CITY LIMIT 2 130 36 R 75 WILDCAT CANYON RD 025 THE SPIRAL EAST CITY LIMIT(NR SHASTA RD) 2 3590 28 C 77
WILDCAT CANYON RD 020 SUNSET LN THE SPIRAL 2 2400 27 C 79 WILDCAT CANYON RD 010 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD SUNSET LANE 2 3730 29 C 81 WILSON CIRCLE 080 OLYMPUS DR CUL-DE-SAC 2 180 23 R 40
WOODMONT AVE 012 WILDCAT CANYON & GRIZZLY
PEAK ROSEMONT AVE 2 1175 20 R 24
WOODMONT AVE 020 SUNSET LANE DEAD END 2 175 12 R 43
WOODMONT AVE 014 ROSEMONT AVE SUNSET LANE 2 1700 20 R 55 WOODMONT CT 070 WOODMONT AVE (NORTH) WOODMONT AVE (SOUTH) 2 285 23 R 42 WOODSIDE RD 020 THE CRESCENT PARK HILLS RD 2 1450 24 R 41 WOOLSEY ST 078 HILLEGASS AVE COLLEGE AVE 2 600 37 R 18
WOOLSEY ST 080 COLLEGE ST CLAREMONT AVE 2 1250 36 R 20
WOOLSEY ST 050 SACRAMENTO ST KING ST 2 1275 36 R 50
WOOLSEY ST 065 TREMONT ST SHATTUCK AVE 2 579 42 R 59
WOOLSEY ST 066 SHATTUCK AVE WHEELER ST 2 680 42 R 63
WOOLSEY ST 067 WHEELER ST TELEGRAPH AVE 2 1036 36 R 63
WOOLSEY ST 055 KING ST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 2 905 36 R 79 WOOLSEY ST 072 TELEGRAPH AVE HILLEGASS AVE 2 1555 36 R 90 WOOLSEY ST 060 ADELINE ST TREMONT ST 2 600 42 R 90
YOLO AVE 060 THE ALAMEDA MILVIA ST 2 570 36 R 93
YOLO AVE 065 MILVIA AVE SUTTER ST 2 375 36 R 93
YOSEMITE RD 064 SAN FERNANDO AVE CONTRA COSTA AVE 2 400 26 R 37 YOSEMITE RD 066 CONTRA COSTA AVE ARLINGTON AVE 2 1090 24 R 48 YOSEMITE RD 062 THE ALAMEDA SAN FERNANDO AVE 2 870 26 R 91

90 Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember, District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmembers Rashi Kesarwani (Author) and Ben Bartlett (Co-Sponsor)
SUBJECT: Budget Referral: Capacity Building for Merchant Associations in the Gilman and Lorin Districts

RECOMMENDATION
Referral to the City Manager and the FY 2022-23 Budget Process to provide one- time capacity building totaling $20,000 ($10,000 each) for the Gilman and Lorin District merchant associations to support economic development in their respective commercial areas. Distribution of funds should be contingent upon the following criteria:
● Establishment of representative community advisory boards reflecting the diversity of businesses, agencies, nonprofits and resident stakeholders who could function as the leadership entity for fund management; ● Obtainment of merchant associations’ non-profit status; or partnership with an existing entity to enable fiscal sponsorship until nonprofit status is obtained; ● Requirement to use the funds within two years or risk having to return them.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Gilman and Lorin Districts are Commercial Areas Lacking Formalized Entities to Promote Economic Development. The Gilman and Lorin Districts are unique commercial areas in Berkeley each with their own distinct personalities. The GIlman District, situated in west Berkeley, has long been the heart of the City’s manufacturing and industrial sectors, while more recently becoming home to wineries, breweries, artisanal food production facilities, nonprofits, and maker spaces. The Lorin District, located in south Berkeley, is home to the iconic South Berkeley Farmers Market and boasts a thriving arts scene as well as an antique cluster, a blossoming food scene, and several nonprofits. Despite their vibrancy, both districts are notable in that they also lack the benefit of a Business Improvement District (BID) to support the area in keeping it well maintained. BIDs are private

91 entities organized to promote the economic development of businesses within a defined geographical area. BIDs are funded by levying taxes on stakeholders within the district with the revenues being used to fund services local governments are unable to provide.

BIDS in Berkeley. In Berkeley, businesses and/or property owners assess themselves either through business license fees (Elmwood/Solano) or property assessment fees (North Shattuck/Downtown/Telegraph) to raise funds to help support the commercial area.1 This means that business license owners and/or property owners pay an additional fee to support the efforts of the BID. These funds have been used for a range of services and improvements such as:
● Banners
● Outdoor lighting
● Street furniture
● Public art
● Landscaping
● Wayfinding signs
Berkeley’s BIDs have also played a strong advocacy role for their respective areas and constituencies, such as advocating for BPD bicycle patrols and cleaning services in the various commercial areas of the city, and agreeing to administer Berkeley’s Damage Mitigation Fund to help offset expenses incurred as a result of property damage since the start of the pandemic.2 They also provide information and assistance to its members and are an important liaison between business communities and local government.

The Gilman and Lorin Districts Need Additional Support. Years of underinvestment in these areas and the lack of a strong organizing body have resulted in challenging conditions on the streets that have not been addressed. Both areas struggle with a high volume of unhoused individuals and many of the encampments have become sites of illegal dumping and excessive trash, attracting vermin and presenting health and safety concerns. The lack of support makes it hard for stakeholders to improve and maintain conditions that would help revitalize the area making it more welcoming to patrons and safer for employees. Even a moderate influx of funds could be used for services such as:
● Permitting for festivals and outdoor dining
● Marketing and media outreach
● Production and publicity of events
● Placemaking features
● Streetscape improvements and graffiti removal
1 See Pierce Abrahamson’s September 2021 report for the City of Berkeley, Client Report: Adeline Corridor Parking Benefit District, attached, p. 8.
2 See October 19, 2021 Downtown Berkeley Association Press Release: City of Berkeley Replenishes COVID-19 Business Damage Mitigation with $50,000.

92 Gilman and Lorin Districts: Nascent Merchant Groups. While both districts struggle to negotiate challenging conditions on the street, they are both well on their way to establishing robust merchants associations. Currently, both districts have advisory boards that have sought fiscal sponsorship through the Berkeley Chamber:
the Lorin District since November, 2015 and the Gilman District since April, 2022.

Both Districts boast eye-catching websites3 and a strong sense of community engagement.

BACKGROUND
Parking Benefit Districts can Provide Funds Though Could Take Years to Establish. On January 18, 2022 CIty Council approved on consent Councilmembers Kesarwani and Bartlett’s referral to the City Manager to establish a framework for a Parking Benefits District (PBD) in the Gilman and Lorin Districts. PBDs spend meter revenues for public services and amenities in the metered area. They comprise a defined geographical area in which revenue from on and off-street parking within the area is kept within the district to finance neighborhood improvements.4 Reinvesting meter revenue back into the district helps build support among residents and businesses as the economic benefits of metered parking are made tangible through neighborhood improvements along the lines of what BIDs offer. PBDs can provide a steady stream of funds that can help fill in the gaps where City services are insufficient. They also require a community advisory board made up of local stakeholders that convene regularly and make recommendations to the City Council for funding improvements. While this item was approved unanimously and could provide much needed funds, it will take years to establish as all current parking revenues must first be utilized for payments and obligations associated with the Center Street Garage parking revenue bond. The City will additionally need to hire a consultant to help establish the Parking Benefit Districts and write the enabling ordinance.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Ultimately, establishing a BID would be the greatest benefit to these districts. BIDs require stakeholder buy-in and have the ability to transform struggling areas into vibrant neighborhoods. BIDs also take a considerable length of time to establish as a majority of property owners or businesses need to be engaged to secure their participation, enabling legislation needs to be written, and City Council needs to approve the new entities. This process takes years of hard work and would come only after considerable effort by key stakeholders. While a BID might be the end goal, the Gilman and Lorin Districts need immediate support, and these capacity building 3 See GIlman District and Lorin District websites
4 See Newport Beach’s Commercial Parking Benefit District flier

93 grants can help fill in the gaps. The money requested in this budget referral will allow the merchant groups to provide some immediate improvements to their respective areas building enthusiasm among stakeholders which could eventually allow for a smoother segue to establishing a more formalized structure in the future. The Gilman District Coordinating Committee is currently in process of planning a large street festival with road closures, food and beverage areas, tabling and demonstrations scheduled for September 25th of this year. A capacity building grant will help ensure success. It is hoped that funds can also be used for streetscape improvements, public art, enhanced exterior lighting and security cameras to improve public safety.

FISCAL IMPACT
$20,000 annually to be split equally between the two districts.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Capacity building grants can provide much needed funds that could assist with keeping sidewalks and streets clean, enhancing public safety, and landscaping and streetscaping improvements. Investment in public spaces encourages greater utilization and civic pride in an area which in turn can lead to collective efforts to better maintain both the built and natural environment.

CONTACT
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, District 1 (510) 981-7110

94 CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24th, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin (Author), Councilmember Susan Wengraf (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Rigel Robinson (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Urge the AC Transit Board of Directors to Restore and Expand on Pre- Pandemic Transbay Bus Service and Bus Service to the Berkeley Hills

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter to the AC Transit Board of Directors urging the restoration and expansion of transbay and Berkeley Hills bus service.

BACKGROUND
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupted regular life in the Bay Area and the rest of the world. Suddenly, highways, buses, trains, and offices were found empty and millions of people were staying indoors to avoid contracting the coronavirus. This halt in social and economic life had immediate, wide-reaching ramifications. AC Transit was impacted immediately by a 71% decline in ridership and a monthly loss of $5 million in the first few months of the pandemic.1 In response to this, AC Transit began temporarily terminating some bus lines and considering the permanent cut of 15 to 30% of total services.2
In the more than two years that have followed, AC Transit has slowly recovered financially and begun the process or restoring its bus services to pre-pandemic levels.

Despite financial recoveries, more comprehensive service restoration hinges on the hiring, training, and retention of bus operators. AC Transit must do everything in its power to grow its number of bus drivers so that the East Bay’s public transportation system can finally move past the COVID-19 era and even begin to grow its service levels above that which existed on the eve of the pandemic.

Of particular importance for prioritized service expansion are lines 65 and 67, which serve the Berkeley Hills, and transbay bus services which offer a non-car option for those commuting to and visiting San Francisco. Both lines 65 and 67 currently operate exclusively on weekdays, leaving hills residents reliant their personal automobiles for 1 https://www.berkeleyside.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/STAFF-REPORT.pdf 2 https://www.berkeleyside.com/2020/07/08/ac-transit-bus-service-cuts-berkeley-ca-coronavirus-transbay

95 weekend recreation, employment, and other local travel needs. As long as residents of the Berkeley Hills have high rates of car ownership, their neighborhoods should be targeted for improved public transportation accessibility. Similarly, AC Transit’s transbay service is limited to weekdays. AC Transit must strive to offer public transportation that is more than just an option for people commuting to their jobs during the week.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The City estimates that transportation-related emissions accounts for approximately 60% of our community’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions.3 The restoration of AC Transit’s 65, 67, and transbay bus lines will strengthen alternatives to car transportation and lower the emissions of our community’s dominant source of carbon pollution.

CONTACT
Terry Taplin, Councilmember, District 2, (510) 981-7120

ATTACHMENTS

1. Letter
3https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley-Climate-Action-Plan.pdf

96 Board of Directors
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
1600 Franklin Street, 10th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Restoration of Berkeley Hills and Transbay Bus Service Dear President Ortiz, Vice-President Young, and Directors, The Bay Area’s post-covid transportation network must be one that offers widespread access at as many hours as possible so that residents can choose to travel by bus instead of car without sacrificing speed and accessibility. With this in mind, the Berkeley City Council urges that bus lines to the Berkeley Hills, as well as transbay service to San Francisco, be restored and expanded to include weekend service.

Reducing our residents’ reliance on their personal automobiles for professional and recreational travel is an essential task in the pursuit of our City’s climate and safety goals. It must follow, then, that the communities in Berkeley with the highest rates of car ownership be encouraged to take public transportation through the expansion of bus service into their neighborhoods. What this means for Berkeley is an increase in bus service to the Berkeley Hills at all times. Currently, AC Transit’s Line 65 and Line 67 are routed through the Berkeley Hills but only on weekdays. This configuration works well for residents who choose to take the bus to their jobs, but does nothing to encourage residents to also choose the bus on the weekends when they are traveling throughout the rest of the Bay Area for recreation, personal errands, and shopping. Another area of your network we would like to see expanded is your transbay lines which are even more prioritized for commuters. The availability of BART for transbay public transportation is beneficial to all, but BART’s limited reach beyond its three Berkeley stations can leave residents of West Berkeley and the Berkeley Hills wishing they had a public transportation option that could place them in San Francisco without making multiple transfers, and thus paying multiple fares, along the way to their destination.

Understanding that you have many conflicting priorities for restoring bus services, we ask that you take special consideration for a growth in service to the Berkeley Hills and on your transbay lines.

Furthermore, we encourage AC Transit to exhaust all financial and logistical options at your disposal as you attempt to grow your number of bus operators. As long as the population of trained and employed bus drivers remains an impediment to service restoration and growth, your methods for onboarding new operators must be creative and with the practical needs of potential drivers in mind.

Sincerely,
The Council of the City of Berkeley

97 CC: Elsa Ortiz, President

Joel B. Young, Vice-President
Murphy McCalley, Director
Diane Shaw, Director
H.E. Christian Peeples, Director
Jovanka Beckles, Director
Jean Walsh, Director

98 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 1 CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author), Councilmember Rigel Robinson, Kate Harrison, and Terry Taplin (Co-Sponsors)
Subject: Budget Referral and Updated Guidelines and Procedures for City Council Office Staff Expenditures

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Budget and Finance Committee to consider updates to the guidelines and procedures for City Council office budget expenditure accounts with regards to City Council staff salaries and fringe benefits expenditures and an accompanying Budget Referral of approximately $1,226,619.52 for the FY 22-23 June Budget process.

CURRENT SITUATION
As of March of 2022, four of eight Council Offices retain more than one Legislative Assistant, while the Mayor retains four Legislative Assistants in addition to a Chief of Staff. This reflects the trend over the last two decades of an increase in demand faced by Council Offices for constituent services and legislative policy output. Despite this increase, Council budget policy still assumes a staff level fixed at one Legislative Assistant per Council Office, though recent adjustments provide for budgeting the Mayor’s Office at actual staff costs.

The most recent adjustment to Council staff budgeting policy was made in response to the 2019 unionization of Legislative Assistants with the SEIU 1021 Community Services & Part-Time Recreation Leaders Association Chapter. The City officially ratified a contract with the new unit on June 15, 2021 that, among other things, provided an increased hourly wage for Legislative Assistants more closely commensurate with internal comparators as determined by a 2006 report from the City Manager, and placed Legislative Assistants on a salary schedule based on annual steps like other unionized positions in the City. After the adoption of the contract, Resolution No. 65.540-N.S. which provided for and regulated Council Office budgets was replaced by Resolution No. 70,054–N.S. This new Resolution adjusted Council budgets to allow for one full- time Legislative Assistant per office under the new agreement but did not account for the reality that half of Council Offices currently have had more than one Legislative Assistant. Because the new contract provides for annual step increases, Council Offices which now use their staff funds to retain two part time Legislative Assistants will be forced to reduce hours or terminate staff as they progress through annual steps.

BACKGROUND

99 Budget Referral and Updated Guidelines and Procedures for City Council Office Staff Expenditures 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 2 The Berkeley City Council and the people of Berkeley take great pride in their extremely active, engaged, and forward thinking legislative branch. This is directly tied to the expectations of Berkeley’s residents, who have through their votes on ballot measures and their vocal advocacy demanded this level of activity. Additionally, this demand has risen over time. The population of Berkeley has increased by more than 20,000 since 2000, and interest in critical legislative issues including affordable housing, climate change, homelessness, transit, and public safety reimagining has increased substantially. Simultaneously, the City’s budget and the total number of employees have steadily increased. The Council provides legislative output, municipal oversight, and constituent services that are more comparable to neighboring cities and counties with substantially larger populations and budgets than Berkeley. The Council’s legislative assistants are key to providing these services. Legislative Assistants aid with the management of a Councilmember’s policy initiatives and district projects, write legislation, provide administrative office support, research and analyze policy and legislation, guide constituents in accessing critical public and nonprofit assistance, and may be called upon to represent their Councilmember before constituents, community groups, business interests, city staff and other elected officials.

Until recently, the Mayor, Councilmembers, and their aides have been significantly underpaid as compared to external and internal comparators.

In 2020, the adoption of Measure JJ by nearly two thirds of Berkeley voters1 affirmed that residents have high expectations of their local government and that the work required to deliver on those expectations should be compensated fairly and accurately.

Measure JJ changed the status of City Councilmembers from part-time to full-time to reflect the increased demands of the position from when it was first created, and increased the salary for Councilmember and the Mayor to one sufficient for working class residents to be able to afford to run for office.2 Alongside the trend of increased demand on Council Offices for legislative and constituent services, the inauguration of the Council Policy Committee system in 20183,4 and the transition to full time Council positions in 2020 have both driven an increase in the workload for legislative staff. Half of Council Offices now maintain more than one Legislative Assistant, reflecting that the volume of legislative work per Council Office often exceeds 40 hours of labor per week. There are currently six Council Policy Committees, four interagency committees, and a varying number of Mayoral task 1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Elections/Summary%20Results%20Nov.%202020.pdf , pg. 3
2 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Elections/2020%20Ballot%20Measures.pdf, pg. 33 3https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/12_Dec/Documents/2018-12- 11_Item_C_Structure_for_City_Council_-_Supp.aspx
4https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/12_Dec/Documents/12- 11_Annotated_Agenda.aspx

100
Budget Referral and Updated Guidelines and Procedures for City Council Office Staff Expenditures 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 3 forces.5 Many Councilmembers also sit on regional boards, commissions, working groups and task forces, including, for example, the Association of Bay Area Governments Executive Board, Alameda County Transportation Commission, and the East Bay Community Energy Board of Directors among numerous others.

These committees and other bodies provide vital legislative functions, but also add significant workload in both staffing and preparing for these meetings each week. In addition to two regular meetings a month, Policy Committees have additional special meetings scheduled on an ad hoc basis, especially during the bi-annual budget processes, and additional work conducted by the staff, especially when a Councilmember chairs a Committee. Critically, committee members are now responsible for writing more detailed and comprehensive legislative briefs and memos as well as shepherding amended legislative matters referred from Commissions and other bodies. Due to the enhanced demand for legislative work, full and part-time Legislative Assistants regularly work hours substantially beyond their scheduled appointment.

Over the past two decades, Council has attempted to address Legislative Assistant compensation, resulting in incremental improvement.

In 2006, in recognition of Legislative Assistant salary and classification disparities, the Council passed Resolution No. 63,259-N.S. directing the City Manager to conduct a salary equity study for the City Council Legislative Assistants and report the findings to the Council to include “a comparison with their peers in neighboring jurisdictions…[and] the salary range, qualifications and responsibilities for this job class.”6 The resulting 2006 study7 from the City Manager found that Legislative Assistants were significantly underpaid as compared to external and internal comparators—namely the Assistant Management Analyst in the City Manager’s office. The City Manager recommended an increase to Council office salary budgets, at the time $44,433 excluding benefits, to the minimum salary level of an Assistant Management Analyst (AMA), which would have increased the annual salary allocation by approximately $10,248 per Council office. In 2015, nearly a decade after the City Manager’s study was submitted to Council, the Mayor and Council voted to implement the 2006 Study recommendation and also acknowledged certain structural deficiencies including that Council Offices had to pull from their discretionary budgets “intended for office supplies and other office-related costs” in order to sufficiently fund staff costs.8 Council ultimately referred an additional $80,000 total to be split between the 8 Council offices. This 5https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/City_Council__Committee_and_Regional_Body_Appo intees.aspx
6https://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil/agenda-committee/2006/packet/041006/2006-04- 18%20Draft%20Item%2019%20MOORE%20-%20Salary%20Equity.pdf 7https://www.cityofberkeley.info/recordsonline/api/Document/AQwW5T053smoW4FSgoqqfPzrtx2b5Xydz2 Wp12sEq9AYYtJ0JDbJ32ymekuaq6i5xy%C3%89%C3%81I7rVEBYmrBFWpzKvwec%3D/ 8https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2015/03_Mar/Documents/2015-03- 10_Item_10_Refer_$80,000.aspx

101
Budget Referral and Updated Guidelines and Procedures for City Council Office Staff Expenditures 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 4 increased staff capacity but only to the bottom end of the AMA classification range for one position.

In 2019, the Legislative Assistants across Council and Mayoral offices unionized as part of the SEIU 1021 Community Services & Part-Time Recreation Leaders Association.

The contract approved in June 20219 provided for a wage step range roughly commensurate with the AMA classification. As part of that range, Legislative Assistants now receive annual pay increases along the established range like other City employees. In order to effectuate the new labor agreement, Council modified the guidelines that regulate Council Office budgets, replacing Resolution No. 65.540-N.S. with Resolution No. 70,054–N.S.10
While the wage floor for Legislative Assistants has increased under the contract, historic budget deficiencies persist. Indeed, the current budget policy artificially constrains certain Council appointments to less than full-time appointments in cases where two Legislative Assistants are needed. As a result, offices with multiple Legislative Assistants have to ration one full-time salary between two people, a fraught situation that create awkward and precarious work schedules, inequitable compensation, burnout, high turnover, less diverse staff, less thorough legislative and constituent services, and the siphoning of office funds intended for supplies and other office-related costs. In addition, since the Legislative Assistant contract now provides for yearly step increases pursuant to favorable performance reviews like most other City positions, the Mayor and Council offices with multiple Legislative Assistants will quickly overshoot their budgets, which were designed for only one Legislative Assistant per office.

Adequately and equitably funding these positions is key to meeting the City’s Strategic Plan goal of attracting and retaining a talented and diverse City government workforce.

The two alternatives considered would address these shortcomings and respond to the change in legislative conditions by providing offices that wish to hire two full-time Legislative Assistants the opportunity to do so.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Maintaining the status quo would result in those Council Offices which retain more than one Legislative Assistant encountering structural budget deficits within one to three years. For example, an Office budgeted at the FY 2023 rate of $109,539 for staff salaries with two staff, one for 30 hours a week and one for 20, would have a $12,224.89 surplus in their salaries fund. The surplus would drop annually, to $7,370.43 in the second year and $2,239.85 in the third, and finally become negative in the fourth year at -$3,111.47. In this scenario, Offices will be forced to cut hours or lay off staff.

Though this can be remediated by reallocating non-personnel funds towards staff costs, 9https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/06_June/Documents/06- 01_AC_Time_Critical_Item_Leg_Assistants_MOU.aspx
10https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/10_Oct/Documents/2021-10- 12_Item_06_Council_Office_Expense_Account.aspx

102
Budget Referral and Updated Guidelines and Procedures for City Council Office Staff Expenditures 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 5 doing so would delay but not prevent structural issues in most circumstances and results in other challenges and inequities associated with insufficient office funds.

The Budget and Finance Committee should instead consider pooling individual Council Staff Office Budgets together into a single Council Office Staff Budget, and fund it sufficient for each Office to hire two FTEs. This would raise funding to a level reflective of the demonstrated demand for Legislative Assistant work and stabilize those Offices with multiple Legislative Assistants, while simultaneously enabling budgeting practices and cost savings not practical with individual Council Staff Office Budgets. In this scenario each Council Office would be able to draw funding for up to 2 FTEs or their equivalent from the fund, with the precise dollar amount fluctuating from Office to Office based on the tenure of an Office’s staff and the breakdown of fulltime and part-time positions.

The primary advantage of a pooled approach is in allowing more accurate budgeting practices. Normally, variation in seniority and temporary vacancies within a department create a high probability of actual costs falling close to the middle of the step range per budgeted position. It is therefore more accurate to budget staff costs at that median range, which frees some money for other priorities. The small size of each Council Office Staff Budget prevents this, instead requiring that they be budgeted at the top of the range. A pooled budget for 16 FTEs would likely be large enough to budget at the middle, allowing for more accurate budgeting and possible relocation of resources.

A pooled fund would allow for budgeting practices more reflective of the City’s policies for other departments. The Budget and Finance Committee should consider what additional restrictions and policies should govern use of the fund. These should include a restriction on initial step placements for new hires at the first four steps of the Legislative Assistant salary range, and a requirement that the 80 hours available to each department be split between no more than three individual staff members. These restrictions are important for maintaining the stability of the fund while allowing for the hiring discretion necessary of political positions. While these limits would place some restrictions on Councilmembers, they would retain their ability to supplement their allocation from the fund with expenditures from their non-personnel budget.

This pooled approach is a significant change from current practices and will require input and guidance from Budget staff to create and implement. Additionally, it could allow one Council Office to draw significantly more or less from the pool than others, though this would reflect variation in funding but not actual staff resources. For example, an office with two new staff at the first step would pull more from the fund than an office with staff both at the final step, though each Office would still only be receiving the benefit of 2 FTEs.

A second alternative to address this issue would be to simply increase the amount allocated per council office from one FTE to two. While this would achieve short term stabilization of Council Staff Office Budgets and be simpler and easier to implement

103
Budget Referral and Updated Guidelines and Procedures for City Council Office Staff Expenditures 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 6 than the pooled approach, it would not achieve long-term stabilization and cost control features.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The current baseline allocation for each Council Office Staff budget for FY 2023 is approximately $187,663. This includes $109,539 for salary and $78,124 for fringe benefits, the largest share of which is health insurance costs. This totals $1,501,305 across the eight Council Offices, not accounting for additional voluntary contributions from Councilmembers’ own salaries.

Pooling the Council Office Staff Budgets and budgeting at the median of the step range would cost approximately $2,727,925 in total. This would be $1,226,620 more than current spending but $274,686 less than the prior alternative.

Individually allocating each Council Office Staff Budget funding for two FTEs would increase costs to $375,326 per Office or $3,002,612 total, representing an increased allocation of $1,501,305.

It is important to consider that these numbers represent allocations and not actual expenditures. Adopting a prohibition on the rollover of surplus funds budgeted for salaries alongside the current prohibition for fringe benefits could reduce the actual cost of the individual proposal.

Finally, these cost estimates are based on projections for salary costs given scheduled raises per already agreed labor contracts for FY 2023, but assume FY 2022 allocations for fringe benefits. This may slightly underestimate the cost for both the status quo and the first alternative, and significantly overestimate cost for the pooled alternative. Some fringe benefits, like healthcare, are unrelated to the salary of the position, while some rise with compensation. While the pooled approach budgets salaries at the median of the range, it assumes the full cost of 16 positions regardless of step for fringe benefits.

Additional information from staff concerning the breakdown and calculation of fringe benefits cost would help to refine these figures.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No discernible impact.

CONTACT
Councilmember Ben Bartlett 510-981-7130
James Chang 510-981-7131

104
Kate Harrison
Vice Mayor, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Harrison
Subject: Budget Referral: Fund Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, and Crisis-related Services Needs and Capacity Assessments

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY 23 and FY 24 Annual Budget Process $100,000 to provide Health, Housing & Community Services Department and Berkeley Fire Department the means study or hire a consultant(s) to:

1. conduct a service needs assessment based on 911 and non-911 calls for service, dispatch, and response, to address the needs of Berkeley people with behavioral health issues and/or are unhoused1 using computer aided dispatch (CAD) or other data from the Berkeley dispatch, other dispatch agencies, BPD, BFD, and any other relevant data during the COVID pandemic from at least March 2020 through the present; and

2. conduct a capacity assessment of crisis response and crisis-related services available to Berkeley people in Berkeley and Alameda County, including but not limited to with respect to the Specialized Care Unit (SCU), respite, and sobering centers.

CURRENT SITUATION AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
CAD Needs Assessment Study
Currently the City of Berkeley has a Public Safety Communications Center (Center) where call takers and dispatchers answer 911 and non-911 calls on a 24/7 basis for police, fire, medical, behavioral health, and other calls for service. This Center is managed under police leadership and located in the Berkeley Police Department. At this Center, the call takers input call information into the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and transfer the information to fire/EMS and police dispatch staff.2 The dispatchers coordinate all police-related calls requiring a response from law 1 Behavioral health refers to both mental health and substance use for purposes of this recommendation.

It is noted that call takers may transfer crisis calls to alternative hotlines or dispatch responders depending on the nature of the call for service.
2 Auditor Report, 2021, 8.

105
Budget Referral: Fund Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, and Crisis-related Services Needs and Capacity Assessments

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
2 enforcement and enter all officer-initiated incidents into the CAD system such as pedestrian and traffic stops; they maintain radio contact with field staff as well.3 It is noteworthy that City of Berkeley’s call takers and dispatchers use BPD’s general communications center procedures, which are not specifically tailored for behavioral health (mental health, substance use) and/or homelessness calls for service and/or dispatching first responders into the community.

As part of the omnibus package for reimagining public safety in Berkeley, the Berkeley City Council directed the City’s elected Auditor to perform an analysis of the City’s 911 calls for service and responses. On July 2, 2021, the Auditor issued the final report, “Data Analysis of the City of Berkeley’s Police Response” to calls for service. In this Auditor Report, the Auditor analyzed the CAD data and assessed the number of events related to mental health and homelessness in Berkeley from 2015-2019.4 The overall data involved 350,000+ calls for service from 2015-2019.5 In the context of the Auditor Report, “events” refer to situations entered into the CAD data system that resulted in a response by at least one sworn officer.6 The CAD system is the computer aided dispatch (CAD) system used for call information, assigning call types, inputting narrative descriptions about calls for services as they progress, dispatching responders, and tracking emergency incident using computers.

Based upon the elected City Auditor’s study, the Auditor recommended identifying all calls for service that have an apparent mental health and homelessness component in a manner that protects the privacy rights of individuals involved.7 Specifically, there is a need to create clear mechanisms for identifying mental health, substance use, and homelessness call types and to use them consistently during 911 call taking and dispatching, including when they are not the primary reason for the call. There is also a need to consistently follow standardized language to describe mental health, substance use, and homelessness-related events in the narrative descriptions for every call. And, there is a need to use behavioral health procedures and protocols, including using consistent, reliable de-escalation techniques during call taking and dispatching the most suitable first responders to people in need. Overall, the ability to realize these goals rests on conducting a needs assessment about 911 and non-911 calls for service, dispatch, and responses for a diversity of people experiencing behavioral health (mental health, substance use) and homelessness crises in the community. While the Auditor did not address substance use, it is critical to include it. It is also key that the needs assessment reflect the demographic populations served where possible.

In addition, this type of needs assessment can inform the level of need for licensed behavioral health clinicians and medical workers including the appropriate education, training and licensing to screen, assess, de-escalate and stabilize people who are experiencing mental health, substance use, and homelessness crises over the phone 3 Id.
4 Id., 53-58.
5 Id., 17.
6 Id., 10, 13.
7 Id., 2021, 5.

106
Budget Referral: Fund Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, and Crisis-related Services Needs and Capacity Assessments

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
3 and in the community. This study may further inform coordination about appropriate levels of care that community members need in order to avoid hospital emergency rooms—which can be crowded, chaotic and harmful to people experiencing behavioral health and homelessness crisis. The study can also inform how to relieve law enforcement and fire/EMS from addressing behavioral health and homelessness needs whenever possible—particularly so they can focus on crime, violence, fire, and natural disasters.

Moreover, this 911 needs assessment can review calls for services, dispatch, and/or response in the community to address any structural police, fire, and/or EMS issues that disproportionately impact diverse and vulnerable people experiencing a behavioral health and/or homelessness crisis. The 911 needs assessment can also assess any reduction in risks of injury and death by police and how diverting calls for service away from police and towards dispatching alternative responders can alleviate trauma for diverse and vulnerable groups: Black, Latinx, Indigenous, AAPI, immigrant, LGBTQIA+, disabled, young, old, unhoused, formerly incarcerated and additional groups.

Overall, this needs assessment can inform operating an effective, empathetic alternative responder program that fundamentally improves the well-being for diverse and vulnerable people experiencing behavioral health crisis in the community. Cities such as Eugene (CAHOOTS), Portland, Seattle, Olympia, Sacramento, San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Los Angeles, San Diego, Austin, Houston, Denver, Atlanta, Chicago, Ithaca, New York City and others have already done so with success. Further this needs assessment can improve well-being when call takers transfer people to alternative hotlines with mental health and/or substance use specialists. It is noted that the national 988 mental health hotline will be live beginning July 2022 for call takers to transfer calls to this service. Ultimately, these approaches to 911 call processing and dispatching are key to providing a holistic, equitable, and community-centered public safety approaches for our most diverse and vulnerable communities and for reimagining public safety in Berkeley with reliability and fidelity.

Capacity and Needs Assessment of Crisis Services Available to Berkeley People in Alameda County
Earlier in January 2020, the Division of Mental Health Division released a request for proposal to evaluate the current mental health crisis system in Berkeley and following a robust selection process, the City of Berkeley selected Research Development Associates (RDA). The assessment focused solely on crisis response through the co- responding police and mobile crisis team in the City of Berkeley and not other crisis related services available to Berkeley people in Alameda County. While the City of Berkeley is a unique jurisdiction for certain public mental health services such as this mobile crisis response team, the RDA evaluation did not assess the capacity and quality of county crisis services available to Berkeley people. This type of assessment is critical for assessing the availability of and access to crisis stabilization, sobering and withdrawal centers, crisis peer services and peer respite services, and additional crisis related services in Alameda County. Overall, this capacity assessment is further critical

107
Budget Referral: Fund Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, and Crisis-related Services Needs and Capacity Assessments

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
4 to taking a diversion approach to transferring calls for service to behavioral health crisis lines and to dispatching alternative responders into the community instead of police.

HHCS staff indicate that the SCU-related portion of this study should occur after the SCU has been operating for at least six months to a year. However, it is expected that from the outset that the SCU will need to incorporate internal analytical tools to capture data and metrics from initial call or referral to ultimate disposition, aiding in in the longer- term needs and capacity study contemplated in this item.

BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2020, the Berkeley City Council adopted an omnibus package to reimagine public safety and policing in the City of Berkeley. The omnibus package consisted of numerous elements including: 1) having the City Auditor perform an analysis of the City’s emergency 911 calls for service and police responses; 2) analyzing and developing a pilot program to re-assign non-criminal police service calls to an alternative non-police responder, the Specialized Care Unit; and 3) creating plans and protocols for calls for service to be routed and assigned to alternative preferred responding entities and consider replacing dispatch in the Fire Department or elsewhere outside the Police Department (see Reimagining Public Safety Task Force website).

The City Auditor reported that mental health and homelessness events identified in the CAD data do not represent the total number of events that may have had a mental health or homelessness component as a result of data limitations. First, the report reflected that call types in the CAD system reveal the primary reason for a call which may not capture events where the individuals involved are experiencing a mental health issue or homelessness.8 The CAD system has some call types to identify when the primary reason for the call is a mental health issue, such as a “suicide attempt” or “5150” for someone experiencing a mental health crisis.9 However, if the primary reason for the call is another issue, dispatchers are trained to assign those to call types that reflect the primary reason, such as family disturbance or pedestrian stop, which do not capture an accompanying mental health issue.10 According to the Berkeley Police Department, if the event involves a potential crime, dispatchers will always log it using a corresponding crime code and not a mental health call type.11 Lodging in public is further the only call type for homelessness.12
Moreover, the City Auditor’s analysis identified 42,427 unduplicated events with a mental health component, or 12 percent of all events from.13 The City Auditor’s analysis further identified 21,683 events involving homelessness, which represent 6.2 percent of all events during the same time period.14 The City Auditor stated that mental health and 8 Auditor Report, 2022, 53.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Auditor Report, 2022, 57.
13 Auditor, 2021, 56.
14 Auditor, 2021, 57.

108
Budget Referral: Fund Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, and Crisis-related Services Needs and Capacity Assessments

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
5 homeless call types are “significantly undercounted.”15 The City Auditor’s study did not analyze call types associated with substance use, which is recommended for inclusion in a future needs assessment study. Overall, there appears to be a sizable number of behavioral health and homelessness calls for service that need attention.

It is also noted that while the Berkeley Police Department formally began using “H” for homeless and “MH” for mental health disposition codes when closing out any call involving a homeless or person with mental health issues on July 1, 2021, officers have discretion about using these codes.16 Per this Reference Guide, officers were instructed that they were not required to ask people about housing status unless necessary for identification purposes or mental health issues unless related to the call.17 Moreover, according to this Reference Guide if the basis for the disposition code is criminal— despite involving a person who experiencing homelessness and/or mental health issues, then the officer may further not record the disposition code with an “H” or “MH.”

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Impact on General Fund of $100,000. However, the benefit of analyses could generate budgetary efficiencies and better outcomes for Berkeley residents.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No discernable impact.

CONTACT PERSON
Vice Mayor Kate Harrison, (510) 981-7140
15 Auditor, 2021, 53-58.
16 Reimagining Public Safety Reference Guide, 2022, 39. 17 Id.

109
110

Kate Harrison
Vice Mayor, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Kate Harrison (Author), Mayor Jesse Arreguín (Co-Author), Councilmember Susan Wengraf (Co-Author), Councilmember Sophie Hahn (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Resolution in Support of SB 379: the Solar Access Act

RECOMMENDATION
Send a letter of support for SB 379 (Wiener) - Residential solar energy systems:
permitting, to Senators Wiener and Skinner, Assemblymember Wicks, and Governor Newsom. To increase the number of homes installing safe solar energy systems, Senate Bill 379, the Solar Access Act, would mandate jurisdictions above a certain population size to provide an online instant solar permitting process, like SolarAPP+, for residential solar and solar-plus-storage systems.

BACKGROUND
California needs to accelerate its transition to clean energy in order to increase local resilience and meet its climate emissions targets. While rooftop solar systems have been a major driving force behind California’s ongoing transition, the potential growth of these systems has been diminished by administrative burdens. Across the state, rooftop solar and storage permitting processes are often inefficient and time-consuming, and can add thousands of dollars to the cost of installing solar. As a result, fewer Californians add solar to their roofs than the number that otherwise would. Meanwhile, the workload for building department officials continues to increase, and government staff are increasingly unable to manage the permitting application process in a timely fashion. Relief is needed across the board, and the technology to accomplish that is now widely available, and should be implemented as quickly as possible.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), under the auspices of the U.S.

Department of Energy, has created a free-to-use program to support local governments with residential solar and solar-plus-storage system permitting1. SolarAPP+ provides a web-based portal that streamlines and automates permit reviews, and can be easily implemented into existing local government permitting software. 1 https://solarapp.nrel.gov/

111

Resolution in Support of SB 379: the Solar Access Act CONSENT CALENDAR May 24, 2022

The Solar Access Act requires counties with more than 150,000 residents, and all cities within those counties, to implement instant online permitting for solar and solar-plus- storage systems, via programs like SolarAPP+. Under the provisions of SB 379, requirement will go into effect starting September 30, 2024 for cities under 50,000 residents, and September 30, 2023 for cities over 50,000 residents. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is preparing a program to deploy $20 million in grants to help cities and counties adopt online automated permitting systems such as SolarAPP+.

NREL first introduced SolarAPP+ in late 2020 and has slowly expanded the program’s capabilities. Many local jurisdictions, including Pleasant Hill, Benicia, Stockton, Sonoma County, San Jose, and Los Angeles have already begun implementation of automated permitting with great success2. Pleasant Hill has reduced their average permit review time to zero days (same-day approval) since adopting SolarAPP+ for instantaneous automated permitting.

SB 379 is supported by numerous environmental and other community organizations, including SPUR, Environment California, the Sierra Club, the Climate Center, and Grid Alternatives.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Limited staff time associated with sending a letter to designated recipients.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No direct identifiable environmental sustainability savings are associated with this item.

However, the passage of SB 379 is likely to lead to a more rapid deployment of rooftop- scale solar and storage in the City of Berkeley, which is a key strategy in the realization of Berkeley’s Climate Action and resiliency goals.

CONTACT PERSON
Vice Mayor Kate Harrison 510-981-7140
Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. SB 379 Language

3. Support Letters
2 https://help.solar-app.org/article/108-where-is-solarapp-available

112

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

IN SUPPORT OF SB 379, THE SOLAR ACCESS ACT
WHEREAS, Last year, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), under contract to the federal Department of Energy, developed software called SolarAPP+ that processes permits for solar and solar-plus-storage systems; and WHEREAS, SolarAPP+ asks the contractor a series of questions to verify the solar system’s design is safe, and then issues a permit automatically; and WHEREAS, SolarAPP+, developed in partnership with building safety experts and the solar industry, helps local governments and installers operate more efficiently without compromising the safety or quality of solar systems; and WHEREAS, SolarAPP+ is free for cities and counties, integrates with their existing software systems, and can be adjusted to the characteristics of the area (e.g., snowfall); and
WHEREAS, California needs to accelerate its transition to clean energy in order to increase local resilience and meet its climate emissions targets; and WHEREAS, While rooftop solar systems have been a major driving force behind California’s ongoing transition, the potential growth of these systems has been diminished by administrative burdens; and
WHEREAS, The Solar Access Act requires counties with more than 150,000 residents, and all cities within those counties, to implement instant online permitting for solar and solar-plus-storage systems, via programs like SolarAPP+; and WHEREAS, Under the provisions of SB 379, applicable requirements will go into effect starting September 30, 2024 for cities under 50,000 residents, and September 30, 2023 for cities over 50,000 residents; and
WHEREAS, The California Energy Commission (CEC) is preparing a program to deploy $20 million in grants to help cities and counties adopt online automated permitting systems such as SolarAPP+; and
WHEREAS, SB 379 is supported by numerous environmental and other community organizations, including SPUR, Environment California, the Sierra Club, the Climate Center, and Grid Alternatives.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it endorses SB 379, the Solar Access Act.

113

Resolution in Support of SB 379: the Solar Access Act CONSENT CALENDAR May 24, 2022

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council sends a letter of support to Senators Wiener and Skinner, Assemblymember Wicks, and Governor Newsom.

114
4/22/22, 3:27 PM Bill Text - SB-379 Residential solar energy systems: permitting. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB379 1/4 SENATE BILL NO. 379
SHARE THIS:

Date Published: 01/12/2022 09:00 PM
SB-379 Residential solar energy systems: permitting. (2021-2022)

AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 12, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 03, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 04, 2021
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 08, 2021
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 07, 2021
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Senator Wiener

February 10, 2021
An act to add Section 65850.52 to the Government Code, relating to land use.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 379, as amended, Wiener. Residential solar energy systems: permitting.

Existing law requires a city or county to approve administratively applications to install solar energy systems through the issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary permit. Existing law requires every city, county, or city and county to develop a streamlined permitting process for the installation of small residential rooftop solar energy systems, as that term is defined. Existing law prescribes and limits permit fees that a city or county may charge for a residential and commercial solar energy system. Existing law creates the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) in the Natural Resources Agency and prescribes its duties, which include administering programs for the installation of solar energy systems.

This bill would require every city, county, or city and county to implement an online, automated permitting platform that verifies code compliance and instantaneously issues permits in real time for a solar energy system system, as defined, that is no larger than 38.4 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating and an energy storage system
system, as defined, paired with a solar energy system that is no larger than 38.4 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county to amend a certain ordinance to authorize a residential solar energy system and an energy storage system to use the online, automated permitting platform.

Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites

115
4/22/22, 3:27 PM Bill Text - SB-379 Residential solar energy systems: permitting. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB379 2/4 This bill would prescribe a compliance schedule for satisfying these requirements, which would exempt a city with a population of fewer than 5,000 and a county with a population of fewer than 150,000 and all cities within a county with a population of fewer than 150,000. 150,000, including each city within that county. The bill would require a city with a population of 50,000 or fewer that is not otherwise exempt to satisfy these requirements by September 30, 2024, while cities and counties with populations greater than 50,000 that are not otherwise exempt would be required to satisfy the requirements by September 30, 2023. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county, or a fire department, district, or authority, to report to the Energy Commission when it is in compliance with specified requirements, in addition to other information. The bill would require cities and counties to self-certify their compliance with the bill’s provisions when applying for specified funds from the Energy Commission.

Commission, as specified.

This bill would, upon provision of sufficient funding, authorize the Energy Commission to provide technical assistance and grant funding to cities and counties in order to support the above-described requirements. The bill would require the Energy Commission to set guidelines for cities and counties to report to the commission on the number of permits issued for solar energy systems and an energy storage system paired with a solar energy system and the relevant characteristics of those systems. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Permitting fees or soft costs to solar and storage projects can add substantial time and money to the adoption of additional solar and storage projects.
(b)California needs additional rooftop solar and storage projects in order to meet our renewable energy goals. (c)
(b) To meet its clean energy goals, California needs may need up to six gigawatts of new renewable and storage resources annually. annually, including additional rooftop solar and storage projects. (d)
(c) Per the 2021 Senate Bill 100 Joint Agency Report, Achieving 100% Clean Electricity in California, development of rooftop solar must increase dramatically. (e)
(d) Because the 2021 budget included a $20 million appropriation to the Energy Commission for grants to all jurisdictions that adopt the SolarAPP+ or a similar program in order to expedite permitting, local permitting jurisdictions can and should be required to adopt SolarAPP+ or a similar program for automated permitting in order to promote the development of solar and storage to help meet the state’s clean energy needs.

SEC. 2.

Section 65850.52 is added to the Government Code, immediately following Section 65850.5, to read:
65850.52. (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Energy Commission” means the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. (2) “Energy storage system” means commercially available technology, located behind a customer’s residential utility meter, that is capable of absorbing electricity generated from a colocated electricity generator or from the electrical grid, storing it for a period of time, and thereafter discharging it to meet the energy or power needs of the host customer or for export.
(3) “Solar energy system” means any configuration of solar energy devices that collects and distributes solar energy for the purpose of generating electricity and that has a single residential interconnection with the electric

116
4/22/22, 3:27 PM Bill Text - SB-379 Residential solar energy systems: permitting. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB379 3/4 utility transmission or distribution network.
(4) “SolarAPP+” means the most recent version of a web-based portal, developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, that automates plan review, produces code-compliant approvals, and issues permits for solar energy systems and energy storage systems paired with solar energy systems. (b) Pursuant (1) Pursuant to the compliance schedule in subdivision (d), (c), a city, county, or city and county, in consultation with the local fire department, district, or authority, shall implement an online, automated permitting platform, such as SolarAPP+, that verifies
meets both of the following requirements:
(A) The platform verifies code compliance and issues permits in real time to a licensed contractor for a solar energy system that is no larger than 38.4 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating and an energy storage system paired with a solar energy system that is no larger than 38.4 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating, and
is rating.
(B) The platform is consistent with the system parameters and configurations, including an inspection checklist, of SolarAPP+. Consistent
(2) Consistent with the same compliance schedule, a city, county, or city and county shall amend its ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 65850.5 to authorize a residential solar energy system and an energy storage system to use the online, automated permitting platform. (3) A city, county, or city and county is not required to permit an application for a solar energy system or energy storage system through the online automated permitting platform pursuant to this section if the system configuration is not eligible for SolarAPP+ at the time the application is submitted to the jurisdiction. (c) (1) A city with a population of fewer than 5,000 and a county with a population of fewer than 150,000, and all cities within a county with a population of fewer than 150,000, are including each city within that county, is exempt from subdivision (b).
(2) A city with a population of 50,000 or fewer that is not exempt pursuant to paragraph (1) shall satisfy the requirements of subdivision (b) by September 30, 2024.
(3) A city, county, or city and county with a population of greater than 50,000 that is not exempt pursuant to paragraph (1) shall satisfy the requirements of subdivision (b) by September 30, 2023. (d)Upon provision of sufficient funding, the Energy Commission may provide technical assistance and grant funding to a city, county, or city and county to support the implementation of online, automated permitting for a solar energy system and an energy storage system paired with a solar energy system and for compliance with the requirements of subdivision (b) in a timely manner. (e)
(d) A city, county, or city and county, or a fire department, district, or authority, shall report to the Energy Commission when it is in compliance with subdivision (b). (f)
(e) The Energy Commission shall set guidelines for cities, counties, and cities and counties to report to the commission on the number of permits issued for solar energy systems and an energy storage system paired with a solar energy system and the relevant characteristics of those systems. A city, county, or city and county shall annually report to the Energy Commission pursuant to those guidelines within one year of implementing the online, automated solar permitting system pursuant to subdivision (b). (g)
(f) A city, county, or city and county shall self-certify its compliance with this section when applying for funds from the Energy Commission after the applicable date in the compliance schedule in subdivision (c), other than the twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) in funds available, pursuant to Section 76 of Chapter 69 of the Statutes of 2021, from the Energy Commission for automated solar permitting. (h)
(g) This section does not limit or otherwise affect the generator interconnection requirements and approval process for a local publicly owned electric utility, as defined in Section 224.3 of the Public Utilities Code, or an

117
4/22/22, 3:27 PM Bill Text - SB-379 Residential solar energy systems: permitting. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB379 4/4 electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code. (i)
(h) This section does not increase or otherwise affect the liability of a local agency pertaining to a solar energy system or an energy storage system paired with a solar energy system installed pursuant to this section.

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

118

The Honorable Governor Gavin Newsom
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 379 (Wiener) Support for SB 379: the Solar Access Act Dear Governor Newsom,
We write to express our strong support for Senate Bill 379, which will require adoption of automated, instant and online solar and storage permitting systems such as SolarAPP+ across California. California could meet its energy needs by capturing just a sliver of the virtually limitless and pollution-free energy that strikes the state every day in the form of sunlight.

Currently, most permitting processes are onerous and costly. We can do more to reduce barriers to residential rooftop solar and storage adoption for more communities.

By making it easier for more Californians to go solar and add energy storage, we can reduce carbon emissions, increase resilience to wildfires and public safety power shutoffs, and increase job opportunities in our communities.

The Solar Access Act, SB 379, would require cities and counties to adopt an online and instant permitting system, such as SolarAPP+ so that customers can get a permit for simple residential solar and solar-plus-storage systems without delay. SolarAPP+ is an automated permitting software developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and funded by the US Department of Energy and is a great solution to the problem of expensive and time intensive solar and energy storage permitting processes for single family homes and duplexes. This tool is free for jurisdictions to use and can be integrated with existing software.

With $20 million of funding secured in the Governor’s 2021 budget, jurisdictions can apply for grants to support the staff time needed to implement SolarAPP+ or another automated permitting system. This bill will support the adoption of tools like SolarAPP+, drive down the cost of solar and solar-plus-storage systems and make it more accessible to Californians.

The rapid growth of solar resulting from SB 379 would benefit our communities. Solar installation provides local, accessible and good-paying jobs in communities across California. Solar energy also generates more carbon-free energy which lowers residents’ energy bills, readies the grid for electric vehicles, and keeps the lights on and medical devices running during blackouts and public safety power shutoffs, especially when the solar system includes a battery.

For these reasons, the Berkeley City Council strongly supports SB 379.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council

119

The Honorable State Senator Nancy Skinner
Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8630
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 379 (Wiener) Support for SB 379: the Solar Access Act Dear Senator Skinner,
We write to express our strong support for Senate Bill 379, which will require adoption of automated, instant and online solar and storage permitting systems such as SolarAPP+ across California. California could meet its energy needs by capturing just a sliver of the virtually limitless and pollution-free energy that strikes the state every day in the form of sunlight.

Currently, most permitting processes are onerous and costly. We can do more to reduce barriers to residential rooftop solar and storage adoption for more communities.

By making it easier for more Californians to go solar and add energy storage, we can reduce carbon emissions, increase resilience to wildfires and public safety power shutoffs, and increase job opportunities in our communities.

The Solar Access Act, SB 379, would require cities and counties to adopt an online and instant permitting system, such as SolarAPP+ so that customers can get a permit for simple residential solar and solar-plus-storage systems without delay. SolarAPP+ is an automated permitting software developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and funded by the US Department of Energy and is a great solution to the problem of expensive and time intensive solar and energy storage permitting processes for single family homes and duplexes. This tool is free for jurisdictions to use and can be integrated with existing software.

With $20 million of funding secured in the Governor’s 2021 budget, jurisdictions can apply for grants to support the staff time needed to implement SolarAPP+ or another automated permitting system. This bill will support the adoption of tools like SolarAPP+, drive down the cost of solar and solar-plus-storage systems and make it more accessible to Californians.

The rapid growth of solar resulting from SB 379 would benefit our communities. Solar installation provides local, accessible and good-paying jobs in communities across California. Solar energy also generates more carbon-free energy which lowers residents’ energy bills, readies the grid for electric vehicles, and keeps the lights on and medical devices running during blackouts and public safety power shutoffs, especially when the solar system includes a battery.

For these reasons, the Berkeley City Council strongly supports SB 379.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council

120

The Honorable Assemblymember Buffy Wicks
Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4240
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0015
RE: SB 379 (Wiener) Support for SB 379: the Solar Access Act Dear Assemblymember Wicks,
We write to express our strong support for Senate Bill 379, which will require adoption of automated, instant and online solar and storage permitting systems such as SolarAPP+ across California. California could meet its energy needs by capturing just a sliver of the virtually limitless and pollution-free energy that strikes the state every day in the form of sunlight.

Currently, most permitting processes are onerous and costly. We can do more to reduce barriers to residential rooftop solar and storage adoption for more communities.

By making it easier for more Californians to go solar and add energy storage, we can reduce carbon emissions, increase resilience to wildfires and public safety power shutoffs, and increase job opportunities in our communities.

The Solar Access Act, SB 379, would require cities and counties to adopt an online and instant permitting system, such as SolarAPP+ so that customers can get a permit for simple residential solar and solar-plus-storage systems without delay. SolarAPP+ is an automated permitting software developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and funded by the US Department of Energy and is a great solution to the problem of expensive and time intensive solar and energy storage permitting processes for single family homes and duplexes. This tool is free for jurisdictions to use and can be integrated with existing software.

With $20 million of funding secured in the Governor’s 2021 budget, jurisdictions can apply for grants to support the staff time needed to implement SolarAPP+ or another automated permitting system. This bill will support the adoption of tools like SolarAPP+, drive down the cost of solar and solar-plus-storage systems and make it more accessible to Californians.

The rapid growth of solar resulting from SB 379 would benefit our communities. Solar installation provides local, accessible and good-paying jobs in communities across California. Solar energy also generates more carbon-free energy which lowers residents’ energy bills, readies the grid for electric vehicles, and keeps the lights on and medical devices running during blackouts and public safety power shutoffs, especially when the solar system includes a battery.

For these reasons, the Berkeley City Council strongly supports SB 379.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council

121

The Honorable Senator Scott Wiener
1021 O Street, Suite 6630
Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
RE: SB 379 (Wiener) Support for SB 379: the Solar Access Act Dear Senator Wiener,
We write to express our strong support for Senate Bill 379, which will require adoption of automated, instant and online solar and storage permitting systems such as SolarAPP+ across California. California could meet its energy needs by capturing just a sliver of the virtually limitless and pollution-free energy that strikes the state every day in the form of sunlight.

Currently, most permitting processes are onerous and costly. We can do more to reduce barriers to residential rooftop solar and storage adoption for more communities.

By making it easier for more Californians to go solar and add energy storage, we can reduce carbon emissions, increase resilience to wildfires and public safety power shutoffs, and increase job opportunities in our communities.

The Solar Access Act, SB 379, would require cities and counties to adopt an online and instant permitting system, such as SolarAPP+ so that customers can get a permit for simple residential solar and solar-plus-storage systems without delay. SolarAPP+ is an automated permitting software developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and funded by the US Department of Energy and is a great solution to the problem of expensive and time intensive solar and energy storage permitting processes for single family homes and duplexes. This tool is free for jurisdictions to use and can be integrated with existing software.

With $20 million of funding secured in the Governor’s 2021 budget, jurisdictions can apply for grants to support the staff time needed to implement SolarAPP+ or another automated permitting system. This bill will support the adoption of tools like SolarAPP+, drive down the cost of solar and solar-plus-storage systems and make it more accessible to Californians.

The rapid growth of solar resulting from SB 379 would benefit our communities. Solar installation provides local, accessible and good-paying jobs in communities across California. Solar energy also generates more carbon-free energy which lowers residents’ energy bills, readies the grid for electric vehicles, and keeps the lights on and medical devices running during blackouts and public safety power shutoffs, especially when the solar system includes a battery.

For these reasons, the Berkeley City Council strongly supports SB 379.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council

122

Kate Harrison
Vice Mayor, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Harrison
Subject: Referral to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee and Budget Referral to Consider General Fund Strategies and Related Fiscal Policies for Funding Capital Improvements, in Particular Street, Sidewalk, Micromobility and Transit Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION

1. Refer to the Council Budget and Finance Policy Committee to explore specific options for improving how and to what extent the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is funded, to include but not limited to the following potential strategies:
a. investigate historic assumptions and policies regarding secured-property and transfer tax revenues;
b. consider a one-time allocation of a certain percentage of salary savings accruing from historic vacancies that are not likely to be filled in the short-term; c. consider prospective Public Works plan to charge utilities for pavement impact.

2. Refer to the June 2022 Budget process $8 million per year to be transferred to the CIP based on Committee consideration and any conclusions.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On April 19, 2022, the Budget & Finance Policy Committee sent the item to Council (M/S/C Harrison/Arreguin) with a qualified positive recommendation removing item 1 (c) consider the sale of underutilizes city-owned property.

Vote: Ayes – Harrison, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – Droste; Absent –None.

CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The City is facing a historic crisis of underinvestment in its infrastructure. The Mayor formed the Vision 2050 Task Force and spearheaded placing the $100 million T1 Infrastructure Bond (leveraging millions more in other funding) to begin to address these long-standing capital needs. To date, $40M in T1 bonds were spent, with an additional $23M from grants and special funds. Nonetheless, the City’s infrastructure needs remain vast with perhaps the most visible area of underinvestment being in the City’s streets and sidewalks.

123

Referral to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee and Budget Referral to Consider General Fund Strategies and Related Fiscal Policies for Funding Capital Improvements, in Particular Street, Sidewalk, Micromobility and Transit Infrastructure

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
A Metropolitan Transportation Commission report warns that Berkeley’s overall paving condition is “At Risk,” meaning on the cusp of falling into “Failing” category. The current five-year paving plan is the result of historic deferred maintenance and underfunding.

Residential streets across the entire city are largely categorized as failing and bicycle, pedestrian, and Vision Zero projects are severely underfunded. Meanwhile, neighboring cities in the Bay Area, such as Richmond, El Cerrito, San Francisco have “Excellent/Very Good” to “Fair/Good” streets conditions.

The Public Works Department has advised that ongoing funding under the rolling 5- Year Street Plan will not be enough to stabilize Berkeley’s streets. In fact, if street investment is not increased, Public Works warns that the City could face $1 billion in future repair costs as the cost of deferred paving maintenance increases exponentially each year. In March of 2022, the Department reported that the City needs an additional $8 million in funding per year to maintain the current street condition and to maintain any future investments, including the revenue measure. Addressing the ongoing maintenance gap, regardless of new bonding for on-time fixes, is key to addressing the crisis.

At the Council’s direction, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability (FITES) Policy Committee has spent two years investigating, the overall paving situation, paving policies, and multi-faceted paving funding/bonding solutions.

From this work, a number of potential solutions have arisen including allocating the TNC tax for priority bike, pedestrian, and transit street upgrades and exploring charging fees to garbage collection agencies and private companies for road damage. Public Works recently conducted a five-year rate study for zero waste rates that would raise $1 million in the first year and $2 million thereafter to address paving impacts of the City’s Zero Waste fleet. The outcome of this funding stream is dependent on a Proposition 218 process scheduled for 2023.

In addition, the FITES committee explored the idea of bonding to stabilize citywide PCI.

The Council is also currently considering placing an infrastructure bond and/or parcel tax on the November, 2022 ballot. However, long-term bonds are not the best way to pay for road maintenance as opposed to capital reconstruction and every day we wait, more roads fall into an unusable state. From discussion with City staff and the Public Works Commission, it is clear that in addition to other funding strategies, the maintenance problem cannot be solved without additional investment from the City’s General Fund.

It is therefore in the public interest to provide instructions to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee to explore specific avenues for identifying appropriate General Fund monies.

BACKGROUND
In preparing its biannual budgets, there appears to be some underestimation of City secured-property and transfer tax revenues. While there is merit to conservative

124

Referral to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee and Budget Referral to Consider General Fund Strategies and Related Fiscal Policies for Funding Capital Improvements, in Particular Street, Sidewalk, Micromobility and Transit Infrastructure

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
estimates, current needs – especially one-time capital needs – should be considered for prioritization if funding is in fact available.

Future year estimates should include data of historical trends, for example for the past three years. In fact, the City has a vast data set of historic revenue numbers going back much further than that which should be used to provide it with a rough sense of future performance.

For example, the secured-property tax is one of the City’s more consistent revenue streams; it has remained relatively steady even during recessions. The County Assessor’s estimates have been closer to actual performance than those from the City, and they are available in June when the budget is finalized.

Council needs accurate revenue estimates when it is finalizing the biennial budget in June. Learning after the fact, approximately 17 months later, that secured property tax revenues were underestimated is likely not conducive to good budgeting practices.1 1 The 17 months, referred to is based on the following timeline:

125

Referral to the Budget and Finance Policy Committee and Budget Referral to Consider General Fund Strategies and Related Fiscal Policies for Funding Capital Improvements, in Particular Street, Sidewalk, Micromobility and Transit Infrastructure

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 24, 2022
Historically, Council policy has called for using the first $12.5 million in real property transfer taxes for general purposes, with the balance going to capital needs. In FY 2021, in order to account for unanticipated needs due to COVID, the Council dedicated the first $16.5 million in transfer taxes to general purposes. In other years, it is not clear if the entire amount over the $12.5 million was devoted to capital needs. The transfer tax, while more volatile than regular property taxes, has been on a significant upward trend, and the City enjoys equally robust historic data.

Historic Transfer Tax (TT) Variance in Context of CIP
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY2020 FY2021
Adopted TT
(June Budget Book) $ 12,500,000 $12,500,000 $ 12,500,000 $ 16,500,000 Actual TT
(Nov. Year End
Update)
$ 18,911,368.00 $ 19,952,981 $ 22,095,507 $ 21,469,955
TT Variance $ 6,411,368.00 $ 7,452,981 $ 9,595,507 $ 4,969,955 For the past decade, General Fund contributions to the CIP have been flat at $1.9 million despite inflation and steadily deteriorating road condition. An additional $5 million is typically allocated from special funds for paving.2 Public Works staff report that at least $8 million more annually is needed to maintain current street conditions per year in addition to the $6.9 spent in FY22—regardless of whether voters pass a $300 million bond. Fortunately, an additional $8 million in Measure T1 street paving funds will be available in FY 23, but there is not enough to cover the full amount for FY 24. More funds need to be devoted to infrastructure at the adoption of the June budget rather than waiting for reconciliation in November. This will allow capital planning to be improved at the onset each budget cycle. Therefore, Council and staff would be less likely to defer further contributions to the CIP given operational priorities identified by the City Manager and Council priorities as has been the case in recent years when the policy of allocating excess Transfer Tax revenues to the CIP was suspended. For example, through the first amendment to the FY21 budget, the City Manager presented and Council approved an additional $2.7 million in operational expenses such as the relocation of the Information Technology Department, police overtime, public safety radio replacement, and upgrades to the West Campus pool. Council budget items totaled $2.3 million, including for surveillance cameras ($1.3 million), traffic calming and

1. On June 30, 2021 the FY21/22 is set. At that time Finance has the Assessed Values for FY21/22 and knows how much the secured property tax revenues will be based on the Assessor’s numbers.

2. One year later, the fiscal year closes on June 30, 2022, and FY21/22 closes.

3. 5-6 months later, the Year-End financials are presented to Council approximately 17 months after the budget was finalized.
2 E.g., Measure B & BB, Gas Tax & SB1, and Vehicle Registration Fee.