Berkeley City Council
June 6, 2023

1. Violations of Section 13.110.020(C) may be enforced by an administrative fine of up to $1,000 pursuant to Chapter 1.28. Each day a commercial property landlord demands rent in excess of the amount permitted pursuant to Section 13.110.020(C) is a separate violation. The City may also charge the costs of investigating and issuing any notices of violations, and any hearings or appeals of such notices.

2. The City Attorney may refer those violators of Section 13.110.020(C) to the Alameda County District Attorney for redress as a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. or, if granted permission by the District Attorney, may bring an action pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

D. Nonexclusive Remedies and Penalties. The remedies provided in this subdivision are not exclusive, and nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any person from seeking any other remedies, penalties or procedures provided by law.

13.110.090 Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Chapter, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Chapter. The Council of the City of Berkeley hereby declares that it would have passed this Chapter and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any other portion of this Chapter or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

13.110.100 Liberal Construction
The provisions of this Chapter shall be liberally construed so as to fully achieve its purpose and provide the greatest possible protections to tenants.

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

Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember, District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author) and Councilmembers Mark Humbert, Terry Taplin, and Susan Wengraf (Co-Sponsors) SUBJECT: Budget Referral: Additional Street Maintenance Funding to Improve Pavement Condition, Saving Tax Dollars and Our
Streets

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the FY 2023-25 biennial budget process to further increase the street paving budget by $4.7 million General Fund in FY 2024-25 for a total street paving budget of approximately $20 million in FY 2024-25.

On July 26, 2022, the City Council unanimously passed a policy ensuring an adequate annual General Fund contribution for street maintenance that amounts to a total of $15.3 million annually plus inflation—the amount needed to maintain (although not improve) the pavement condition.1 This budget request for an additional $4.7 million builds on the streets fiscal policy by seeking to increase the street paving budget further in FY 2024-25 to begin to improve the pavement condition.

We note that the City Council already approved a $9 million increase to the street paving budget for FY 2023-24 for a total of $16.3 million in FY 2023-24.

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.2 Further, the 1 Arreguín, Jesse, Kesarwani, Rashi, Taplin, Terry, and Wengraf, Susan, Establishing Policy for Adequate Annual General Fund Contribution for Street Maintenance to Prevent Deterioration of Pavement Condition, Special City Council Meeting July 26, 2022, Item #3 and Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, p. 8, Jan. 2021 2 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;

2 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
defeat of the Measure L general obligation bond on the November 8, 2022 ballot means that the City currently lacks significant resources to fully address deferred street maintenance, requiring the City Council to add additional resources from the General Fund in order to make steady progress towards improving the average pavement condition.

POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On May 4, 2023, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Robinson/Taplin) to send the item to Council with a positive recommendation. Vote: All Ayes.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Without A General Obligation Bond, City’s Streets Will Decline In the Long Run Even with Higher Maintenance Budget of $15.3 Million Annually. The defeat of Measure L, which would have provided $231 million to address deferred street maintenance, means that the City does not have a major funding source for addressing this liability. In Exhibit 1, a 30-year projection for various funding scenarios shows that the City’s streets will continue to deteriorate in the absence of a large general obligation bond—even with a higher maintenance budget of $15.3 million annually plus inflation. For the biennial FY 2022-24 budget, a total of $14 million in new street paving funds was added—$5 million added (for a total of $12.3 million) in FY 2022-23 and $9 million added (for a total of $16.3 million) in FY 2023-

24. Further, the City Council passed a streets fiscal policy in July 2022 committing $15.3 million plus inflation to street paving annually.3 However, even if these higher funding levels are maintained, our pavement condition will continue to deteriorate due to the inability to address the significant backlog of deferred maintenance, mirroring the orange scenario (S2) in Exhibit 1 shown below. and Seek Direction on November 2022 Revenue Measure(s) Presentation slide 4, City Council Worksession Item 1, Jan. 20, 2022
3 Arreguín, Jesse, Kesarwani, Rashi, Taplin, Terry, and Wengraf, Susan, Establishing Policy for Adequate Annual General Fund Contribution for Street Maintenance to Prevent Deterioration of Pavement Condition, Special City Council Meeting July 26, 2022, Item #3

3 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 1: Without A General Obligation Bond, City’s Streets Will Decline In the Long Run Even with Higher Maintenance Budget of $15.3 Million Annually (S2 Orange Scenario)
Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Pavement-Management-Update-2020.pdf, p. 19, Jan. 2021
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 2. 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, public transit riders, and motorists. At-risk pavement conditions make it more likely for bicyclists and 4 Berkeley City Auditor, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, p. 2, Nov. 19, 2020

4 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
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. During the heavy winter storms, in which Berkeley received 20 inches of rain in December 2022 and January 2023, many streets that developed the most potholes had poor quality pavement to start.6 In Attachment 1, we include a list of all City streets and their respective PCI rating in 2020, provided by the Public Works Department.
5 Berkeley City Auditor, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, p. 3, Nov. 19, 2020
6 Markovich, Ally, January was Berkeley’s worst month for potholes on record, https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/02/19/january-was-berkeleys-worst-month-for-potholes-on-record, Feb. 19, 2023.

5 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 2: 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

6 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Historically, Berkeley Has Inadequately Funded Street Paving. 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 to as much as $11.3 million in FY 2015-16, as shown in Exhibit 3.7 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 remained flat at just $1.9 million from FY 2013-14 through FY 2019-20, shown as Capital Improvement Fund in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3: General Fund Contribution to Street Maintenance Remained Flat at $1.9 Million From FY 2013-14 through FY 2019-20 (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
The City Council has made progress in adding resources to the City’s street paving budget, particularly with the July 2022 streets fiscal policy that commits $15.3 million plus inflation annually. Significantly, even if this level of funding is maintained through 2025, the PCI will not increase, as shown in Exhibit 4 (see S3 Yellow Line). 7 Berkeley City Auditor, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, p. 6, Nov. 19, 2020.

7 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 4: Even If Streets Are Funded at $15.3 Million Annually, the Pavement Condition Will Not Improve By 2025 (S3 Yellow Line)

Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Pavement-Management-Update-2020.pdf, p. 9, Jan. 2021
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 5.8 In the case of arterial streets that are receiving significantly less attention under the current street paving plan, 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.9
8 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
9 Garland, Liam, Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Policy and Five-Year Paving Plan pgs. 9-11, City Council Meeting Jan. 25, 2022, Item Aa

8 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
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
Inadequate Street Paving Budget Has Led to an Estimated $286 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 $286 million.10 This amount is larger than the City’s entire revised General Fund budget for FY 2021-22 of $269 million.11 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 10 Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Pavement-Management-Update-2020.pdf, p. 14, Jan. 2021. We note that the estimate of $286 million in deferred street maintenance only accounts for paving, not other “Complete Streets” infrastructure.
11 City Manager, Amendment: FY 2022 Annual Appropriations Ordinance, City Council Meeting Dec. 14, 2021, Item 45, Revised Material (Supp 3),
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-12- 14%20Item%2045%20Amendment%20%20FY%202022%20Annual%20Appropriations%20Ordinanc e%20-%20Rev%20CMO.pdf

9 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
from 58 to 75.12 Over the past 12 years, that amount has grown by more than five times to a $286 million unfunded liability in 2023 and will continue to grow precipitously in the future, even with a $15 million contribution annually:
● In five years in 2028, deferred street maintenance is estimated to total $366 million.
● In 10 years in 2033, deferred street maintenance is estimated to total $401 million.
● By 2050, deferred street maintenance is estimated to total $701 million, as shown in Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 6: If $15 Million Funding Level Continues, Deferred Street Maintenance Still Grows to More than $700 Million by 2050
Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Pavement-Management-Update-2020.pdf, p. 14, 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 12 Hogan, Anne-Marie, Failing Streets: Time to Change Direction to Achieve Sustainability, Nov. 15, 2011

10 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
million of identified deferred maintenance.13 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.

FISCAL IMPACT
City Would Need to Budget $24 Million Annually to Improve Pavement Condition. The City needs to continue to address the shortfall of street maintenance funds. 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, as shown in Exhibit 7.14 At this funding level, the backlog of deferred street maintenance still grows—from $244 million in 2021 to $260 million in 2025—albeit at a slower rate of 7 percent (when compared to budgeting $15.1 million annually for street paving). This budget referral recognizes that there are numerous competing priorities for General Fund resources, including the Measure T1 infrastructure funding shortfall, allocation to the Section 115 Trust for unfunded pension liabilities, among other priorities. We request an augmentation of $4.7 million General Fund to reach a total street paving budget of approximately $20 million in FY 2024-25 so that the City moves beyond the minimum amount to simply maintain the existing PCI of roughly

57. 13 City Auditor Report, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, p. 13, Nov. 19, 2020
14 Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Pavement-Management-Update-2020.pdf, p. 11, Jan. 2021

11 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 7: $24 Million Annually Leads to a 5-Point Increase in Pavement Condition Index and Slower Rate of Deferred Maintenance Growth Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Pavement-Management-Update-2020.pdf, p. 11, Jan. 2021
$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 8. 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.

12 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Exhibit 8: $15.1 Million Annually Maintains Pavement Condition, But Leads to Faster Deferred Maintenance Growth
Source: Pavement Engineering Inc., City of Berkeley 2020/21 Pavement Management System Update, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Pavement-Management-Update-2020.pdf, p. 11, Jan. 2021
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.15

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 15 See City of Berkeley 2018-2019 Strategic Plan presented to Berkeley City Council on January 16, 2018.

13 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, which aligns with another of the City’s 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Ben Bartlett
Subject: Bench Donation: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of funds, including $3500 from Vice Mayor Bartlett for creating a community bench in memory of the efforts of community members made in 2020 on the Black Lives Matter movement, with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary council office budget of Vice Mayor Bartlett and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND:

In 2013, three female Black organizers — Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi — created a Black-centered political project called Black Lives Matter1. It began with a social media hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter, after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in 2012. The movement grew nationally in 2014 after the deaths of Michael Brown in Missouri and Eric Garner in New York. Since then, it has established itself as a worldwide movement, particularly after the death of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis, MN. Most recently, the organization has spearheaded demonstrations worldwide protesting police brutality and systematic racism that overwhelmingly affects the Black community.

In the City of Berkeley, after the death of George Floyd, community members rose and marched to address police brutality happening throughout the nation2. Amidst the pandemic in 2020, the City of Berkeley had various demonstrations expressing the importance of addressing this issue in pursuing justice and safety for all. And so, the George Floyd Community Safety Act was established in Berkeley3. Through this act, the City of Berkeley 1 Campbell, Adina. “What Is Black Lives Matter and What Are the Aims?” BBC News, 12 June 2021, www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53337780.
2Samway, Katharine Davies. “Thousands Turn out for Huge Demonstration in Berkeley for Black Lives Matter.” Oakland Voices, 15 Sept. 2022, oaklandvoices.us/2020/06/09/thousands-turn-out-for-huge- demonstration-in-berkeley-for-black-lives-matter/.
3Bartlett, Ben. “Safety for All: George Floyd Community Safety Act.” Medium, 25 Sept. 2020, medium.com/@benbartlett/safety-for-all-george-floyd-community-safety-act-8dbf9de37b89.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 2 pledged to implement initiatives and reforms to reduce the footprint of the Police Department and reassign non-criminal matters to Specialized Care Units (SCU); rectify the current aspects of the Police Department to hold better its officers accountable for their actions, and institute progressive training protocols; and invest the savings from the reduced footprint into SCU’s into wellness programs addressing endemic disparities in health, housing, and education.

In commemorating tens of the thousands of Berkeley community members who marched for justice for the deaths of Black Americans who have suffered police brutality, we hope to establish a bench made in honor of all of those whose contributions have led to reform and beneficial change for our Berkeley community.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No negative impact.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact; $3500 is available from the discretionary council office budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett.

CONTACT PERSON:

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

1. Resolution No. XXXXX

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

AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR A

DONATION TO THE BERKELEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FUND TO PROVIDE AWARDS TO STUDENTS FOR THEIR WORK ON HIGHLIGHTING BLACK INVENTORS.

WHEREAS, Councilmember Ben Bartlett has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, The City of Berkeley Public Works will receive funds in the amount of $3500 from Councilmember Ben Bartlett’s office expenditure account; and WHEREAS, the Black Lives Matter movement provided the Berkeley community with awareness and education to address police brutality; and WHEREAS, the bench would provide a commemoration for the efforts of all community members who contributed to the Black Lives Movement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their office budgets, of an amount to be determined by each Councilmember, shall be granted to The City of Berkeley Public Works for this purpose of providing a bench to commemorate the efforts made through the Black Lives Matter Movement.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Ben Bartlett, Councilmember Sophie Hahn Subject: Berkeley Juneteenth Festival: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of funds, including $1000 from Vice Mayor Bartlett for pre-planning of the Berkeley Juneteenth Festival (organized by Berkeley Juneteenth Association, Inc. 501(c)3), with funds relinquished to the City’s General Fund for this purpose from the discretionary council office budget of Vice Mayor Bartlett and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND:

President Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, but people in bondage in Texas remained unaware of their freedom until 1865, as their captors withheld this information from them. On June 18, 1865, Major General Gordon Granger of the Union Army arrived in Galveston, Texas, with 1,800 soldiers on a mission to force the captors to release the people in bondage, whose population had swelled to over a quarter million.

And so the following year, newly-freed people in Texas flooded the streets, celebrating June 19th as their own emancipation day. Local groups kept the Juneteenth tradition alive, and in 1979, the passage of H.B. 1016 made June 19th, Black Heritage Day, an official Texas holiday. Nationwide, this date is celebrated in commemoration of the centuries of struggle and progress led by abolitionists, educators, civil rights advocates, lawyers, activists, trade unionists, religious leaders, and public officials who have brought and fought for the rights of all. Also, this date serves as a day of celebration to honor the power and resilience of Black Americans who have endured generations of oppression in the ongoing journey toward equal justice, equal dignity, equal rights, and equal opportunity in America.

In June of 2021, President Biden formally declared Juneteenth a federal holiday.

The Berkeley Juneteenth Festival was founded by R.D. Bonds, Bradley Walters, and Sam Dyke. They began the Festival celebration to promote community pride and bring together South Berkeley businesses and residents to celebrate a major African American cultural event. The establishment of Berkeley Juneteenth Association, Inc. (BJAI) culminated in the first annual Festival in 1987. Former City Councilmembers Mary Wainwright and the late Maudell Shirek were instrumental in obtaining City sponsorship.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No negative impact.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact; $1000 is available from the discretionary council office budget of Vice-Mayor Ben Bartlett.

CONTACT PERSON:

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

1. Resolution No. XXXXX

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

AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR A

DONATION TO THE BERKELEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FUND TO PROVIDE AWARDS TO STUDENTS FOR THEIR WORK ON HIGHLIGHTING BLACK INVENTORS.

WHEREAS, Councilmember Ben Bartlett has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley Juneteenth Association, a California non-profit organization, will receive funds in the amount of $1000 from Councilmember Ben Bartlett’s office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, Juneteenth was established when the newly-freed people in Texas flooded the streets, celebrating June 19th as their own emancipation day; and WHEREAS, the Juneteenth festival in Berkeley promotes community pride and brings together all Berkeley businesses and residents in the celebration of a major African American cultural event; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their office budgets, of an amount to be determined by each Councilmember shall be granted to Berkeley Juneteenth Association for the purpose of providing support for the celebration of the Juneteenth festival

Kate Harrison
Councilmember, 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
June 6, 2023
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Hahn
Subject: Refer $7,000 to the June 2023 Budget Process to Purchase Marking Equipment to Engrave Identification Numbers onto Catalytic Converters

RECOMMENDATION
Referral to the June 2023 Budget Process for $7,000 to purchase marking equipment to engrave identification numbers onto catalytic converters to deter theft and assist with investigations and recovery efforts.

BACKGROUND
Catalytic converters are standard technology that help reduce toxic pollution from gasoline and hybrid vehicles. Catalytic converters are made from precious metals, making them targets of theft. Repair and replacement can cost owners thousands of dollars.

Nationally and locally, communities are experiencing unprecedented rates of vehicle- related crime. In Berkeley, catalytic converter theft rose 5,500% between 2017 and 2022.1 Concerningly, there have been a few instances in the last year where attempted vehicle theft has turned violent and Berkeley residents have had guns pulled on and fired at them. To get at the root of the issue, it is critical to address statewide and national crime syndicates. Investigatory tools such as etching machines are critical.

One of the reasons catalytic converters are targets of theft is because most are not serialized, making it hard to trace and recover stolen converters. To address this issue, many California cities have developed public programs to offer free etching and engraving services to any resident who wants to serialize their catalytic converter.

Providing a public program prevents crime by making converters identifiable and traceable, deterring theft, and providing law enforcement more tools for finding stolen catalytic converters. While etching will not ultimately eliminate property theft, it has been shown to decrease it. The California Bureau of Automotive Repair encourages etching identification numbers onto catalytic converters, considering it one of the four top 1 Raguso, Emilie. “Armed Catalytic Converter Thieves Confront Berkeley Man.” The Berkeley Scanner, April 27, 2023. https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2023/04/27/crime/berkeley-catalytic-converter-thieves-guns-dog- walk/.

Refer $7,000 to the June 2023 Budget Process to Purchase Marking Equipment to Etch Identification Numbers onto Catalytic Converters.

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023
methods of theft prevention: “Engraving or etching your catalytic converter with your vehicle identification number (VIN) or license plate number may deter theft. It may also alert a reputable scrap dealer that the device is stolen and can help to identify the owner.”2 With local, state, and federal intervention, we can help protect our community from impactful, violating, and sometimes violent theft.

Los Altos, California is one of the many cities that has a free, public engraving program through the police department that assists residents in preventing car theft. Their program also partners with local autobody shops. San Jose, California is another city that has developed and implemented a catalytic converter etching program. San Jose Police Foundation President Rob Fisher states, "This program is a great example of a public-private partnership that will make a difference in the lives of San José residents."3 The San Jose Police Department owns an engraving machine that rotates between different local autobody shops, so that customers can easily request free etching while their car is already getting serviced.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
$7,000 in General Funds for the purchase of marking equipment to engrave identification numbers onto catalytic converters to deter theft and assist with investigations and recovery efforts.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Cars without catalytic converters emit toxic gas into the atmosphere and the mining associated with and manufacture of replacing converters contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Kate Harrison, (510) 981-7140
2 California, State of. “Catalytic Converter Theft and the Smog Check Program.” Bureau of Automotive Repair, March 8, 2023. https://www.bar.ca.gov/consumer/smog-check-program/catalytic-converter- theft#:~:text=Mark%20your%20catalytic%20converter%20%E2%80%93%20Engraving,help%20to%20identify% 20the%20owner.
3 “San Jose Police Unveil Catalytic Converter Etching Program to Help Deter Widespread Theft.” CBS News, February 14, 2022. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-jose-police-unveil-catalytic-converter- etching-program-to-help-deter-widespread-theft/.

Kate Harrison
Councilmember, 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
June 6, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Harrison
Subject: Referring $15,000 to the June 2023 Budget Process for a City Recreational Vehicle Pump-Out Station

RECOMMENDATION
Refer $15,000 to the June 2023 Budget Process in Measure P funds for City recreational vehicle pump-out station, including minimal staffing costs, liability, maintenance, and replacement costs to allow individuals to discharge effluent waste directly into the City’s sewer system.

CURRENT SITUATION, EFFECTS, AND RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION This budget referral is being submitted to the June Budget Process to fund a Policy Committee item currently before the Budget Committee. The Homeless Services Panel of Experts recommended that the City “develop a waste management plan to be implemented for RVs currently on the streets” in response to the closure of the Grayson St. SPARK shelter. Staff also issued a companion report stating: “[s]taff do not disagree with the spirit of the Homeless Services Panel of Experts recommendation to…develop a management plan to be implemented for RVs currently on the streets…we recommend sending this request to the Budget and Finance Committee for consideration in the budget process.”1 As detailed in the background section below, this item reflects a long legislative history by the Mayor and Council in advocating for a permanent waste pump station, including approval of an allocation in the 2020-21 budget year that was forestalled because of the need to address emergency COVID- relief programs.

It is in the public interest to implement this recommendation expeditiously to prevent effluent from entering watersheds and provide vehicle dwellers urgent and basic human services.
1 Recommendation for RV Lot and Waste Management on Streets for RVs, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2023-05- 16%20Agenda%20Packet%20-%20Budget.pdf. See also Companion Report to Recommendation for RV Lot and Waste Management on Streets for RVs.

Referring $15,000 to the June 2023 Budget Process for a City Recreational Vehicle Pump-Out Station

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023
2 BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2019 the City Manager’s office submitted an item to Council entitled “Referral Response: Managing Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parking” outlining options to facilitate recreational vehicle waste dumping/pumping.2 Staff noted in their response that they had “learned of a pump station option which could be installed for approximately $11,000, which would allow individuals to discharge directly into the City’s sewer system,” for approximately 100 RVs per week with minimal to no staffing costs. They also noted that the City has capacity within its sewer system for additional waste.3 The charge for dumping the sewage by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EMBUD) is calculated in proportion to the amount of fresh water used to clean and refill the tank.

Subsequently, the Mayor included $15,000 for the pump-out facility in his FY 2020-2021 budget noting: “[w]e will also be providing $15,000 to a recreational vehicle mobile pump-out to make sure that any sewage is properly disposed of instead of entering our creeks and Bay.” His budget responded to a budget referral from Councilmembers Davila and Harrison 2019 entitled: “Short-term referral to City Manager and budget referral for creation of a ‘vehicle dweller program’ in Berkeley.”4 The City did not implement the mobile pump-out program.

However, in 2022 Rebuilding Together began managing a time limited six-week free RV pump-out trial program at the Grayson St. shelter. The program provided access to urgent basic human needs with approximately 3.5 pump-outs per week for a total of 21 vehicle dwellers, and the station likely prevented many gallons of effluent from entering watersheds such as our creeks, Aquatic Park and the Bay. Uptake during the trial was relatively limited due to the impending closure of the Grayson St. shelter. The trial also featured a mobile tank solution to assist inoperable vehicles. EBMUD provided access to sewer drains no cost with a permit for environmental mitigation. A fixed site as envisioned by this item would help facilitate easy disposal of any mobile tanks. The 2 On September 25, 2018, City Council approved a recommendation to “Refer to the City Manager to look into how other cities use permitting to manage RV parking....” On December 11, 2018 the City Council approved a recommendation to “Refer to the City Manager to establish a recreational vehicle waste discharge facility on City property and equitable administrative fee program, including consideration of method of pump out, cost, locations, and capacity, and refer costs associated with the facility to the FY 2020/21 Budget Process.” See Paul Buddenhagen, Deputy City Manager, “Referral Responses: Managing Recreational Vehicle (RV),” February 28, 2019, https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/AXPchO9%C3%89LXUoVput35boN% C3%89D7pI%C3%891pCTgOP2Co5VkjvcPoiwHCaDjzPhJIRBotX5cdWEBTJK%C3%89FHyCp8ckEs LZ7CQ%3D/.
3 Id.
4 Councilmembers Cheryl Davila and Kate Harrison, “Short-term referral to City Manager and budget referral for creation of a “vehicle dweller program” in Berkeley,” April 2, 2019, https://records.cityofberkeley.info/PublicAccess/api/Document/AYMbvLHwd8GrqSd%C3%89DemZV Y2aP9xRTIo9FZ5GjFKyy08nQNbO%C3%89ZkjiMI9k%C3%81VqS0ZS8xGf7TRvn%C3%89JNvcS6 GwOn%C3%81n0%3D/.

Referring $15,000 to the June 2023 Budget Process for a City Recreational Vehicle Pump-Out Station

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023
3 Marin Sanitary Service already operates such a station, which includes a fresh water hose to clean out and refill tanks.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
$15,000 in Measure P funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
A dedicated pump-out would make sure that any effluent is properly disposed of instead of entering our creeks and Bay.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Kate Harrison, (510) 981-7140

Susan Wengraf
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Wengraf (Author), Councilmember Harrison (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Hahn (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Bartlett (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Support for SB-233 (Skinner)

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a letter to Senator Skinner in support of SB-233 (Skinner) Electric vehicles and electric vehicle supply equipment: bidirectional capability, and send copies to Assemblymember Wicks and Governor Newsom.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

BACKGROUND
SB-233 would require all new electric vehicles (EVs), beginning in model year 2027, and electric vehicle service equipment sold in California after January 1, 2027 to be capable of bidirectional charging, with limited exceptions. The bill’s new definition of bidirectional charging means charging capability that enables an electric vehicle to be charged by the electrical grid, or to discharge stored battery energy to the electrical grid or to serve an adjacent home or building.

Authored by Senator Nancy Skinner and sponsored by The Climate Center and the Union of Concerned Scientists, SB 233 aims to make bidirectional charging for EVs the norm ahead of the mandate to make all new cars and light trucks sold in the state be electric by 2035.

The bill requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, on or before June 30, 2024, to convene a stakeholder workgroup to examine challenges and opportunities associated with using an electric vehicle as a mobile battery to power a home or building or providing electricity to the electrical grid. It would also require the Energy Commission, in consultation with the stakeholder workgroup, on or before January 1, 2025, to submit a report to the Governor and Legislature that includes specified information related to the bidirectional capability of electric vehicles and electric vehicle service equipment.

Support for SB-233

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023

Bidirectional charging makes it possible for electric vehicles to become “batteries on wheels” — capable of using the energy stored in their batteries to back up the power grid, homes, and businesses.

According to the California Energy Commission, the state expects to have 8 million electric vehicles on the road by 2030. Currently, only a small fraction of California’s electric vehicle fleet has bidirectional capability. By requiring that most EVs sold by 2027 are bidirectional, California can harness the momentum of a market moving swiftly toward an electrified future.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Bidirectional charging is an essential component to vehicle-to-grid (V2G) integration which provides grid resiliency by turning EV batteries into mobile storage. V2G accelerates EV adoption by lowering the total cost of ownership by enabling EV owners to earn revenue through electricity exports during times when the grid is under stress.

V2G is also essential to keep the cost of energy equitable while supporting EV deployment.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160
Attachments:
1: Letter of Support
2: SB-233 as amended

June 6, 2023
The Honorable Nancy Skinner
California State Senate
State Capitol, Suite 8630
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB-233 (Skinner) Electric vehicles and electric vehicle supply equipment:
bidirectional capability
Support from the Berkeley City Council
Dear Senator Skinner:

On behalf of the Berkeley City Council, I want to express our support for SB-233 (Skinner) Electric vehicles and electric vehicle supply equipment: bidirectional capability.

SB233, addresses an urgent and important crisis in electricity reliability.

SB233 will enable California to address multiple challenges at once through harnessing the untapped battery storage capacity of electric vehicles (EVs). The electrification of transportation creates a once-in-a-generation opportunity for EVs to not only decarbonize transportation, but also keep the lights on during power outages, lower energy bills for Californians, and make our electricity system more reliable on a daily basis. EVs capable of bidirectional charging can store abundant renewable energy when it is available and provide power back to the grid at peak times when it is most needed.

Thank you for your leadership on this important policy topic.

Sincerely,
Susan Wengraf
Councilmember
City of Berkeley
CC: Assembly Member Buffy Wicks
Governor Newsom

Support for SB-233 CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023

Support for SB-233 CONSENT CALENDAR
June 6, 2023

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

PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Subject: Bird Safe Building Requirements; Adding Berkeley Municipal Code Section

23.304.150

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt first reading of an ordinance adding Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.304.150 establishing Bird Safe Building requirements (“bird safe requirements”) for projects that require a building permit.

SUMMARY
On November 12, 2019, the Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) presented an action item to the City Council recommending that the City of Berkeley amend the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) to include a new Chapter establishing bird safety requirements for new construction and significant renovations.

The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) establishes Bird Safe Building requirements (“bird safe requirements”) for development projects in Berkeley that require a building permit. The ordinance would:
 Immediately apply to all transparent and reflective surfaces for all non-residential projects and for larger residential buildings with 10,000 square feet or more gross floor area.
 Be phased-in over a period of two to five years for smaller residential buildings with less than 10,000 square feet gross floor area, certain affordable housing projects, and window replacements on existing buildings (see Phase-In Periods for Certain Projects, below).
 Include three compliance paths, ranging from window films and screens, to specialized transparent material containing bird safe patterns through fritting or other treatments.

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
As discussed below in the “Cost and Availability” subsection of this staff report, bird safe materials could increase the cost of private construction projects, as well as public projects undertaken by the City of Berkeley. In addition, enforcement of the proposed ordinance would be undertaken alongside existing zoning and code compliance responsibilities, and may require additional staffing resources depending on the volume of applicable permits and/or complaints received.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Bird Safe Building ordinance supports the City’s Strategic Plan goal of being a global leader in protecting the environment.

Birds do not have the same depth perception or contrast sensitivity as humans; as such they cannot see glass. At night, which is when most birds migrate, guided by magnetic sensors in their retinas that pick up on red and warm-white light, light distracts and disorients them, often leading to collisions.1 A 2014 study from the Cooper Ornithological Society estimated that between one hundred million and one billion birds die every year in collisions with built structures, and the Golden Gate Audubon Society estimates that between 100,000 and 600,000 birds die in Berkeley every year from collisions with existing buildings.2 Bird collisions with windows are a leading cause of human-induced bird deaths in the United States, second only to outdoor cats.

Berkeley is located within the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory route for birds. When birds encounter unfamiliar urban areas along the migratory path, they are at particular risk for collisions and death. The City is also adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, one of North America’s most ecologically important estuaries and an international biodiversity hotspot because of the large number of birds, animals, and plants found there, many of which are found nowhere else. The region is also recognized as a site of “Hemispheric Importance” for shorebirds by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.3 A handful of jurisdictions, both locally and across the county, have established bird safe requirements in their planning or building codes. Those regulations are summarized in a comparison table in Attachment 2. Some recently-approved projects, including Berkeley Commons at 600 Addison Street, the Bayer Campus expansion, and the Residence Inn at 2121 Center Street, include bird safe glass. The proposed ordinance would apply new objective standards within the zoning ordinance by indicating the project types required to include bird safe materials, and verifiable compliance paths. 1 https://www.audubon.org/news/building-collisions-are-greater-danger-some-birds-others 2 http://nas-national-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/loss_et_al_bird- building_collisons_condor_2014.pdf; April 18, 2023. Golden Gate Audubon Society letter to Design Review Committee.
3 https://ca.audubon.org/conservation/conservation/seas-shores/san-francisco-bay

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

Proposed Ordinance
The ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission would amend the BMC to include a new section, “BMC Section 23.304.150 Bird Safe Building,” that would include:

Purpose Statement
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to reduce bird mortality from windows and other transparent or reflective buildings or building features known to increase the risk of bird collisions.

Consistent with the style guide adopted as part of the Baseline Zoning Ordinance, the proposed ordinance includes a Purpose Statement. The proposed language is taken largely from the Purpose Statement included in the CEAC’s suggested Bird Safety Ordinance.

Applicability
The ordinance would apply to projects that require a building permit and vary based on primary land use and, for residential or mixed-use, the size of the overall building. The requirements would not apply to existing windows or other transparent materials that are not proposed to be replaced.

Project Type: The ordinance would distinguish between three project types:

1. New construction that includes transparent or reflective material;

2. New or replacement transparent or reflective material on existing buildings; and

3. New or replacement structures or features that are largely transparent or reflective by design (e.g., greenhouses, glass walls, noise barriers).

Primary Land Use and Building Size: The ordinance would distinguish between non- residential and residential/mixed-use projects, and would also distinguish between larger and smaller residential/mixed-use developments (with a 10,000 square foot floor area threshold), consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

As outlined in Attachment 2, while most jurisdictions include exemptions for smaller projects, including single family homes, duplexes, or smaller residential projects up to two stories, the Planning Commission recommended against including any exemptions in Berkeley’s ordinance.

Applicable Building Locations: The ordinance identifies the locations of transparent or reflective material that would be covered by the ordinance for each project type based on their primary land use. Notable aspects of these requirements include:

All Transparent or Reflective Materials. Bird safe requirements would apply to all transparent or reflective materials, regardless of window size.

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

100 Feet Above Grade. Bird safe requirements would apply to eligible transparent or reflective surfaces located between the ground and 100 feet above grade. For comparison, the City of New York’s requirements apply to the first 75 feet above grade, and Mountain View, Oakland, San Francisco and Evanston, Illinois apply their standards to the first 60 feet above grade.

High-Risk Features – No Grade Limit. Bird safe requirements would apply to specific transparent or reflective building components that are particularly susceptible to bird-glass collisions, regardless of location above grade. High-risk features are railings, awnings, windbreak/windscreen panels, acoustic barriers, skywalks, greenhouses, glass walls, rooftop appurtenances, balconies and exterior decorative panels or signage. These components were specifically identified by the Planning Commission and Subcommittee as elements to be included due to higher collision risk. A number of jurisdictions, including New York City, Alameda, and Mountain View, take similar steps to regulate these building elements.

Table 1. Bird-Safe Building Requirements
Project Type Applicable Building Location(s)
Non-Residential
New Construction or Addition All transparent or reflective material located between the ground and 100 ft. above grade.

New or Replacement Transparent or
Reflective Material on Existing
Building
All transparent or reflective material located
between the ground and 100 ft. above grade.

High-Risk Features All high-risk features located at any grade.

Residential or Mixed Use
New Construction or Addition, Building
with 10,000 sq. ft. or more of gross
floor area
All transparent or reflective material located
between the ground and 100 ft. above grade.

New Construction or Addition, Building
with less than 10,000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area
All transparent or reflective material located
between the ground and 100 ft. above grade.

New or Replacement Transparent or
Reflective Material on Existing
Building
All transparent or reflective material between
the ground and 100 ft. above grade.

High-Risk Features All high-risk features located at any grade.

Phase-In Periods for Certain Projects:

1. New Affordable Housing Projects. The proposed ordinance includes a phase-in for affordable housing projects. Residential or mixed-use residential projects

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

where more than 50 percent of the residential unit floor area is affordable would be exempt from most of the ordinance requirements until January 1, 2025. Any high-risk feature would be subject to the applicable bird safe requirements.

2. New Smaller Residential Projects. Consistent with Planning Commission and Design Review Committee direction to provide a phase-in period for smaller residential projects, the proposed ordinance would not apply to smaller residential projects until January 1, 2025, as long as those projects do not include any façade where 30 percent or more of the façade’s area consists of windows or reflective materials. This phase-in period would allow smaller builders and individual property owners to learn about and prepare to meet the requirements, and for the local construction materials market to adjust to make bird safe materials readily available to smaller customers.

3. Existing Buildings. The proposed ordinance also includes phase-in provisions for projects that add or replace windows or reflective materials on existing buildings, as long as those projects do not include any façade where 30 percent or more of the façade’s area consists of windows or reflective materials. For eligible non- residential projects, the phase-in date would be January 1, 2025, and for eligible residential projects, the phase-in date would be January 1, 2028.

Projects that submit compliant SB 330 preliminary applications are vested into rules that are in effect at that time. SB 330 vesting would carry over for compliant projects, including eligible exemptions. For example, if a qualifying affordable housing project submits an SB 330 compliant preliminary application before January 1, 2025, the project would only be subject to the requirements for New or Replacement Transparent Structures or Features.

Bird Safe Requirements
The ordinance includes the following three methods of compliance for windows, transparent or reflective materials, or any elements or structures covered by the ordinance. There is overlap between the three compliance paths. For example, the American Bird Conservancy Database includes products that would comply with the required patterned glazing treatment and products that are exterior screens.

1. American Bird Conservancy (ABC) Threat Factor Rating: An element or material would comply with the ordinance if it is listed in the ABC’s online Glass Collisions Products and Solutions Database4 with a Threat Factor Rating of 30 or less at the time of Building Permit issuance.5 According to the ABC, a Threat Factor of 30 is the organization’s upper threshold for categorizing materials as bird friendly. 4 https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/products-database/ 5 ABC’s Material Threat Factor (TF) rating system tests, assesses and classifies materials on a scale of 0 to 100 to provide a relative measure of birds' ability to see and avoid patterned glass and other materials.

The lower the TF, the more effective the material will be at reducing collisions. For more information, see ABC’s Threat Factor page: https://tinyurl.com/4k2v2stb.

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

ABC’s Glass Collisions Products and Solutions Database contains more than 170 products. In addition to windows, the database includes window films, decals, paints, exterior screens and other treatments, each of which includes an assigned Threat Factor and information about the manufacturer.

2. Patterned Glazing Treatments: As an alternative to selecting a product from ABC’s Glass Collisions Products and Solutions Database, an element or material would comply with the ordinance if it includes patterns that are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk- screened or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material.

The specific language in the draft ordinance related to this compliance path is from staff’s initial recommendation to the Planning Commission, and differs from the Planning Commission’s recommended language. Project planners are unable to administer requirements for building materials at the technical level of detail included in the Planning Commission—and Golden Gate Audubon—recommendation. See Attachment 7 containing a redlined version of staff’s initial recommendation, revised with Golden Gate Audubon’s recommendations.

The proposed ordinance details how patterns must be spaced on the material and upon which window surface (exterior or interior) a pattern must be located. For example, for a pattern that utilizes dots or other isolated solid shapes, each dot or shape must be at least 0.25 inches in diameter and be no more than 2 feet apart in any direction. If the pattern utilizes lines, it must be at least one-eighth of an inch in width and spaced no more than 2 inches apart. Figure 1 illustrates this compliance path.

3. External Screens, Shutters or Shading Devices: As an alternative to selecting a product from ABC’s Glass Collisions Products and Solutions Database, an element or Figure 1: Patterned Glazing Treatments

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

material would comply with the ordinance if it were covered with an exterior screen, shutter or shading device, or insect or solar screen that was permanently installed on the building exterior. Such a treatment would not create any gaps larger than 9 inches in any dimension (that is, a 9-inch diameter object could not pass through the treatment and strike the window or material). Figure 2 provides an illustration of this compliance path.

Cost and Availability
The Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee both requested more information about (a) the relative cost of bird safe materials compared to standard windows and (b) the availability of materials that would comply with the ordinance, particularly for smaller builders and individual homeowners.

Staff conducted research and interviewed builders, architects, glass retailers, and glass manufacturers, and can share the following:

Berkeley-based businesses do not yet carry bird safe materials In February 2023, with the assistance of the City of Berkeley’s Office of Economic Development, staff contacted 13 Berkeley-based building material retailers to inquire into the availability of bird safe products. None of the 13 businesses carried bird safe products, and at least three businesses had not heard of bird safe options for window products. This mirrors research done by a member of the Design Review Committee, who contacted three local residential window suppliers (Ashby Lumber, Associated Building Supply and Glass Concepts) and a territory manager for BMD, a distributor of Marvin windows. None of the local suppliers had experience selling bird safe materials because of the added cost, and most of them had experiences with clients choosing not to use bird safe materials because of cost.

Figure 2: External Screen, Shutter or Shading Device
No more than
9” gap to the
transparent
material
No more than
9” gap to the
transparent
material

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

Bird safe window costs vary
Given the variety of possible products and project types, staff are unable to precisely quantify how much additional cost bird safe materials would entail in every situation.

Additionally, within the market for bird safe materials, some treatments cost less than others. The broad consensus from staff research is that bird safe windows do cost more than standard windows. The table below provides on order-of-magnitude comparison of standard windows and windows that would comply with the proposed ordinance:

Window Type Cost (Price Range Per Square Foot)
Standard $12 - $15
Fritted $15 - $20
Etched $25 - $30
Ultra Violet (UV) $35 - 40
It should be noted that California’s Title 24 Building Efficiency Code includes environmental requirements for windows that may not be met by all bird safe products.

In addition, some window treatments such as Low-E windows6 include a coating on the same window surface where fritting is commonly installed. As a result, costlier custom windows may be required to utilize both Low-E and bird safe elements.

Window film and tape offer less expensive options, with caveats.

ABC’s Glass Collisions Products and Solutions Database includes a variety of tapes, films and other products that are adhered to standard windows. These solutions cost less than specialized windows and are widely available, and can be delivered within days. For example, SOLYX Bird Safety Window Film costs approximately $6 per square foot, and –at the time of staff research—can be delivered in about a week. However, the effectiveness and longevity of a tape or film depends on the quality of the installation and its maintenance. There is also the possibility that utilizing a tape or film may void or limit a window’s underlying warranty. Finally, while utilizing window film and tape listed in ABC’s database would comply with the ordinance, they are not considered long-term solutions, as they can be removed.

Limited selection of bird safe materials may affect design options.

While there are a number of bird safe materials on the market, the variety of materials is smaller than the market for conventional window products. A reduction in the variety of usable materials and products could therefore reduce the available architectural design options. However, when asked about this possibility, the Design Review Committee did not express concerns about this issue.

Enforcement
6 Low-E is short for Low-Emissivity or Low-Emittance. Low-E glass contains a microscopic coating that makes a window more thermally efficient.

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

The ordinance would only apply to projects that require a building permit. Replacing broken windows or individual window panes are considered repairs and do not require a building permit. For example, an existing window broken by an errant baseball would not be subject to the ordinance.

Project plans would be required to include a stamp from the project applicant attesting that the project would comply with the ordinance, and the window schedule for proposed projects would need to indicate the transparent materials subject to the ordinance and the compliance path being selected for each applicable material.

Land Use Planning and Building and Safety staff have limited ability to specifically enforce the ordinance on a project-by-project basis. For example, if a project utilized compliance path 2 (Patterned Glazing Treatments, above), Planning or Building staff would not measure the dots, lines or other patterns on each pane of glass after installation to confirm compliance. Compliance with the ordinance, as attested to on the building permit plans, would be an approval requirement, but detailed enforcement, beyond a general confirmation that compliant materials are present, would be on a complaint basis. An individual who suspects that a window or other material is not in compliance with the ordinance would register a code enforcement complaint, which would be investigated and resolved by staff.

Public Information Documents
Upon adoption of the proposed Ordinance, staff will prepare a public information document to explain the Bird Safe requirements and its purpose in common language, and provide guidance to project applicants as to where to obtain compliant materials.

While ABC’s Database includes more than 150 rated materials, it does not provide information about where to purchase items or whether they are available in Berkeley or the Greater Bay Area. The public information document would include purchasing options for specific products included in the ABC Database.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting on March 2, 2022 the Planning Commission received a report and presentation on the referral from CEAC, the studied effects of built environments on bird populations, a brief discussion of how Berkeley’s particular geography relates to bird populations, and a review of existing regulatory efforts in Bay Area cities regarding bird safety (Attachment 3). Staff then presented a draft proposal and received feedback from the Design Review Committee at its September 15, 2022 meeting. At its meeting of October 19, 2022 the Planning Commission received an additional report with a more specific set of policy questions, held a discussion, and established a Subcommittee (Attachment 4).

At its meeting on March 1, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a proposed Bird Safe Requirements Ordinance developed by staff that was informed by feedback from both the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission Subcommittee, and the Design Review Committee (Attachment 5). Further information

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

on the details of the March 1, 2023 meeting are discussed below under “Alternative Actions Considered.”

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The purpose of the ordinance is to reduce bird mortality from windows and other transparent buildings or building features known to increase the risk of bird collisions.

As the proposed ordinance does not require the replacement of existing windows with bird safe materials, current bird strike risk may not necessarily be reduced through the ordinance, but the inclusion of bird safe materials in future development and major rehabilitations would reduce bird mortality compared to a build-out scenario that only included standard windows. In addition to the benefits to birds themselves, reducing premature bird mortality would contribute to sustaining local biodiversity.

Environmental Determination. California Public Resource Code Section 21065 defines a “project” under CEQA as “an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The proposed ordinance only includes requirements for the types of windows or other transparent materials that must be included in proposed projects. The proposed ordinance does not consist of a discretionary action that would permit or cause any direct or indirect change in the environment. The proposed ordinance is therefore not a project under CEQA, and further environmental review is not required.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
There are currently no bird safety measures required for newly constructed or renovated buildings in Berkeley. Attachment 6, a memo from the Planning Commission, details its rationale for recommending the proposed ordinance.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
At its meeting on March 1, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a proposed Bird Safe Building ordinance developed by staff that was informed by feedback from both the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission Subcommittee, and the Design Review Committee (Attachment 5). The ordinance staff recommended at the March 1 Planning Commission meeting was based on prior Commission advice to propose requirements based on window size (not project size or type), to base the regulations on others adopted regionally, and to differentiate between larger and smaller projects. The ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission (Attachment 1) differs from the ordinance recommended by staff at the March 1 Planning Commission meeting. Attachment 7 is a redlined version of the ordinance recommended by staff at the March 1 Planning Commission meeting, which includes the amendments made by the Planning Commission.

Applicability
The ordinance recommended by staff at the March 1 Planning Commission meeting, as well as the existing regulations in both Emeryville and Alameda, included a provision that bird safe requirements only apply to transparent materials that are 12 square feet or larger. More recently-adopted ordinances do not include exemptions based on window

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

size, including those in New York City, Mountain View, and Evanston, Illinois. Public comment at the March 2023 meeting emphasized that windows of any size could pose a hazard and that the size threshold included in staff’s proposed ordinance would exempt many windows on new projects. As a result, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended an expansion of the applicability of the ordinance to all windows and transparent surfaces.

Project Type
Given concerns about the cost and availability of bird safe materials, the ordinance recommended by staff at the March 1 Planning Commission meeting limited bird safe requirements for smaller residential projects only to windows on facades where more than 50 percent of the surface area consisted of transparent glass. Initial feedback from the Planning Commission noted that even small projects with larger amounts of glass would likely have the budget to afford bird safe materials. The cities of Richmond and Alameda, as well as the CEAC’s proposed ordinance, include the 50 percent threshold as an indication of particularly risky locations for bird collisions.

Based on public comment that this exemption may be too far-reaching, the Planning Commission revised this exemption to only apply to projects without a single façade that included windows on 30 percent or more of its surface area. Also, the Planning Commission limited the duration of the exemption, creating a phase-in for these projects of January 1, 2025.

Affordable Housing Exemption
Consistent with the threshold adopted by the City Council for Transportation Demand Management requirements, the ordinance recommended by staff at the March 1 Planning Commission meeting included an exemption for residential projects that included 50 percent or more of their units as affordable. This exemption was introduced to avoid additional costs for the development of affordable housing. Public comment at the meeting noted that a significant number of anticipated projects (North Berkeley BART, for instance) could reach this affordable housing threshold and that a notable number of future buildings could thereby not include any bird safe materials. The Planning Commission recommendation instead limited the duration of the exemption, creating a phase-in for affordable projects of January 1, 2025.

Qualified Biologist
The ordinance recommended by staff at the March 1 Planning Commission meeting included a compliance pathway that would permit a qualified biologist to indicate that a project’s proposed construction methods and materials would reduce the risk of bird collision to an extent comparable to the other compliance paths. This compliance path was introduced to recognize that there may be an alternative method or technology that is not yet listed in the other compliance paths but could be equally effective. Cupertino

Bird Safe Building Requirements PUBLIC HEARING
June 6, 2023

and Emeryville’s ordinances include an explicit provision for certification by a qualified biologist. Alameda and Oakland, as well as CEAC’s proposed ordinance, include provisions for alternative compliance paths that require the input of qualified biologists.

However, public and Planning Commissioner comments expressed concern that such a compliance path could be exploited, due to the lack of standardized qualifications for biologists and the risk that an unethical biologist could be hired to certify a project that was in fact not bird safe. The Planning Commission recommendation therefore does not include this compliance path.

CONTACT PERSON
Justin Horner, Associate Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7476 Attachments:
1: Bird Safe Building Ordinance.
2: Adopted Bird Safe Ordinances – Comparison Table.
3: Planning Commission Report, March 2, 2022.
4: Planning Commission Report, October 19, 2022.
5: Planning Commission Report, March 1, 2023.
6: Planning Commission Memo, March 23, 2023.
7: Redlined Ordinance: Golden Gate Audubon’s Recommendations to Staff Planning Commission Recommendation, dated March 1, 2023
8: Public Hearing Notice

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

BIRD SAFE BUILDING; ADDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION

23.304.150
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That the Berkeley Municipal Code is amended to add a new Section

23.304.150 to read as follows:

23.304.150 Bird Safe Building.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to reduce bird mortality from windows and other transparent or reflective buildings or building features known to increase the risk of bird collisions.

B. Applicability.

1. Applicability. The bird safe building requirements apply to the following types of projects based on the primary land use when such projects require a building permit.

Table 23.304-10. Bird Safe Building Requirement Applicability Project Type Applicable Building
Location(s)
Supplemental
Standards
Non-Residential
New Construction or
Addition
All transparent or reflective
material located between the
ground and 100 ft. above
grade.

New or Replacement
Transparent or
Reflective Material on
Existing Building
All transparent or reflective
material located between the
ground and 100 ft. above
grade.

23.304.150(B)(2)(a),

23.304.150(B)(2)(b)
High-Risk Features All High-Risk Features located
at any grade.

23.304.150(B)(2)(a)

23.304.150(B)(2)(e)
Residential or Mixed Use
New Construction or
Addition, Building with
10,000 sq. ft. or more
of gross floor area
All transparent or reflective
material located between the
ground and 100 ft. above
grade.

23.304.150(B)(2)(d)
New Construction or
Addition, Building with
All transparent or reflective
material located between the

23.304.150(B)(2)(b),

23.304.150(B)(2)(d)

less than 10,000 sq.
ft. of gross floor area
ground and 100 ft. above
grade.

New or Replacement
Transparent or
Reflective Material on
Existing Building
All transparent or reflective
material located between the
ground and 100 ft. above
grade.

23.304.150(B)(2)(a),

23.304.150(B)(2)(c),

23.304.150(B)(2)(d)
High-Risk Features All High-Risk Features located
at any grade.

23.304.150(B)(2)(a)

23.304.150(B)(2)(e)

2. Phasing and Exemptions; Definitions.
a. No Replacement. The bird safe building requirements do not apply to existing windows or other transparent or reflective materials that are not proposed to be replaced.
b. Phase-In for Existing Non-Residential or New Smaller Residential Buildings with Lower Hazard Facades. Buildings where every façade’s total square footage consists of less than 30 percent transparent or reflective material are exempt through January 1, 2025, except that High-Risk Features are not exempt. If one or more façade contains 30 percent or more transparent material in its total square footage, all transparent or reflective materials shall meet 23.304.150(C) (Bird Safe Requirements).
c. Phase-In for Existing Residential Buildings with Lower Hazard Facades. Buildings where every façade’s total square footage consists of less than 30 percent transparent or reflective material are exempt through January 1, 2028, except that High-Risk Features as described in Table 1 – 23.304-10 are not exempt. If one or more façade contains 30 percent or more transparent material in its total square footage, all transparent or reflective materials shall meet 23.304.150(C) (Bird Safe Requirements)
d. Phase-In for Affordable Housing. Residential projects, including the residential portion of mixed-use projects, where greater than 50 percent of the residential unit floor area are subject to recorded affordability restrictions, are exempt from the provisions of this section until January 1, 2025, except that High-Risk Features are not exempt.

e. High-Risk Features Defined. “High-Risk Features” shall be defined as the following transparent or reflective building components that are particularly susceptible to bird-glass collisions: Railings; Awnings; Windbreak/windscreen panels; Acoustic barriers; Skywalks; Greenhouses; Glass walls; Rooftop appurtenances; Balconies; and Exterior decorative panels or signage.

C. Bird Safe Requirements. Any regulated transparent or reflective material must meet at least one of the following conditions:

1. Threat Factor Rating. A product with an American Bird Conservancy Threat Factor Rating of 30 or less.

2. Patterned Glazing Treatment. Panes with patterns that are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened, or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material. If the pattern utilizes dots or other isolated solid shapes, each dot or shape must be at least a ¼ inch in diameter and be no more than 2 inches apart in any direction (see Figure 23.304-2, left). If the pattern utilizes lines, they must be at least ⅛ inch in width and spaced no more than 2 inches apart (see Figure 23.304-2, left).

Figure 23.304-2 Patterned Glazing Treatment Requirements

Dots or Isolated Solid Shapes Lines

3. External Screens, Shutters, or Shading Devices . Panes with exterior screens, shutters or shading devices installed permanently over windows, structures, or building features such that there is no gap larger than 9 inches in one dimension. Building integrated treatments include, but are not limited to,

metal screens, shutters, fixed solar shading such as louvres, and exterior insect or solar screens.

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

ATTACHMENT 2 Bird Safe Comparison Table
Planning
Commission
Recommendation
to City Council
(6/6/2023)
Planning Staff
Proposal
(3/1/2023 PC)
GG
Audubon
Society
(2/24/2023)
Evanston, IL
(2022)
Mountain
View, CA
(2022)
Cupertino, CA
(2021)
New York, NY
(2020)
Emeryville, CA
(2020)
CEAC Model
Ordinance
(2019)
Alameda, CA
(2018)
Richmond, CA
(2016)
Oakland, CA
(2013)
San Francisco,
CA (2011)
Regulatory
Document
Zoning Code Zoning Code Zoning
Code
Zoning Code Building Code Zoning Code Building Code
Admin Code
Zoning Code N/A Zoning Code Zoning Code Standard
Condition of
Approval
Planning Code
Location Citywide Citywide Citywide Citywide Citywide Citywide Citywide Citywide Citywide Citywide Citywide Adjacent to water or park ≥
1 acre
Within 300 ft of
Urban Bird
Refuge1
Building
Height
Regulated
0-100 ft 0-100 ft 0-100 ft  0-60 ft
 16 ft above
green roof,
garden
Any height2 Any height  0-75 ft
 12 ft above
green roof
Any height 2 stories or
greater
35 ft or greater3  0-60 ft
 60 ft above
green roof
0-60 ft 0-60 ft
Window Size 100% of windows 100% of
continuous
transparent
material 12 sf or
larger
100% of
windows
100% of
windows
100% of
windows
90% of
windows (0-60
ft) or 95% of
windows (above
60 ft)
100% of
windows
90% of
windows 12 sf
or larger
90% of
windows 8 sf or
larger
90% of
windows 12 sf
or larger
90% of
windows 24 sf
or larger
90% of
windows
90% of
windows
High-Risk
Features
All features (any
height)
≥ 24 sf (any
height)
All features
(any height)
All features
(any height)
All features
(any height)
N/A All features
(any height)
All features
(any height)
≥ 24 sf (any
height)
N/A ≥ 24 sf (any
height)
N/A ≥ 24 sf (any
height)
Exemptions None4 > 50%
affordable
>75%
affordable
 Detached
one/two-
family du
 Townhomes/
Residential
bldgs less
than 3 stories
 Residential-
only use
 Buildings
<10,000 sf
 Historic bldgs
 Ground floor
retail ≥ 15 ft
height
 Residential in
R1 not in
Bird-
Sensitive
Areas
10 sf of every
100 sf of glass
None Historic bldgs
1-story bldg
Ground floor
commercial
storefront
Building with
façades <50%
glass
Historic bldgs
Ground floor
commercial
storefront
Buildings with
façades <50%
glass
Historic bldgs
Buildings
≤10,000 sf
Residential <45
ft height with
façades <50%
glass
None Residential <45
ft height with
façades <50%
glass

COMPLIANCE PATHS
Threat
Factor
Rating
≥ 30 ≥ 30 ≥ 30  ≥ 15 (0-60 ft)
 ≥ 30 (above
60 ft and
high-risk
features)
Planning
discretion
Planning
discretion
≥ 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Patterned
Glazing
Yes Yes Yes No Planning
discretion
Planning
discretion
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exterior
Devices
Yes Yes Yes Yes Planning
discretion
Planning
discretion
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Alternatives None Qualified
Biologist
None None Planning
discretion
Qualified
Biologist
None Qualified
Biologist
Alternative
Compliance
Plan
Alternative
Compliance
Plan
None Bird Collision
Reduction Plan
Zoning Admin.
may waive or
alter
1 Urban Bird Refuge is an open space two acres or larger dominated by vegetation, including vegetated landscaping, forest, meadows, grassland, or wetlands, or open water. 2 Current maximum building height allowed in Mountain View is 70 ft. 3 Current maximum building height allowed in Alameda is 60 ft. 4 January 1, 2025 phase in for greater than 50% affordable projects, existing non-residential or new smaller residential buildings with lower hazard facades. January 1, 2028 phase in for existing residential buildings with lower hazard facades.

Attachment 3
Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 2, 2022
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Zoe Covello, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Referral

SUMMARY
On November 12, 2019, the Community Environmental Advisory Commission presented an action item to the City Council, recommending that the City of Berkeley amend the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) to include a new Chapter establishing bird safety requirements for new construction and significant renovations, as well as a new Chapter establishing a Dark Skies Ordinance. City Council unanimously adopted the Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Referral (see Attachment 1) requesting the City Manager develop a response. This report provides background on bird safety requirements and recommends next steps for Planning Commission’s consideration.

BACKGROUND
Birds do not have the same depth perception or contrast sensitivity as humans; as such they cannot see glass. And at night, which is when most birds migrate, guided by magnetic sensors in their retinas that pick up on red and warm-white light, light distracts and disorients them, often leading to collisions.1 It’s estimated that between one hundred million and one billion birds die every year in collisions with manmade structures. 2 According to the Audubon Society, bird collisions with windows are a leading cause of human-induced bird deaths in the United States, second only to outdoor house cats.

Why is it relevant to Berkeley?
Berkeley is located within the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory route for birds. When birds encounter unfamiliar urban areas along the migratory path, they are at particular risk for collisions and death. The City is also adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, one of North America’s most ecologically important estuaries and an international biodiversity hotspot because of the large number of birds, animals, and plants found there, many of which are found nowhere else. The region is also recognized as a site of “Hemispheric Importance” for shorebirds by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 3 Alameda County has recorded 407 species of resident and migratory bird species, 1 https://www.audubon.org/news/building-collisions-are-greater-danger-some-birds-others 2 http://nas-national-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/loss_et_al_bird- building_collisons_condor_2014.pdf
3 https://ca.audubon.org/conservation/conservation/seas-shores/san-francisco-bay

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Referral Planning Commission Staff Report March 2, 2022

including Least Terns, Ridgway’s Rails, and a variety of other uniquely local and/or threatened species.

As pointed out in the CEAC report, new buildings can be designed to reduce bird deaths from collisions without compromising cost or aesthetics. Many compliance methods can be incorporated into design or construction with no additional cost or effort for architects or engineers, and in some cases, bird safe measures help achieve other desirable environmental goals -- like improved building energy efficiency.

Existing bird safety regulations in Berkeley
There are currently no bird safety measures required for newly constructed or renovated buildings in Berkeley. There are some zoning regulations providing guidance or limitations on outdoor lighting (see BMC 23.304.100(E) [Site Features in Residential Districts], BMC

23.304.130(C)(2) [Non-residential Districts Abutting a Residential District], as well as the City of Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan and the Southside zoning regulations (BMC

23.204.100(B)(5)(c)(vii))), but there is no citywide policy preventing excessive light pollution.

What do bird safe requirements look like?
In an effort to mitigate these deaths, municipalities around the country have started adopting bird safety requirements – which primarily take the form of requiring bird safe glass and reducing light pollution at night.

Glass and façade treatments are the most common methods of prevention, and include solutions such as fritted and frosted glass, angled glass, ultra-violet glass, and film and art treatment of glass. The “2 by 4 rule” - patterns of 1/4-inch dots or stripes 4 inches apart horizontally or 1/8-inch dots or stripes 2 inches apart vertically - and other patterns that meet that rule, were found to greatly reduce bird-glass collisions.

Other primary methods of prevention include, but are not limited to:
 Installing exterior screens or netting
 Reducing large areas of transparent or reflective glass  Keeping curtains or shades drawn
 Turning non-emergency lighting off at night (particularly during migration in February-May and August-November) 4
 Putting lights on timers or photo-sensitive switches
 Cleaning buildings in the daytime
 Locating greenery away from clear glass
 Site design measures like fine-grained ventilation grates and gardens without mirrors
How are municipalities implementing requirements?
4 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-01-04/how-to-design-buildings-to-prevent-bird-crashes

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Referral Planning Commission Staff Report March 2, 2022

There are a variety of ways these regulations can be implemented. The referral suggests creating a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance. Here are some other options, as well as the pros and cons of each option, as identified by the City of Emeryville:
 CEQA Review – The city could develop and apply general standards to mitigate potential impacts on migratory wildlife, which is part of the standard CEQA checklist for projects requiring environmental review.
 Project Conditions of Approval – Standard Conditions of Approval for projects could be amended to include new enforceable standards for bird safe measures for applicable projects.
 Design Guidelines – The Design Guidelines could be modified to include a section that would include standards that apply to applicable projects during Design Review.

This would provide some flexibility in enforcement, as guidelines are not regulations and projects that bypass discretion are not subject to review or compliance.  Planning Regulations – The Berkeley Municipal code could be amended to include new standards (as proposed by CEAC), providing consistent application to all projects.

Building Regulations – The Berkeley Municipal Code could be amended to include new standards under a local building code amendment, which would apply to all projects requiring a building permit.

Existing ordinances in Bay Area cities
San Francisco adopted the first bird-safe building ordinance in the United States in 2011, requiring glass façade treatment be applied to the lower 60 feet of buildings within a 300- foot buffer of two-acre open spaces. Oakland followed San Francisco, adopting measures applicable to buildings adjacent to one-acre open spaces. Similarly, Richmond adopted an ordinance in 2016 requiring the treatment of the lower 60 feet of glass adjacent to one- acre open spaces and panes with areas of 24 feet or more.

Alameda has also developed a bird safety ordinance, adopted in 2018, which applies to new construction and window replacements, as well as lighting. Both Emeryville’s 2020 building standards ordinance and CEAC’s recommended amendments to the zoning ordinances are modeled after Alameda’s. A table detailing bird safe requirements in Alameda, Emeryville, Oakland, and CEAC’s recommended ordinance is attached (see Attachment 2).

DISCUSSION
The referral includes two draft ordinances for Planning Commission’s consideration.

Staff proposes the following approach to this referral:

1. Identify Implementation Opportunities and Challenges: As stated above, draft language in the referral is similar to ordinances adopted in Emeryville and Alameda a few years ago. Staff will reach out to planning staff in Emeryville and

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Referral Planning Commission Staff Report March 2, 2022

Alameda regarding lessons learned from ordinance implementation and suggest any necessary modifications.

2. Confirm Consistency with California Building Code: Since California Building Code is amended on a three-year cycle, staff will check with the Berkeley Building Official to ensure there are no conflicts in proposed zoning language and local or California Building Code.

3. Confirm Consistency with Design Guidelines: The Design Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed this referral and expressed an interest in seeing it move forward. Staff will work with the Secretary of the DRC to ensure the Committee’s comments are addressed and that the Committee is informed of the referrals’ progress as it makes its way through the public review.

4. Redraft Zoning Language According to the BZO Style Guide: The Baseline Zoning Ordinance or BZO – now referred to as the Zoning Ordinance – included a style guide. Since this referral predated adoption of the BZO, the draft ordinances will need to be modified to follow the style guide.

5. Finally, staff requests that the Commissioners consider the following questions:
 Does the Commission suggest modifications to staff’s proposed approach?  Should the standards apply citywide, or near large open spaces with vegetation and/or water?
 Should the standards apply to the lower 60 feet of buildings or to the entire building?
 Does the Commission have any other suggestions to inform the drafting of bird safe building standards in Berkeley?
After receiving this information, staff will draft a new ordinance or ordinances that follow the BZO style guide. This draft ordinance will then be shared with Planning Commission for consideration and development of a recommendation to City Council.

ATTACHMENTS

1. CEAC Report / City Council Referral

2. Local Ordinance Comparison Table

Attachment 4
Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 19, 2022
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Justin Horner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Referral

SUMMARY
At their meeting on March 2, 2022, the Planning Commission, in response to a referral from the Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) and City Council, provided direction for amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) establishing bird safety requirements for new construction and significant renovations. This report presents a more specific set of policy questions for the Planning Commission’s consideration, based on staff’s additional research and feedback from the Design Review Committee (DRC) and Golden Gate Audubon.

The policy questions pertain to:
 What types of projects should be required to comply?
 For projects that are subject to the requirements, how much glazing should be required to be bird safe?
 For the purposes of compliance, what materials are considered bird safe? Staff seeks Planning Commission’s direction in order to return to the Commission for a public hearing on December 7, 2022 with specific Zoning Ordinance amendments.

BACKGROUND
At their meeting on March 2, 2022, the Planning Commission received a report and presentation on the referral from the CEAC, the studied effects of built environments on bird populations, a brief discussion of how Berkeley’s particular geography relates to bird populations, and a review of existing regulatory efforts in Bay Area cities regarding bird safety (Attachment 1).

After hearing public comment, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff to return with bird safety regulations that are:
 Included in the Berkeley Municipal Code/Zoning Ordinance1;  Applicable to new buildings and major renovations citywide; and 1 Other options considered and dismissed included adopting bird safe regulations through CEQA review mitigation measures, project conditions of approval, design guidelines, or local building code.

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report October 19, 2022

 Based on the most up-to-date science with respect to birds and the built environment.

Accordingly, Commissioners asked staff to analyze recently-adopted bird safe regulations from New York City and Mountain View, and to consult with the Golden Gate Audubon Society.

On September 15, 2022, staff provided an informational presentation on proposed bird safe regulations to the DRC, which provided the following feedback:
 Costs and feasibility for smaller residential projects. The DRC expressed concern about the cost of bird safe glass for single family homeowners and builders of smaller residential projects (e.g. 2-4 units) . Committee members also questioned whether bird safe glass was sufficiently available for smaller residential projects. One Committee member contacted three local window retailers, none of whom had experience with requests for bird safe glass. It was noted that bird safe glass could potentially double the cost of a glass order for a smaller project.
 Phased approach to bird safe requirements. Given concerns about the availability and cost of bird safe glass for smaller residential projects, DRC members recommended phasing in bird safe requirements. New construction of commercial projects and larger-scale residential and mixed-use projects would be subject to bird safe requirements, while new smaller-scale residential and residential rehabilitation projects would be covered at a later date as the costs and benefits become clearer. The DRC noted that larger projects would be in a better position to absorb any increase in per window cost because the project as a whole is better financed. In addition, larger window orders that would come from larger projects may result in less per-unit costs.  Tiered approach to bird safe requirements. DRC members suggested that bird safe requirements could be tiered to include more features as project size increases. i.e. larger projects could be subject to more comprehensive requirements while smaller residential projects or rehabs could be subject to fewer requirements. For instance, larger projects could be required to use bird safe glass throughout the project while smaller projects could be permitted to use alternative methods or use them on specific portions of the project.  Point-of-Sale Requirement: Existing residences could be required to comply with bird safe requirements at point of sale.
 Historical Landmarks: DRC members supported provisions that would require a minimally intrusive compliance option—or exemption--for designated historical landmarks.
 Public Education: DRC members recommended a public information campaign to introduce residents to the concept of bird safe building strategies and to raise awareness of future regulations. This would not only include bird safe glass, but lighting, landscaping and other project design elements that encourage bird

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report October 19, 2022

safety. Golden Gate Audubon is exploring how they could coordinate such an effort.

Given Planning Commission’s direction in March 2022, and feedback from the DRC, community members, and Golden Gate Audubon, the development of a bird safe ordinance will be informed by answers to the following questions:
 What types of projects should be required to comply?
 For projects that are subject to the requirements, how much glazing should be required to be bird safe?
 For the purposes of compliance, what materials are considered bird safe? To provide parameters for the Planning Commission’s discussion, Table 1 summarizes the Bird Safety Ordinance recommended by the CEAC and City Council in its referral and the American Bird Conservancy’s (ABC) Model Bird Friendly Ordinance.2 CEAC’s suggested ordinance was presented in 2019 and was based on the City of Alameda’s regulations. ABC’s Model Bird Friendly Ordinance constitutes a more expansive policy approach which it characterizes as “the leading edge of creating a bird-friendly bird environment.” That said, ABC itself suggests that jurisdictions may feel the need to soften some of its provisions to meet local conditions.

Table 1. Bird Safe Ordinance Summaries
CEAC’s Proposed Ordinance ABC’s Model Ordinance
What types of
projects are
covered?
 For new construction, windows
on a façade of a building with 2
or more stories where glass
constitutes 50% or more of the
façade’s area.
 Replacement of existing windows
on a façade of a building with 2
or more stories where glass
constitutes 50% or more of the
façade’s area.
 Any new or replaced glass
structure (e.g. greenhouse) with
any transparent walls 24 sq ft or
more in size
 100% of all new projects
 Replacement of at least
50% of existing glass on
existing structures
 Any new glass on an
existing building
 All high-risk building
features.3
Exemptions  Replacement of existing glass on
historic structures
 None
2 https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/American-Bird-Conservancy-Model-Bird-Friendly- Building-Ordinance.docx
3 “High-risk building features” include skyways/walkways and building connectors, transparent outside building corners, areas with parallel glass, courtyards, atria and areas above green roofs.

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report October 19, 2022

 Glazing on ground floor of
commercial storefronts directly
fronting a public street, alley or
sidewalk
 Windows that are smaller than 2ft
x 4ft (8 sq ft)
How much
glazing is to
be bird safe?
 90% of eligible glazing on any
regulated façade or free-standing
structure
 100% of glazing within
100 ft from grade
 100% of glazing within
three floors adjacent to or
above a green roof
What
materials are
considered
bird safe?
 Opaque glass or film
 Paneled glass
 Glass covered with patterns
 UV reflective glass
 External screens
 Light colored blinds or curtains
 Other treatments approved by
the Planning Director
 Products with an ABC
Threat Factor Rating of
30 or less
 Glass with obstructions
no larger than 12” in any
direction
 Untinted glass with less
than 15% reflectance and
contains visual markers
What types of projects should be covered?
Table 1. Bird Safe Ordinance Summaries provides parameters for the types of projects that could be covered by a bird safe ordinance. While ABC’s model ordinance covers nearly all glazing on all new buildings, CEAC’s proposed ordinance applies only to buildings of 2 or more stories, and only to each building façade that meets a minimum requirement, and then only to windows on that façade that meet minimum size requirements.

As noted above, the DRC was concerned about the feasibility of requiring bird safe glass for single family homes and smaller residential developments. An exemption for projects of only one story could partially address that concern, but it is likely, particularly with proposed implementation programs in the Housing Element Update to encourage residential development including Middle Housing, that a large proportion of future smaller-scale residential development will be at least two stories.

The Planning Commission may want to consider exempting projects by type, as opposed to, or in addition to, by size. For example, the City of Evanston’s (Illinois) recent Bird Friendly Building Design Ordinance4 exempts detached one- and two-family dwelling and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) altogether, as well as residential buildings of three stories or less.
4 https://www.cityofevanston.org/home/showpublisheddocument/74672/637993547035470000

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report October 19, 2022

It should be noted that a not insignificant proportion of bird strikes on buildings occur at lower levels, as strikes are common at buildings adjacent to bird habitat, such as street trees and bushes. At the DRC meeting, Berkeley Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commissioner Erin Diehm noted that approximately 44% of collisions occur at 1-2 story buildings, while 56% occur at 3-11 stories.

An additional option is to limit the applicability of the bird safe requirements to glazing of a certain size, regardless of, or in addition to, overall provisions regarding project size.

CEAC’s ordinance, for example, applies bird safe requirements only to glazing that is larger than 2 ft by 4 ft, or 8 sq ft. At the DRC meeting, testimony from Golden Gate Audubon’s Executive Director identified 1 square meter, or 3.3 ft by 3.3 ft (roughly 11 sq ft), as a common size threshold for glazing.

Exemption for Historic Resources. An exemption from, or reduction in, bird safe requirements was included in CEAC’s ordinance and noted by the DRC. The Planning Commission may consider a similar exemption, or recommend less stringent requirements for the replacement of windows on such structures. CEAC’s ordinance distinguished between replacing existing windows on an historic structure and new construction associated with an historic structure.

Phasing In Regulations. A number of DRC members recommended only subjecting new commercial and larger-scale residential projects to bird safe regulations in the short term, while eventually phasing-in smaller-scale residential projects. This would provide time for Berkeley homeowners to learn about and prepare for the introduction of bird safe requirements, while also providing time for the bird safe glass market to ramp up to better serve smaller-scale users. Some members suggested including a specific phase- in date in the ordinance, for predictability and to aid in moving the bird safe window market, while other members suggested expanding the applicability of the ordinance through future amendments.

How much glazing should be bird safe?
ABC’s Model Bird Safety Ordinance is “based on a 100/100/100 framework: 100% of all glass and other building materials should be bird friendly in the first 100 feet of 100% of buildings.” Many existing ordinances, as well as CEAC’s proposed ordinance, however, require 90% of eligible glazing to be bird safe. It is not uncommon to exempt some percentage of otherwise eligible glass (the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Bird Collision Deterrence credit, for example, exempts up to 5% of eligible glass). The primary reason for these small exemptions is to address concerns some retailers have of the impact of bird safe glass on the look and feel of store frontages. A 10% exemption of eligible glass on a ten-story building, for instance, could exempt the entire ground floor. There may also be other, as yet unforeseen reasons to create some flexibility in requirements.

An additional threshold relates to the height at which bird safe glass is required. ABC’s Model Bird Safety Ordinance calls for bird safe glass in the first 100 feet above grade and three stories above or adjacent to any green roof. The City of Evanston’s

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report October 19, 2022

ordinance requires a more stringent safety standard in the first 60 feet above grade and a lower standard for building surfaces above 60 feet. LEED’s credit distinguishes between the first 40 feet above grade, and building surfaces between 40 feet and 100 feet above grade.

It is also common for ordinances to
require bird safe glass on surfaces or
building features regardless of their
distance from grade. For example,
glazing above or adjacent to green roofs
in new buildings are often required to be
bird safe, as are building corners and
other potential “fly through” features.

Common building features that are
subject to bird safe requirements
include:
 Elevated pedestrian building
connections, such as skyways or
skybridges;
 Parallel glass walls;
 Glass atriums; and
 Architectural projections, such as
railings, balconies, louvers, or
noise or wind barriers.

New York City’s Bird Friendly Building
Design Guidance Document5 includes a
figure (Figure 1) which illustrates how
their regulations apply to specific
building features. However, this may be difficult to enforce; New York City does not retroactively require retrofitting of windows adjacent to newly—or subsequently— created applicable building features.

What materials are considered bird safe?
The American Bird Conservancy’s Model Ordinance provides the following definition for bird safe glass.
5 www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/bldgs._bulletins/bird_friendly_guidance_document.pdf Figure 1. New York City Bird Friendly Building
Design - Applicable Building Features

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report October 19, 2022

 A product with an American Bird Conservancy Material Threat Factor Rating of 30 or less6;
 Glass with an exterior surface (surface
1, right) obstructed and effectively
covered by building-integrated
structures that do not have gaps larger
than 12 in. in any dimension, including
non-glass double-skin facades, metal
screens, fixed solar shading, exterior
insect or solar screens, and other
features as determined by the Zoning
Officer that meet these conditions; or
 Un-tinted glass with an outer total
reflectance of no more than 15% that
contains a pattern of visual markers
that are on the exterior surface (surface
1, right) or the interior surface of a pane
of glass on the building exterior (surface 2, right) that conforms to the following rules:

1. Dots or other isolated solid shapes that are at least a ¼” in diameter and are no more than 2’ apart in any direction (below, left); or

2. Lines that are at least ⅛” in width and spaced no more than 2” apart (below, right).

6 ABC’s Material Threat Factor (TF) rating system tests, assesses and classifies materials on a scale of 0 to 100 to provide a relative measure of birds' ability to see and avoid patterned glass and other materials.

The lower the TF, the more effective the material will be at reducing collisions. For more information, see ABC’s Threat Factor page:
https://tinyurl.com/4k2v2stb. For ABC’s regularly updated database of materials, which include TF ratings, see: https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/products-database/.

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report October 19, 2022

ABC’s Threat Factor Rating is used by the City of Evanston and LEED’s Bird Collision Deterrence Credit, and CEAC’s ordinance recommends visual markers consistent with 1), above.

It should be noted that most of these requirements can be met either by specific bird safe glass and window assemblies or by film or adhesives that can be added to existing windows or to newly purchased windows that are not specifically bird-safe. Film can be a more cost-effective compliance path, although there could be instances where the application of a film could affect, or even void, a window’s warranty.

Some bird safe regulations also permit the use of blinds or curtains to reduce window transparency. These approaches are considered sub-optimal, however, as they depend on the efforts of individual building users to be effective.

The Planning Commission is asked to review the Discussion topics above and provide feedback and direction to staff on the preparation of a Bird Safe Ordinance. Specifically, staff requests feedback on the following questions:

1. What types of projects should be covered by bird safe requirements? o Should there be provisions made for project size or for small-scale residential projects? What would be the threshold (e.g. above a certain number of units or square footage)?
o Should certain projects (e.g. designated landmarks) be exempt? o Should there be a phase-in period for certain projects within the ordinance or should staff return with amendments to expand requirements, when appropriate?

2. How much glazing should be bird safe?
o To what height should bird safe glazing be required?
o Should requirements be on a whole-building or per-façade basis? o Should bird safe requirements only apply to glass panes of a minimum size?
o What other building features (e.g. elevated pedestrian building connections, glass walls, glass atriums; and architectural projections, such as railings, balconies, louvers, or noise or wind barriers) should be subject to bird safety requirements?

3. What materials qualify as bird safe?
o Should the ordinance include specific requirements, per ABC’s Model Ordinance, or should there be more discretion given to staff to ascertain compliance?

NEXT STEPS
Based on direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff will prepare Zoning Ordinance amendments for a public hearing at the Commission’s meeting on December 7, 2022, consistent with BMC Chapter 23.412 Zoning Ordinance Amendments.

Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report October 19, 2022

ATTACHMENTS

1. March 2, 2022, Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Referral. Planning Commission Report.

Attachment 5
Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 1, 2023
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Justin Horner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Referral Response

SUMMARY
At their meeting on March 2, 2022, the Planning Commission, in response to a referral (Attachment 1) from the Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) and the City Council, provided direction for amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) establishing bird safety requirements for new construction and significant renovations. At their meeting of October 19, 2022, the Planning Commission established a Subcommittee to develop BMC amendments for consideration by the full Planning Commission. This report presents those amendments and alternatives.

Pursuant to Planning Commission and Subcommittee policy recommendations, with consideration of recent precedent standards from other jurisdictions, the proposed bird- safe requirements apply exclusively to projects based on the primary land use1 when such projects require a building permit and meet the following criteria:

1. New non-residential buildings, or residential and mixed-use buildings with a total gross floor area2 of 10,000 square feet (sf) or greater;

2. Materials on the facades of residential and mixed-use buildings of less than 10,000 sf where transparent materials consist of more than 50 percent of that façade’s3 total square footage;

3. New or replacement windows on existing buildings;

4. A minimum transparent material size of 12 sf for bird-safe requirements, or 24 sf for transparent buildings or building features.
1 BMC 23.502.020(U)(10) Defined Terms (Use, Primary). The main purpose for which a site is developed and occupied, including the activities that are conducted on the site a majority of the hours during which activities occur. https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.502.020(U)(10) 2 BMC 23.106.030 Floor Area, Gross. https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.106.030 3 BMC 23.502.020(F)(1) Defined Terms (Façade). Those portions of a building, including exterior walls, porches, chimneys, balconies, parapets and roof portions, which are visible from a public right-of-way or an adjacent building. https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.502.020(F)(1)

Bird Safe Building Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report March 1, 2023

Four pathways are provided for compliance with the Ordinance:

1. Threat factor rating. An element or material would comply with the Ordinance if it is listed in the ABC’s online Glass Collisions Products and Solutions Database4 with a Threat Factor Rating of 30 or less at the time of Building Permit issuance.

2. Surface treatment. An element or material would comply with the Ordinance if it includes patterns that are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material.

3. Screens and shutters. An element or material would comply with the Ordinance if it were covered with an exterior screen, shutter or shading device, or insect or solar screen that was permanently installed on the building exterior.

4. Biologist certification. A proposed project could also comply with the Ordinance if a qualified biologist were to indicate that the proposed construction methods and materials would reduce the risk of bird collision to an extent comparable to the other compliance paths.

Staff seeks Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council on the proposed BMC amendments and alternative considerations.

BACKGROUND
At their meeting on March 2, 2022, the Planning Commission received a report and presentation on the referral from the CEAC, the studied effects of built environments on bird populations, a brief discussion of how Berkeley’s particular geography relates to bird populations, and a review of existing regulatory efforts in Bay Area cities regarding bird safety (Attachment 2). Staff then presented a draft proposal and received feedback from the Design Review Committee at their September 15, 2022 meeting. At their meeting of October 19, 2022, the Planning Commission received an additional report with a more specific set of policy questions, held a discussion, and established a Subcommittee (Attachment 3).

The Planning Commission provided guidance to the Subcommittee that included the following:
 Bird-safe regulations should be based on the area of a transparent material, not the size or type of the underlying project; and
 Non-residential projects and larger mixed-use and residential projects should be immediately covered by the regulations. Smaller residential projects should be phased in to the regulations.

The Design Review Committee met on September 15, 2022 and provided the following feedback:
4 https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/products-database/

Bird Safe Building Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report March 1, 2023

 Bird-safe regulations should apply to new construction, particularly non- residential and larger residential projects, due to availability of bird-safe materials. Smaller residential projects should be phased in at a later period.  Consider the current costs, availability, and terms of warranty of bird-safe materials in the regulations.

The Planning Commission Subcommittee met on November 4, 2022 and provided the following feedback:
 Bird-safe regulations should immediately apply to all non-residential projects and residential and mixed-use projects of 10 units or more;  For residential and mixed-use project of 9 or fewer units, bird-safe regulations should apply only to a façade where transparent materials make up more than 50 percent of the total area of the façade; and
 Small windows of a square meter or less should be exempt.

PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE
Based upon guidance provided by the CEAC, the Planning Commission, the Bird-Safe Ordinance Subcommittee, the Design Review Committee, established precedents, and members of the public, staff has drafted a new Ordinance for BMC Section 23.304.150 Bird Safe Buildings (Attachment 4). The new Section 23.304.150 would include the following:

Purpose Statement
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to reduce bird mortality from windows and other transparent buildings or building features known to increase the risk of bird collisions.

Consistent with the Style Guide adopted as part of the Baseline Zoning Ordinance, the proposed Ordinance includes a Purpose statement. The proposed language is taken largely from the Purpose statement included in the CEAC’s suggested Bird Safety Ordinance.

Applicability
The Ordinance would apply to projects that require a building permit, and vary based on primary land use and, for residential or mixed-use, the size of the overall building, as set forth in Table 1. Note, the requirements would not apply to existing windows or other transparent materials that are not proposed to be replaced. The Ordinance also includes an exemption for affordable housing projects. Consistent with the threshold adopted for the Transportation Demand Management program, any residential projects, including the residential portions of mixed-use projects, in which the majority of the units are subject to recorded affordability restrictions, would be exempt.

Bird Safe Building Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report March 1, 2023

Table 1. Bird-Safe Building Requirements
Project Type Applicable Building Location(s)
Non-Residential
New Construction or
Addition
Continuous transparent materials of 12 sf or larger located between the ground and 100 feet above grade.

New or Replacement
Transparent Materials on
Existing Building
Continuous transparent materials of 12 sf or larger located between the ground and 100 feet above grade where 50% or more of the façade’s total square footage consists of transparent material.

New or Replacement
Transparent Structures or
Features
Continuous transparent material of 24 sf or larger, including but not limited to, freestanding glass walls, noise or wind barriers, skyways, balconies, greenhouses, and rooftop appurtenances.

Residential or Mixed Use
Building with
10,000 sf or more
gross floor area
Continuous transparent materials of 12 sf or larger
located between the ground and 100 feet above
grade.

New Construction or
Addition
Building with less
than 10,000 sf
gross floor area
Continuous transparent materials of 12 sf or larger
located between the ground and 100 feet above
grade where 50% or more of the façade’s total
square footage consists of transparent material.

Building with
10,000 sf or more
gross floor area
Continuous transparent materials of 12 sf or larger
located between the ground and 100 feet above
grade where 50% or more of the façade’s total
square footage consists of transparent material.

New or Replacement
Transparent Materials on
Existing Building
Building with less
than 10,000 sf
gross floor area
Not applicable
New or Replacement
Transparent Structures or
Features
Continuous transparent material of 24 sf or larger, including but not limited to, freestanding glass walls, noise or wind barriers, skyways, balconies, greenhouses, and rooftop appurtenances.

Project Type: The Ordinance would distinguish three project types:

1. New construction that includes transparent material;

2. New or replacement transparent materials on existing buildings; and

3. New or replacement buildings or building features that are largely transparent by design (e.g., greenhouses, glass walls, noise barriers).

Primary Land Use and Building Size: The Ordinance would distinguish between non- residential and residential/mixed-use uses, and would also distinguish between larger and smaller residential/mixed-use developments, consistent with the Planning Commission and Subcommittee direction.

While the Subcommittee recommended 10 units as the cut-off between large and small residential/mixed-use projects, staff recommends utilizing 10,000 sf of gross floor area as the threshold to account for units of varying sizes. An average housing unit is often estimated to have a floor area of approximately 900 to 1,000 gross square feet, so 10,000 sf is a comparable estimate. Square footage, as opposed to unit count, will also be the method by which proposed affordable housing requirements are calculated. For

Bird Safe Building Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report March 1, 2023

consistency, staff recommends utilizing square footage, not unit count, as the threshold metric.
 Alternative Option – Building Size. An alternative approach could be to eliminate the distinction between primary land uses and classify by building size.

This would ease administration in the case of possible future land use changes between residential and non-residential uses. In addition, as noted below, the difficulty in locating and obtaining bird safe materials locally may justify requiring them only for larger projects, which may presumably have the capacity to source harder-to-obtain materials. Mountain View, as one example, utilizes a single 10,000 sf threshold for most development types.

Applicable Building Locations: Table 1 summarizes the types and locations of transparent materials that would be covered by the Ordinance for each project type.

Notable aspects of these requirements include:

Continuous Transparent Material Panes 12 sf or Larger. Consistent with Planning Commission and Subcommittee direction to base bird-safe requirements on the size of transparent panes, bird-safe requirements would apply to windows or other continuous transparent materials of 12 sf or larger on eligible new construction and replacement projects. For purposes of the Ordinance, “continuous” means a transparent material that is not interrupted by a line, spacer, mullion, grille or other visible materials of at least 1/2” in width. Both Emeryville and the City of Alameda have adopted a 12 sf minimum threshold, and the Subcommittee recommended a 1 square meter threshold, which is roughly 11 sf.
 Alternative Option – Size of Transparent Material: The Subcommittee recommended the bird-safe requirements apply to windows and continuous transparent materials of 6 sf or larger, and that transparent materials would be considered “continuous” unless the transparent material was interrupted by a visible material of at least 4” in width.
100 Feet Above Grade. Consistent with the American Bird Conservancy’s (ABC) Model Ordinance and Planning Commission direction, bird-safe requirements would apply to eligible windows located between the ground and 100 feet above grade. For comparison, the City of New York’s requirements apply to the first 75 feet above grade, and Mountain View, Oakland, San Francisco and Evanston, Illinois (adopted June 2022) apply their standards only to the first 60 feet above grade.

Small Mixed-Use/Residential Standards and Window Replacement. Consistent with Planning Commission direction to avoid overly burdening smaller residential projects, the applicability of bird-safe requirements to smaller residential and mixed-use developments, as well as to projects that replace existing windows, would not be as broad as with larger projects. For these smaller projects, and for window replacements, bird-safe requirements would only apply to transparent materials of 12 sf or larger that are also located on facades that include transparent materials on 50 percent or more of

Bird Safe Building Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report March 1, 2023

their surface area. In these cases—where the majority of the façade consists of transparent material and therefore constitutes a heightened risk of bird collision—bird- safe requirements would apply even if a project were smaller in scale.

This 50 percent threshold is consistent with the City of Alameda’s bird-safe regulations, as well as the CEAC’s recommended regulations.
 Alternative Option – Size and Percentage for Smaller Projects: The Subcommittee recommended that these bird-safe requirements for smaller projects be expanded to apply to materials of 6 sf or larger that are located on facades that include transparent materials as more than 30 percent of their surface area.

Specific Building Elements and Transparent Structures – No Grade Limit. For any continuous transparent material of 24 sf or larger, bird-safe requirements would apply, regardless of the element or structure’s distance from adjacent grade. Examples of these elements include freestanding glass walls, noise or wind barriers, skyways, balconies, greenhouses, and rooftop appurtenances.

These larger transparent elements are a particular collision risk, and a number of them, including noise and wind barriers, were specifically identified by the Planning Commission and Subcommittee as elements to be included. A number of jurisdictions, including New York City, City of Alameda, and Evanston, IL take similar steps to regulate these building elements. The American Bird Conservancy’s Model Ordinance includes them as well.  Alternative Option – Size for Transparent Buildings and Building Features:

The Subcommittee recommended that bird-safe requirements apply to any freestanding transparent walls, noise or wind barriers, skyways, balconies, greenhouses, and rooftop appurtenances of any size located anywhere in a project, as well as any corner location where transparent material meets transparent material, creating a total continuous transparent area of 6 sf or larger.

Bird Safe Requirements
The Ordinance includes the following four methods of compliance for windows, transparent materials or any elements or structures covered by the Ordinance.

1. American Bird Conservancy Threat Factor Rating: An element or material would comply with the ordinance if it is listed in the ABC’s online Glass Collisions Products and Solutions Database5 with a Threat Factor Rating of 30 or less at the time of Building Permit issuance.
5 https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/products-database/

Bird Safe Building Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report March 1, 2023

According to the ABC, a Threat Factor of 30 or less is the organization’s upper threshold for categorizing materials as bird friendly. The ABC included this threshold in their Model Ordinance, and Evanston includes it as their upper threshold in their Bird Safe Guidelines.

2. Patterned Glazing Treatments: An element or material would comply with the Ordinance if it includes patterns that are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material. For a pattern that utilizes dots or other isolated solid shapes, each dot or shape must be at least a ¼” in diameter and be no more than 2’ apart in any direction. If the pattern utilizes lines, it must be at least ⅛” in width and spaced no more than 2” apart. Figure 1 illustrates this compliance path.

Figure 1. Patterned Glazing Treatments
The ABC Database also includes a number of products that would comply with this requirement.

3. External Screens, Shutters or Shading Devices: An element or material would comply with the Ordinance if it were covered with an exterior screen, shutter or shading device, or insect or solar screen that was permanently installed on the building exterior.

Such a treatment would not create any gaps larger than 9” in any dimension (that is, a 9” diameter object could not pass through the treatment and strike the window or material). Figure 2 provides an illustration of this compliance path.

Bird Safe Building Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report March 1, 2023

Figure 2. External Screens, Shutters or Shades

4. Biologist Certification: A project could also comply with the Ordinance if a qualified biologist were to indicate that the proposed construction methods and materials would reduce the risk of bird collision to an extent comparable to the other compliance paths.

Staff recognize that there may be an alternative method or technology that is not yet listed in the three compliance paths above but could be equally effective. An ABC Threat Factor Rating of 30 represents a 50 percent reduction in collision risk compared to untreated materials so that threshold could be used by a biologist to determine that a project’s methods and materials would meet that standard. Regulations in Mountain View, Emeryville and Alameda include compliance paths that permit biologist certification of bird safe measures.
 Alternative Option – Remove Biologist Certification Path: The Subcommittee recommended against including the option of Biologist Certification, believing it could allow a project sponsor to avoid bird safe requirements with unverifiable analysis and unenforceable recommendations. Note, additional standards could be established to require peer review and modification as part of a permit process to address this concern.

No more than
9” gap of
transparent
material
No more than
9” gap of
transparent
material

Bird Safe Building Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report March 1, 2023

Phasing Regulations
Both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee recommended including a phase-in date in the Ordinance for the regulation of smaller (less than 10,000 sf) residential and mixed-use projects. The recommended phase-in dates ranged from 7 to 10 years from adoption of the Ordinance.

A phase-in date is not included in the proposed Ordinance because staff does not recommend pre-committing future City Councils, and future residents, to new regulations that far into the future, when circumstances may be entirely different and a variety of new factors could impact policy direction. There is also already a process to amend the Zoning Ordinance if future Planning Commissions and City Councils wish to change the requirements of the Ordinance.

Compliance and Enforcement
The draft Ordinance specifies that Bird Safe requirements would only apply to projects that require a building permit. Replacing broken windows or individual window panes are considered repairs and do not require a building permit. For example, an existing window that needs to be repaired because it was broken by an errant baseball would not be subject to Bird Safe requirements.

Project plans would be required to include a stamp from the project applicant attesting that the project would comply with Bird Safe requirements, and the window schedule for proposed projects would need to indicate the transparent materials subject to Bird Safe requirements and the compliance path being selected for each applicable material.

Public Information Document
Upon adoption of the proposed Ordinance, staff will prepare a public information document to explain the Bird Safe requirements and its purpose in common language, and provide guidance to project applicants as to where to obtain compliant materials.

While ABC’s Database includes more than 150 rated materials, it does not provide information about where to purchase items or whether they are available in Berkeley or the Greater Bay Area. The public information document would include purchasing options for specific products included in the ABC Database.

Product Availability
Staff does register concern about the current availability of bird safe materials, particularly for smaller-scale residential projects. Both the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission expressed similar concerns, and the proposed Ordinance strives to address the concern by distinguishing between projects that are larger or smaller than 10,000 square feet.

With the assistance of the City of Berkeley’s Office of Economic Development, staff contacted 13 Berkeley-based building material retailers to inquire into the availability of bird safe products. None of the 13 businesses carried bird safe products, and at least three businesses had not heard of bird safe options for window products. This mirrors research done by a member of the Design Review Committee who contacted three local

Bird Safe Building Requirements Planning Commission
Staff Report March 1, 2023

residential window suppliers (Ashby Lumber, Associated Building Supply and Glass Concepts) and a territory manager for BMD, a distributor of Marvin windows. None of the local suppliers have much experience with bird-safe materials because of the added cost, and most of them had experiences with clients choosing not to use bird-safe materials because of cost.

That said, a number of projects that include bird safe glass have recently been approved in Berkeley. Berkeley Commons consists of two three-story research and development buildings located along the historic Berkeley shoreline. The project developer initially considered sourcing bird safe glass from Interpane, a German company, but switched to Viracon, a US company, due to supply chain issues. A representative approached by staff noted that obtaining glass with ceramic fritting was difficult and added more than $8 per square foot to their window order. Another non-residential project also needed to switch from their original manufacturer to Viracon once the choice was made to use bird safe glass.

Staff will continue working to identify local retailers of bird safe products, but availability of bird safe materials may be a challenge in the near-term. Staff has requested assistance from Golden Gate Audubon to identify local sources of bird safe materials.

NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a Public Hearing, receive public comment, discuss draft Ordinance amendments, provide direction, and forward a recommendation to City Council, with any changes identified through a vote of the Planning Commission.

ATTACHMENTS

1. November 12 2019, Bird Safe Referral. City Council.

2. March 2, 2022, Bird Safe Berkeley Requirements Referral. Planning Commission Report.

3. October 19, 2022, Planning Commission Report.

4. Proposed Bird Safe Buildings Ordinance

Attachment 6
City of Berkeley
Planning Commission

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Planning Commission (Jeff Vincent and Alfred Twu) Re: Birdsafe Glass Ordinance
Date: March 23, 2023
On March 1, 2023, the Planning Commission (PC) took action to recommend a new bird safe glass ordinance for City Council consideration. PC’s action was in response to a November 12, 2019 referral from the Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) and the City Council. The PC discussed this item at three meetings: March 2, 2022, October 19, 2022, and March 1, 2023. The PC also convened a Subcommittee on bird safe requirements. The Subcommittee met on three occasions: November 4, 2022, January 20, 2023 and February 8, 2023. This memo provides context on the Planning Commission’s rationale for the recommendation to the City Council.

As described in the referral and the staff reports, bird populations have been declining and collisions with building windows are a major cause. Bird safe glass includes glass with tiny dots or thin lines etched or silk screened onto the glass, spaced a couple inches apart.

In the Bay Area, a handful of cities have adopted Bird Safe Building ordinances. Each of these ordinances differs on specifics (and all have less stringent birdsafe glass requirements compared to model policies currently being advocated for). Most of these ordinances contain exemptions for smaller panes of glass (For example, Emeryville's ordinance exempts glass panes under 12 square feet).

In 2019, New York City passed a relatively more stringent birdsafe glass ordinance. [“Materials other than bird friendly materials shall not exceed an aggregate of 10 square feet (0.93 m2) within any 10 feet (3048 mm) by 10 feet (3048 mm) square area of exterior wall below 75 feet (22 860 mm) above grade."1
While early drafts for a Berkeley ordinance were modeled on existing ordinances, elements of the staff recommendation were based on more recent ordinances, including Evanston, IL, and on the CEAC’s proposed ordinance.
1 https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/bldgs_bulletins/bird_friendly_guidance_document.pdf, pg. 11; and the New York City building code: https://up.codes/s/bird-friendly-materials

The PC has received much public comment from organizations/individuals urging the City of Berkeley to adopt a strong ordinance similar to New York City's and the model ordinance developed by the Golden Gate Audubon Society.

PC members overwhelmingly support actions that protect birds. Members repeatedly voiced support for a strong, yet implementable, birdsafe glass ordinance.

However, we have concerns about feasibility. A central concern is whether cost and /or availability hinder the production of housing, especially affordable housing. We do not feel we have enough information to fully answer this question.  What is the availability of bird safe glass products? o Answer provided in staff report or during PC meeting discussion: It appears that birdsafe glass options are becoming more available each year. Large projects buy glass directly from manufacturers, who appear to offer bird safe glass options. Smaller projects, like a house renovation or a new duplex, get premade windows from retailers, most of whom presently do not appear to have bird safe windows. Staff were unable to find any local retailers that carry bird safe windows.
 How much additional cost will this add to projects, especially if materials are not readily and quickly available?
o Answer provided in staff report or during PC meeting discussion: PC determined that current information about cost does not make it prohibitive for large projects and part of the intent of adopting bird safe requirements is that requirements could create a demand for products, thereby reducing costs. One estimate provided to PC by a member of the Golden Gate Audubon Society found “an increase of 0.17% to 0.38% for large new construction projects (e.g., a few hundred dollars for an apartment with a handful of windows).” In response to Staff inquiry, a representative for the Berkeley Commons project noted that obtaining glass with ceramic fritting added more than $8 per square foot to their window order. Staff were unable to find any estimates for small residential projects due to lack of local availability.
 How soon should an ordinance be put in place?
o Answer provided in staff report or during PC meeting discussion: Given the concerns about cost and availability, the PC tried to solve this by suggesting that the ordinance be phased in based on type and size of building and size of percentage of glass on surface, etc. [For example, the NYC ordinance had a one-year phase-in, see:
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/local_laws/ll15of2020.pdf, pg 3.

The PC unanimously recommended that the CC adopt the Golden Gate Audubon Society's proposal for birdsafe regulations, with the following amendments (in bold), which PC felt would balance the urgency of protecting birds with the practical need of giving the construction supply chain enough time to adapt:

 (Non-Residential/New or Replacement Transparent Materials on Existing Buildings). Buildings where every façade’s total square footage consists of less than 50% 30% transparent material are exempt through January 1, 2028 2025.  (Residential or Mixed Use/New Construction or Addition/Buildings with less than 10,000 sf gross floor area) Buildings where every façade’s total square footage consists of less than 50% 30% transparent material are exempt through January 1, 2028 2025.
 (New or Replacement Transparent Materials on Existing Building) Buildings where every façade’s total square footage consists of less than 50% 30% transparent material are exempt through January 1, 2028.  (Exemptions) Residential projects, including the residential portion of mixed-use projects, where greater than 75% 50% of the units are subject to recorded affordability restrictions, are exempt from the requirements of this ordinance until January 1, 2025, except that New or Replacement Transparent Building Features as described in Table 1-23.304.XX are not exempt.  The removal of a provision that would allow for determination by a qualified biologist. PC felt that because there is no licensing for biologists (unlike architects or engineers), this may create a loophole that could be exploited.

There remains a path for new materials to be certified by standards agencies that certify bird safe glass products for the entire country.

1 23.304.150 Bird Safe Buildings.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to reduce bird mortality from windows and other transparent buildings or building features known to increase the risk of bird collisions.

B. Applicability.

1. Applicability. The bird safe building requirements apply to the following types of projects based on the primary land use when such projects require a building permit.

Table 1 - 23.304.XX. Bird Safe Building Requirement Applicability Project Type Applicable Building Location(s)
Non-Residential
New Construction or
Addition
Continuous All transparent or reflective materials of 12 sf or larger located between the ground and 100 feet above grade.

New or Replacement
Transparent and
Reflective Materials on
Existing Building
Continuous All transparent or reflective materials of 12 sf or larger located between the ground and 100 feet above grade Buildings where every façade’s total square footage consists of less than where 5030% or more of the elevation’s total square footage consists of transparent material are exempt through January 1, 2025.

New or Replacement
Transparent and
Reflective Buildings or
Features
Continuous All transparent material of 24 sf or larger, including but not limited to, freestanding glass walls, noise or wind barriers, skyways, balconies, greenhouses, and rooftop
appurtenances. No exemptions for these high hazard features.

Residential or Mixed Use
New Construction or
Addition
Building with 10,000
sf or more gross
floor area
Continuous All transparent or reflective
materials of 12 sf or larger located
between the ground and 100 feet above
grade.

Building with less
than 10,000 sf gross
floor area
Continuous All transparent or reflective
materials of 12 sf or larger located
between the ground and 100 feet above
grade.

Buildings where every façade’s total
square footage consists of less than
5030% or more of the façade’s total
square footage consists of transparent
material are exempt through January 1,
2025.

New or Replacement
Transparent Materials
on Existing Building
Building with 10,000
sf or more gross
floor area
Continuous All transparent or reflective
materials of 12 sf or larger located
between the ground and 100 feet above
grade.

Attachment 7: Redlined Ordinance: Golden Gate Audubon’s Recommendations to S taff Planning Commission Recommendation, dated March 1, 2023

2 whereBuildings where every façade’s
total square footage consists of less than
50%30% or more of the façade’s total
square footage consists of transparent
material are exempt through January 1,
.2028.

Building with less
than 10,000 sf gross
floor area
Not applicable
New or Replacement
Transparent Buildings
or Features
Continuous All transparent material of 24 sf or larger, including but not limited to, freestanding glass walls, noise or wind barriers, skyways, balconies, greenhouses, and rooftop
appurtenances. No exemptions for these high-hazard features.

2. Exemptions.
a. The bird safe building requirements do not apply to existing windows or other transparent materials that are not proposed to be replaced. b. Residential projects, including the residential portion of mixed-use projects, with the majoritywhere greater than 50% of the units are subject to recorded affordability restrictions are exempt from the provisions of this section until January 1, 2025, except that. If added to an existing building or property, the entire building or property is exempt.New or Replacement Transparent Building Features as described in Table 1 – 23.304.XX are not exempt.

3. Continuous Transparent Material. Transparent material that is not interrupted by a line, spacer, mullion, grille or other visible material at least 1/2” in width.

C. Bird Safe Requirements. Any regulated continuous transparent material must meet at least one of the following conditions:

1. Threat Factor Rating. A product with an American Bird Conservancy Threat Factor Rating of 30 or less.

2. Patterned Glazing Treatment. The glass assembly must have all the following characteristics:
a. Visible Light Reflectance from the Exterior ≤ 15%;

3 b. Frit, ceramic ink, or other marker types must be opaque (or have a Visible Contrast Level > .0 from BirdVis app (http://3.140.67.204:3838/ Luro, 2021)
c. As viewed from Surface 1, all low-e coatings must be behind the pattern;
d. Clear or low-iron glass;
e. A pattern that is made up of one of the following elements or a combination:

1. Continuous lines at least 1/8” wide, nowhere more than 2” apart, measures edge to edge (see Figure

23.304.XXX, right);

2. Circular, square, or irregular solid shapes that are nowhere more than 2” from another shape, measured
horizontally or vertically, (edge to edge) or 2.83” diagonally (see Figure 23.304.XXX, left). Each shape must have a
minimum area of ≥ 0.20 square inches, which corresponds approximately with circles of diameter ¼”; and
f. Patterns on side 1 or side 2 only.

2. Panes with patterns that are etched, fritted, stenciled, silk-screened, or otherwise permanently incorporated into the transparent material. If the pattern utilizes dots or other isolated solid shapes, each dot or shape must be at least a ¼” in diameter and be no more than 2’ apart in any direction (see Figure 23.304.XXX, left). If the pattern utilizes lines, they must be at least ⅛” in width and spaced no more than 2” apart (see Figure 23.304.XXX, left).

4 Figure 23.304.XXX Patterned Glazing Treatment Requirements Dots or Isolated Solid Shapes Lines

3. External Screens, Shutters, or Shading Devices. Panes with exterior screens, shutters or shading devices installed permanently over windows, structures, or building features such that there is no gap larger than 9 inches in one dimension. Building integrated treatments include, but are not limited to, metal screens, shutters, fixed solar shading such as louvres, and exterior insect or solar screens.

4. Biologist Certification. Analysis by a qualified biologist indicating that the proposed construction would reduce collision risk to an extent comparable to the requirements of this section.

Attachment 8

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL

ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO ADD A NEW BERKELEY
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 23.304.150 (BIRD SAFE BUILDINGS) The Department of Planning and Development is proposing zoning amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) establishing bird safety requirements for new construction and significant renovations to reduce the incidence of bird strikes on Berkeley buildings. The zoning amendments would define bird-safe requirements and the types of projects that would be subject to these requirements. Bird-safe requirements include rated transparent material, glazing treatment, and external screens, shutters, or shading devices.

The hearing will be held on, TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.berkeleyca.gov as of May 25, 2023. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Justin Horner, Associate Planner at 510-981- 7476.

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

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

Published: May 26, 2023 – The Berkeley Voice
Public Hearing required by BMC 23.412.050 and Govt Code 65853; notice provided according to Govt Code 65090 and BMC 23.404.040.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Attachment 8
I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 25, 2023.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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

ACTION CALENDAR
June 6, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: 2022 Police Equipment & Community Safety Ordinance Annual Report

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the 2022 Equipment Ordinance Annual Report.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal impacts are limited to staff time for reporting and continuous training.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On May 11, 2021 the City of Berkeley adopted the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance, Ordinance NO. 7,760-N.S. The Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance requires the Police Department submit to Council for approval an annual report for the usage of specified equipment “for as long as the Controlled Equipment is available for use.” Pursuant to the ordinance, this annual report shall be provided to the Police Accountability Board for review. After review by the Police Accountability Board, the Berkeley Police Department must submit the Annual Report to the City Council indicating the Police Accountability Board’s approval or lack of compliance.

BACKGROUND
On February 17, 2023 the Equipment Ordinance Annual Report was provided to the Police Accountability Board Director. On April 21, 2023 the Police Accountability Board communicated to the Police Department, via the attached memo, that the Police Accountability Board has recommended that City Council accept the report provided that minor edits were made to the report.

The Berkeley Police Department has amended the annual report to reflect the Police Accountability Board’s required recommendations.

Additionally, pursuant to the ordinance the Department shall also make each annual report publicly available on its website for as long as the Controlled Equipment is available for use. The 2022 Equipment Ordinance Annual Report will be posted on the Berkeley Police Department website.

Annual Reporting and Impact Statements:

Police Equipment and Community ACTION CALENDAR
Safety Ordinance June 6, 2023

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance Annual Report requires the approval of the City Council.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police, (510) 981-5700
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: 2022 Equipment Ordinance Annual Report
3: Police Accountability Board Memorandum

Annual Reporting and Impact Statements:

Police Equipment and Community ACTION CALENDAR
Safety Ordinance June 6, 2023

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

ANNUAL REPORTING AND IMPACT STATEMENTS: POLICE EQUIPMENT AND

COMMUNITY SAFETY ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council adopted Ordinance NO. 7,760-N.S., the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance on May 11, 2021; and WHEREAS, Section 2.100.050 of the ordinance mandates an annual report for the deployment of military equipment that the Berkeley Police Department possesses; and WHEREAS, per city ordinance, the Berkeley Police Department shall submit the annual report to the Police Accountability Board for review; and WHEREAS, the Police Accountability Board has communicated their approval of the Annual Report provided the Berkeley Police Department make the recommended edits; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department has amended the Annual Report based on the Police Accountability Board’s recommendations; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.100.050 (3) of the ordinance requires the Berkeley Police Department to submit the Annual Report to the City Council for approval indicating the Police Accountability Board’s approval or lack thereof.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it approves the Berkeley Police Department’s 2022 Equipment Ordinance Annual Report.

I
1 | P a g e
Police Equipment and
Community Safety Ordinance
2022 Annual Report

I
2 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION
On May 11, 2021 the Berkeley City Council passed Ordinance NO. 7,760-N.S., the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance. Section 2.100.050 of the ordinance mandates an annual report for the deployment of specific equipment the Berkeley Police Department possesses. Below is a list and inventory of the reportable equipment under the city ordinance:
 Patrol Rifle (96)
Associated .223 duty and training rounds (129,720)
 Less Lethal single 40MM launcher (20)
 Less Lethal Milkor LTL 40 MM multi-launcher (2)
Associated 40mm rounds (724)
 Less Lethal FN 303 Launcher (8)
Associated FN rounds (5,445)
Associated FN Pava rounds (150)
 Oleoresin capsicum (OC spray) (190)
 Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile and Oleoresin capsicum (204)  Remington 700 Precision Rifle (6)
Associated .308 rounds (4460)
 Light/sound distraction device (50)
 Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) (2)
 36” batons (195)
 Barret Model 99 Precision Rifle (1)
Associated .50 rounds (20)
The annual report on the controlled equipment shall contain the following information per Ordinance NO. 7,760N.S.:
(a) Production descriptions for Controlled Equipment and inventory numbers of each product in the Police Department’s possession. (b) A summary of how Controlled Equipment was used. For the purposes of annual reports, “use” of equipment shall refer to equipment that is Deployed, not to transfers of location or placement of equipment inside Department vehicles.

I
3 | P a g e
(c) If applicable, a breakdown of where Controlled Equipment was used geographically by individual police area. For each police area, the Police Department shall report the number of days or instances in which Controlled Equipment was used and what percentage of those daily reported uses were authorized by warrant and by non-warrant forms of court authorization.
(d) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning Controlled Equipment.
(e) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of Controlled Equipment Use Policies, and any actions taken in response.

There have been no internal audits (other than those conducted to gather and confirm data for this report), identified violations of equipment use, or any complaints concerning the above listed equipment.

Section 2.100.020 (D) defines deployment as “to utilize or employ Controlled Equipment for a deliberate purpose in the presence of members of the public during management or control of crowds, during any Special Response Team deployment or to affect some response from members of the public during any other operation or critical response. “Deployed” shall not mean an officer merely wearing a piece of Controlled Equipment on their belt or elsewhere on their person.” Deployment means the display of the equipment to affect some response from members of the public. The equipment does not have to be used (I.E. less lethal projectile actually launched and struck a suspect); simply having it and in view of a person to specifically affect a response would be considered a deployment. Deployments are to be reported per the ordinance and the table on page 5 of this report reflects both deployments and utilization of equipment.

The Blue Team system and Equipment Ordinance system are the two systems that captures all utilizations and deployments of equipment enabling the Police Department to fulfill the obligations set forth by the ordinance. The Blue Team system documents all uses of force which includes patrol rifle deployments and utilization of less-lethal systems (I.E. less lethal projectile actually launched and struck a suspect). This system is maintained by the Internal Affairs Bureau. The

I
4 | P a g e
Equipment Ordinance system captures deployments of all equipment outlined in the ordinance.

The Police Department responded to over 62,245 calls from the community in 2022. Of the 62,245 calls received, 88 of them resulted in the deployment of either a patrol rifle or a less-lethal system capable of launching a rubber projectile or a projectile similar to that of a paintball. For details on these systems refer to the Impact Statements located on the Berkeley Police Department website.

The table on page 5 details each of the 88-equipment deployment incidents extracted from the Blue Team and EO systems. Each row within the table represents an incident where a specified equipment was deployed or utilized. The number of specified equipment deployed per incident is not represented. The table includes the service of 5 search warrants; 3 of which were served by the Special Response Team in cases involving a violent suspect. Equipment that is not outlined in the table was not deployed or used in 2022.

It should be noted that all equipment deployments in 2022, except for five, were incidents where the Berkeley Police Department responded to a call for service made by community members or in the service of search warrants. Incident #27, #43, #44, #59, and #75 are the exceptions. #27, #43, #59, and #75 were incidents where officers located a stolen vehicle with the suspect still inside the car.

Incident #44 is an incident where an officer attempted to stop a vehicle driving on the wrong side of the roadway. The vehicle fled from officers, collided with a tree, and then one of the occupants discarded a firearm.

The three incidents where less-lethal systems were actually utilized (less lethal projectile actually launched and struck a suspect) are highlighted in yellow. The incidents are listed in chronological order.

It is important to note that information provided to police dispatchers by victims, witnesses, and community members dictate police responses. Officers and supervisors make decisions on deployment of equipment based on community members observations and reports.

I
5 | P a g e
# Equipment Summary Beat

1. 40MM Launcher,
FN303
Mother/Victim called the police to report that her son had physically assaulted her and threatened to kill her. She reported that he had brandished her with a handgun recently. Screaming was heard by Dispatch. When officers arrived on scene they heard screaming and sounds of a physical fight inside the residence. 40mm launcher and FN303 deployed. Subject was contacted inside agitated and said, "We can all die in here today." Subject was taken into custody. 9 2. 40MM Launcher
Subject called the police and reported his suicide attempt. Subject had stabbed himself and reported that he was unable to distance himself from the knife. 40MM launcher deployed as was contacted and medical aid was immediately provided. He was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold. 4 3. Patrol Rifle,
40MM Launcher
The owner of a restaurant called the police while he was witnessing a burglary in progress through the security cameras' live feed. He witnessed the suspect break through the drive-through window and climb inside. The suspect broke the alarm keypad and entered the restaurant's safe. Officers arrived and surrounded the business. 40mm launcher and rifle were deployed. The subject was ordered out of the business and arrested for burglary without incident. 12 4. LRAD
A volcanic eruption in the southwest Pacific Ocean produced a tsunami that affected the entire Pacific Ocean. A tsunami warning was issued. Police officers responded code-3 (emergency response) to evacuate the marina. The LRAD was utilized to help with the evacuation.
14 5. Patrol Rifle
Officers responded to multiple reports of a shooting. Officers arrived on scene and located a victim who is connected with a local gang. Surveillance cameras captured the shooting and showed a shootout between several suspects.

Officers deployed patrol rifles during a search for the suspects. 11 6. 40MM Launcher
Caller reported that his housemate was high on methamphetamine and was destroying the house. The subject was screaming and throwing things. Officers responded and utilized de-escalation tactics. They attempted to negotiate with the subject and calm him, but he displayed the inability to calm down and yelled at the officers to shoot him. 40mm deployed. The subject yelled "there's a pedo inside the house and I’m going to kill him. I am ready to die." He launched several items at the officers including a wrench and screwdriver. Had the objects hit the officers it would have caused a significant injury. An officer launched the 40mm round at the subject. He immediately complied and was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold after medical attention was provided. 8 7. Patrol Rifle
Caller reported a subject with a gun in hand entering into the driver seat of a vehicle. Suspect and vehicle descriptions were provided as well as the specific location of the car. Officers located the vehicle and driver. Patrol rifle deployed during the detention of the reportedly armed subject with a handgun. No firearm was located.
12 8. Patrol Rifle
Caller/store employee reported a man with a gun. Officers located the suspect and gave him orders, but the suspect ignored the officer's instructions and then ran away. Officers chased after the suspect and were able to cut him off. Patrol rifle deployed for the detainment. A methamphetamine pipe was located. The suspect was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
12

I
6 | P a g e

9. FN303
Berkeley Fire Fighters requested code 3 (emergency) response to assist with a suspect who had burglarized the Fire Department's warehouse. The suspect was located and was extremely confrontational, threatening and non-compliant with Officers' orders. FN 303 was deployed. The suspect was ultimately detained after officers successfully deescalated the situation. 11 10.

Patrol Rifle,
Remington 700
Rifle, LRAD,
Diversionary
Device, FN303,
40mm launcher,
The Special Response Team served a search warrant in connection to multiple armed robbery cases from Berkeley and from another jurisdiction. The LRAD was used to communicate with occupants in the residence. Evidence was located during the search warrant service.

Outside City
Limits

11. FN303, 40MM
Launcher
Multiple callers reported a subject on a busy street with a knife gesturing like he was stabbing himself. Officers arrived at the location and located the subject who was holding a large knife and swinging it around himself. The subject refused to drop the knife and walked away from officers. Officers negotiated with the subject for 25 minutes before the subject finally dropped the knife. The subject was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
6 12. FN303
Caller/gas station employee reported that someone had entered the gas station refusing to wear a mask. When the employee asked the subject to leave the subject threw a glass bottle onto the ground shattering it and threatened to stab the employee. The subject left the store, but brought out a large knife and stabbed at the gas station window. Officers arrived and deployed a 40mm launcher and gave orders to the suspect. She complied with the commands and was arrested.
12 13. 40MM Launcher
A 12-year-old child and her sisters locked themselves in a room for safety and called the police to report their older brother experiencing a mental health crisis. She reported that the brother was delusional and armed with a large knife and had a gun. 40mm launcher deployed as Officers contacted the subject near the front door. Methamphetamine was located on the subject. The subject was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
16 14. 40MM Launcher,
Patrol Rifle
Victim/Employee reported being stabbed in an attempted murder incident. The VICTIM/Employee and witnesses provided a suspect and vehicle description.

Officers located a vehicle and driver that matched the description provided. A felony car stop was initiated on the possible attempted homicide suspect. 40MM launcher and the patrol rifle were deployed during the felony stop. After further investigation it was determined that the detained subject was not the attempted murder suspect.
6 15. Patrol Rifle
Multiple callers reported hearing gunshots, glass break, and people screaming in the Doe Library on the UC Berkeley campus. Patrol rifles were deployed as BPD officers responded to assist UCPD with an active shooter. At the conclusion of the investigation it was determined that balloons were being popped and people in the library mistaken it as gunshots. They broke windows to escape and were injured in the process.

Outside City
Limits

16. 40MM Launcher
Victim reported his friend was on drugs and threatened to stab him. Victim stated his friend was still armed with the knife and was just outside of a bar.

Officers responded and deployed a 40mm launcher as they detained the subject. The subject was arrested for being drunk in public. 12

I
7 | P a g e

17. FN303, 40MM
Launcher
Officers responded to reports of a disturbance and domestic violence. The mother of the suspect reported that the suspect was breaking things in the house. Officers arrived and heard yelling inside and things breaking. The suspect had destroyed his brother's residence; holes were punched into the walls, closet doors broken, and mirrors shattered. 40mm launcher deployed as contact was made at the residence. The suspect was located and arrested. 9 18. FN303
Mother/caller reported her son was intoxicated and possibly experiencing a mental health crisis. She reported the son "flipping out" and destroying things.

Dispatch heard yelling in the background and then the phone disconnected.

During the call back, there was an open line and dispatch heard the mother say, "stop it, get away. Stop." The mother told dispatch that her son was throwing things out the window. The line disconnected again. Officers arrived and deployed an FN 303 as they detained the subject. The mother asked that her son not be arrested. The son stated that he would do counseling and to begin detox. Information containing resources were provided to the family. 5 19. 40MM Launcher
Mother/caller reported her son was experiencing a mental health crisis. Subject naked in the house, destroying things, and had a history of mental health crisis.

Subject threatened to harm himself. 40mm launcher deployed as the subject was detained. The subject was placed on a psychiatric hold. 2 20. 40MM Launcher
Witness/caller reported a dispute between two individuals, one armed with a metal pole and the other armed with a knife. They were threatening to kill each other. 40mm launcher deployed when officers arrived on scene and detained both subjects. After talking to witnesses, both suspects were arrested. 16 21. FN303
Security guard/victim called the police and reported a robbery and the suspect was armed with a knife. The suspect placed the knife against the victim's throat during the robbery. The victim provided a suspect description to the officers. FN 303 launcher deployed when officers searched the area for the suspect. He was located and safely taken into custody for armed robbery. 4 22. Patrol Rifle,
40MM Launcher
A victim of an armed (firearm) carjacking that occurred in Fremont called the Berkeley police and reported he had located his stolen vehicle. The car was unoccupied. He then saw four individuals enter his car and drive it away. He was able to track his vehicle with a car App. Officers responded to the location and located the stolen car and the four suspects that attempted to evade the police. Patrol rifle and a 40 mm launcher were deployed during the detention. A loaded handgun was located in the backseat of the stolen car. All four suspects were arrested.
14 23. FN303
Victim/caller reported that her son had forced his way into her residence by prying a window open and damaging it. The son does not live there and he was not allowed on the property. The victim was afraid and barricaded herself in the bathroom. When the police arrived, the victim fled the house. She told the officers that her son had warrants for his arrest and had fled from the police recently. A records check showed several arrest warrants for violent crimes from another county. Officers ordered the subject out of the residence. FN 303 launcher deployed during the detention of the subject. He was detained and arrested for burglary and the arrest warrants.
10 24. 40MM Launcher Victim reported that a trespasser had entered his residence and refused to leave. Officers arrived on scene and was let into the residence by the victim. 12

I
8 | P a g e
The subject yelled at the officers and threatened to kill them. The subject was inside of a bedroom and squirted hand sanitizing fluid onto the officers.

Attempts to deescalate the situation were unsuccessful. The subject was near a screwdriver and other items that could be used as a weapon. The subject also picked up a laser and shined it into officers' eyes. A 40mm launcher was deployed during the detention of the subject. He was ultimately arrested after a brief struggle with officers.

25. Patrol Rifle
Officers responded to Contra Costa Sheriff's Deputies’ request for emergency help after the deputies pursued an armed carjacking suspect into Berkeley. The suspects crashed the car and fled on foot. Patrol rifles were deployed by officers while searching for the armed carjacking suspect. Officers located and detained the three suspects. All three were arrested.
15 26. 40MM Launcher
A staff member at a rehabilitation center called the police and reported a subject experiencing a mental health crisis. The subject was threatening self- harm with a knife. Officers arrived and deployed a 40mm launcher as they verbally deescalated the subject and detained him. He was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
2 27. Patrol Rifle
Officers located a stolen vehicle. Patrol rifle deployed as a high-risk felony car stop was initiated. The driver was detained and discovered to be the registered owner of the vehicle. According to the driver, he was carjacked a few days prior and his vehicle was entered into the Stolen Vehicle System. Another police agency located his vehicle and released it back to him. That agency told the registered owner that the car was removed from the Stolen Vehicle System, but it was not. Berkeley police ensured the vehicle was removed from the system and the driver was immediately released at the scene.

Outside City Limits

28. 40MM Launcher
An employee of a business told a subject that she could not use the bathroom.

In response to this the subject threw a large rock through the window of the business. The subject fled the area, but was located by an officer. She refused to stop for the officer and fled into the backyard of a residence. This subject was armed with a sledge hammer. 40mm launcher deployed as the subject was detained in the backyard. The subject was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
16 29. Patrol Rifle
Caller reported returning home and finding her front door open. She stated that her roommates did not answer their phones and she was concerned it was a burglary. Patrol rifle was deployed for the building search. Roommates were sleeping inside, but did not pick up the caller's phone calls. No suspect located inside.
5 30. 40MM Launcher
Hospital staff called the police after a patient brought out a large kitchen knife from her purse and threatened security and the nurse. 40mm launcher was deployed as contact was made with the subject. The suspect was safely detained and arrested.
8 31. Patrol Rifle,
40MM Launcher
Victim called and reported her ex brandished a knife at her after an argument.

There was also a court order protecting the victim from the ex. Officers responded to this domestic violence call. 40mm launcher and patrol rifle deployed as officers formed a perimeter at the victim's residence; however, the suspect fled from the house as the officers were setting up the perimeter. He was located half a block away and arrested.
10

I
9 | P a g e

32. 40MM Launcher
Caller reported a disturbance where a subject brandished a knife. The caller provided a detailed suspect description and location. An officer located the subject walking who was still armed with the knife. 40mm launcher deployed for the detainment of the subject. He was safely detained, but officers were unable to locate the caller and the caller did not answer phone calls. The knife was confiscated, but no arrest made since no victim was located. 3 33. 40MM Launcher
Friends called the police and reported concerns for their friend who had attempted suicide several times in the past. The subject was at home and had locked the deadbolt. They believed the subject had taken multiple pills. Subject had access to knives and a katana sword inside of the residence. 40mm launcher deployed as contact was made. Subject was located and evaluated; proved ok.
4 34. Patrol Rifle
Officers located a stolen vehicle where the suspect fled on foot. Patrol rifle deployed during a building search for the suspect. He was located and arrested.

A handgun and bullets were also located. He was arrested for being in possession of a firearm, stealing a car, and burglary.
15 35. 40MM Launcher
An employee called the police and reported that a person in the store was bothering customers, breaking glass, and armed with a knife. Officers arrived and saw the subject in the back of the store screaming unintelligible things.

Officers gave commands to the subject, but were ignored. 40mm launcher was deployed as officers detained the subject who resisted. The subject was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
16 36. Patrol Rifle
Hospital staff reported a disturbance after an upset patient pointed a handgun at several hospital staff members. The victims feared for their lives. Police responded to this "man with a gun" call. Patrol rifle deployed as officers went to detain the suspect. The handgun turned out to be a replica handgun. He was arrested.
8 37. 40MM Launcher
Investigators served an arrest warrant on a subject wanted for manufacturing explosives and firearms and threatened to bomb a school. 40mm launcher deployed while serving the arrest warrant. The suspect was not at the house, but was arrested at a later date by investigators.
8 38. FN303
The jail requested additional officers due to a prisoner’s resistance while being removed from the cell for transportation to Santa Rita Jail. The prisoner was extremely agitated and it appeared that he was going to be combative. FN303 launcher deployed. The prisoner eventually complied. He was transported with no further incident.
4 39. Patrol Rifle
A security guard at a business reported a suspect threatened him with a gun. He provided a suspect description and location. Patrol rifle deployed as an officer located the suspect inside the business and gave commands to the suspect. The suspect complied and was detained. A gun was not located. The security guard did not press charges. All parties were released at the scene. 4 40. Patrol Rifle
Victim called the police and reported that her vehicle was stolen in Oakland and she tracked it into Berkeley. Officers responded and located the stolen car and it was occupied. Patrol rifle deployed as a high-risk stop was conducted. The driver was safely detained and was arrested for vehicle theft. 15 41. 40MM, FN303 Officers responded to a call of an assault with a deadly weapon after victim was attacked with a knife. The Berkeley Fire Department rendered aid to the victim 15

I
10 | P a g e
as the officers located the suspect. 40mm and FN303 launcher were deployed as officers detained the suspect. He was arrested for felony assault with a deadly weapon.

42. 40MM Launcher
Caller reported a suspect threw a rock through her neighbor's window and entered the house. Officers responded to this burglary in progress call and surrounded the residence. 40mm launcher deployed as officers attempted to contact the suspect. The suspect ultimately surrendered and was arrested for burglary.
16 43. Patrol Rifle
An officer located an occupied stolen vehicle parked on the street. A high-risk car stop was initiated. Patrol rifle deployed as the driver was detained. Further investigation revealed that the car belongs to the subject's girlfriend and was stolen several months back, but was recovered by another police department.

The vehicle was never taken out of the stolen vehicle system by that agency and was still registered as stolen. Subject released at the scene.

Outside City
Limits

44. Patrol Rifle,
40MM Launcher
Officers attempted to conduct a car stop on a vehicle that had its headlights off at night and traveling on the wrong side of the roadway. The vehicle failed to stop and fled from officers at a high rate of speed. The vehicle then collided with several cars and trees. Three occupants fled from the car and one dropped a handgun. Patrol rifle and 40mm launcher were deployed during a search for suspects. Two were located and arrested.
8 45. Patrol Rifle
Several callers reported multiple individuals in a fight and 8 were armed with handguns. One caller reported it was gang related. Patrol rifle deployed as officers searched for the suspect. No armed suspects located, but one person was arrested for public intoxication.
14 46. Patrol Rifle
Officer located a suspect vehicle that was used in several armed robberies in Berkeley. The officer recognized the vehicle make and model, license plate, and suspects, so he initiated a vehicle stop when backup arrived. One passenger fled on foot as the driver threw a handgun out of the window. The driver then fled in his car colliding with two police cars. A block search was conducted and patrol rifle deployed. The suspects got away, but were located and arrested for armed robbery at a later date.

Outside City
Limits

47. Patrol Rifle
Officers responded to a call of a man with a rifle in public. A suspect description and exact location were provided. Officers arrived on scene and located the suspect and saw that he was armed with a rifle. Patrol rifle deployed as officers ordered the subject to drop the gun. He complied and was detained. Officers located a large amount of methamphetamine on his person. The rifle he was holding was a realistic replica of a rifle. The subject was arrested. 6 48. 40MM Launcher
Caller/father reported his son was threatening to hit his family with a hammer.

The caller reported that his son was recently placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold a week prior and has physically resisted police officers in the past. Officers responded. 40mm launcher deployed as contact was made with the subject and he was safely detained. He was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold. 12 49. Patrol Rifle
Contra Costa County Deputies located and attempted to stop a vehicle involved in an armed robbery. Three occupants fled the vehicle and into a residential neighborhood. A rifle was located in the backseat of the car. The suspects were considered armed and dangerous. The deputies requested for emergency 7

I
11 | P a g e
response from Berkeley Police. Patrol rifle deployed as officers searched for the suspects. One of the suspects was located and arrested.

50. Patrol Rifle,
40MM Launcher
A hotel employee called the police when he witnessed an altercation between a male and female. When he tried to intervene, the suspect said he would shoot him and went to his car looking for his gun. The employee fled. When officers arrived, the employee pointed out the suspect vehicle. Officers conducted a high risk stop on the possibly armed driver. 40mm launcher and patrol rifle were deployed. The driver was detained, but no firearm was located. The female was unharmed. No prosecution was requested by the employee. No arrest made.
14 51.

Patrol
Rifle,40MM
Launcher
Four armed suspects robbed a victim and during the robbery shots were fired.

An officer located the suspect’s car fleeing the area. The suspect crashed the car and four suspects fled on foot; at least one was running with a handgun still in hand. Three more handguns (one ghost gun with a high capacity magazine, one handgun with a high capacity magazine, and one fully automatic handgun with an extended magazine) and a short-barreled assault rifle (high capacity magazine) were located in the car. 40mm launcher and patrol rifle were deployed during an extensive block search. All four suspects were located and arrested for armed robbery and various gun charges.
12 52. 40MM Launcher
A hotel employee called the police to report a vehicle with extensive damage parked in the hotel lot. Officers arrived and discovered that the car was stolen.

Investigations led officers to a hotel room where one of the two suspects slammed the door shut on officers. Further investigation showed one suspect has prior arrest history for firearms and the other has several felony arrest warrants for her arrest. A perimeter was established. 40MM launcher and patrol rifle were deployed. The suspect was contacted via telephone and agreed to exit the hotel room. She was arrested on the arrest warrants and possession of a stolen vehicle. The second suspect was not located in the room. 3 53. Patrol Rifle
A caller, who was monitoring the security cameras for a business, reported seeing a suspicious person outside of the business. The caller reported the subject wearing army fatigues, crouching down near an electrical box, putting items into a brown bag, and also holding onto a rifle. The caller also reported seeing the subject pull out a handgun. The subject was also hiding between buildings. Patrol rifle deployed as officers located the subject and gave orders to him. He was detained and officers located a knife tucked in his waistband. No firearms located. The knife was confiscated. The subject was not arrested. 10 54. Patrol Rifle,
40MM Launcher
At 4:20AM, a caller reported seeing a suspect with bolt cutters cutting a hole in the chain-link fence to a business. The caller was watching this unfold through the security cameras from a remote location. 40MM launcher and patrol rifle were deployed when officers arrived on scene. Officers established a perimeter for this burglary in-progress incident. They saw the suspect and gave commands that were ignored. The suspect ran from officers. Officers lost sight of the suspect, but located him hiding in the heavily foliaged area of the property.

Officers gave more commands and provided ample time for the suspect to complied, but he refused. The suspect's hands were hidden and it was unknown at the time if he was armed. Officers warned the suspect that 40mm launcher would be utilized, but the suspect continued to ignore the officers. Both officers 13

I
12 | P a g e
launched a single 40mm round each at the suspect. One projectile missed and the other hit the suspect's thigh. The suspect immediately surrendered and complied. Medical aid was provided. Officers located two screw drivers and a window smashing tool on the suspect. They also located a single bullet where the suspect was hiding. A records check showed the suspect was on bail for multiple felonies. He was arrested for burglary and possession of fentanyl.

55. Patrol Rifle
Caller reported a home invasion in-progress. He reported 5 suspects had entered his house. Dispatch heard the caller screaming, "Get the f**k out of here! Stop it. Stop trying to enter the door." Patrol rifle deployed when officers arrived on scene. Further investigation showed the caller was experiencing a mental health crisis and was under the influence of methamphetamine. There was no home invasion that had occurred. He was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
1 56. 40MM Launcher
Caller reported a shirtless man swinging a 5' long stick. The subject was screaming in the middle of a busy street and attempting to remove utility hole covers. 40MM launcher deployed when officers arrived on scene. The man was unintelligible and ran from officers. Officers struggled placing handcuffs on the subject as the subject resisted and kicked. He was finally detained and placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
4 57. Patrol Rifle
A caller reported someone walking down the street in possession of a shotgun.

The subject is known to police as someone with an extensive arrest history including violent crimes. This subject is on probation for robbery and also had an active warrant for his arrest. Patrol rifle deployed when officers arrived on scene. Officers located the subject and detained him. Officers located a loaded sawed-off shotgun with a pistol grip and crack cocaine. The subject was arrested for firearm charges, the crack cocaine, and the active arrest warrants. 12 58.

FN303, LRAD,
Patrol Rifle,
40MM Launcher,
Officers were looking for a suspect in connection with a murder in another jurisdiction. They located the suspect but he ran from the police into a residential neighborhood. 40mm, FN303, patrol rifle, and LRAD were deployed as officers established a perimeter to conduct a high-risk block search. The homicide suspect was located and arrested.
12 59. 40MM Launcher
Officers located a stolen vehicle that was occupied with a suspect who fell asleep in possession of alcohol and methamphetamine. This suspect is known to police officers as someone who uses narcotics and has resisted officers’ numerous times before. 40mm launcher deployed and the suspect was ordered out of the vehicle. The subject complied and he was taken into custody without incident.
10 60. 40MM Launcher
Caller reported a suspect swung a bat at him several times trying to hit him.

Officers responded to this felony assault and located the suspect. The suspect was uncooperative and said that officers would have to shoot him before he would go to jail. 40mm launcher was deployed as de-escalation attempts were made. Subject was successfully deescalated and was safely taken into custody. 10 61. 40MM Launcher
A detainee refused to exit his cell at the Berkeley Jail to be transported to court.

He was yelling at officers and told them that force would have to be used to get him out of the cell. The detainee demanded to speak to an investigator. Two investigators were called from their office to respond and speak to this detainee in attempts to calm him. It did not work. He continued to yell and directed his 4

I
13 | P a g e
anger at the investigators. 40mm launcher deployed in this incident. The detainee ultimately exited his cell on his own accord.

62. 40MM Launcher
Employees at a restaurant called and reported a man loitering in the restaurant.

When the manager asked him to leave the subject became aggressive and got into the manager's face. The subject picked up a knife and wrapped it with a napkin. The manager reported it to be a "shank." 40mm launcher deployed when officers arrived on scene. The officers told the subject that all the business wanted was for him to leave. The subject was hesitated at first, but ultimately left.
14 63. 40MM Launcher
Hospital staff called and reported a subject in the ER waiting room throwing things and being violent. The caller reported that this was the same subject in the past where it took 9 employees to restrain. Officers were familiar with the subject and knew he had a history of violence as well as fighting police. 40mm launcher deployed. Subject was deescalated by officers and placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
8 64.

Patrol Rifle,
Remington 700
Rifle, LRAD,
Diversionary
Device, FN303,
40mm launcher
The Special Response Team served a search warrant in connection to an armed- robbery series. This case is also connected to an incident where the suspect rammed two patrol vehicles and threw a handgun out the window after a patrol officer attempted to stop him. The suspect was located and arrested and evidence was seized.

Outside City
Limits

65. FN303
Caller reported a subject threatened him with a large knife. FN303 launcher deployed as officers contacted the subject and detained him. The subject was cooperative. The large knife was located, but it turned out to be a fake plastic knife. Both individuals separated from each other and no arrest was made. 13 66. Patrol Rifle
Callers reported a subject with a gun and was waving it in the air. The caller followed the subject while providing updates to officers. Patrol rifle deployed as officers located the subject and detained him. A replica pistol was located as well as methamphetamine and hypodermic needles. The subject was place on a psychiatric evaluation hold.
15 67. 40MM Launcher
A victim was sleeping when someone broke into his apartment armed with a hammer and tire iron. The victim fled the apartment and called the police. 40mm launcher deployed. Officers entered the apartment and located the suspect inside. The suspect was in possession of stolen property as well as a hammer and tire iron nearby. The suspect was arrested for burglary. 16 68. Patrol Rifle
A victim called and reported that he was shot at by a suspect that he knew. The victim reported that the suspect had pointed the gun at his head, but thankfully he ducked when the suspect opened fire so the bullet missed his head. He provided the suspect's name and location. Officers responded and located the suspect. Patrol rifle deployed as they detained the shooting suspect. He was arrested. During a search warrant service, the suspect's firearm was located. 17 69. 40MM Launcher
Caller reported he locked himself and his brother in the basement away from their older brother who was coming off of methamphetamine and threatening to kill both of them. The caller reported that the older brother is enraged and had a gun in the house. The caller did not know if the older brother was armed with the gun but reported that he may be armed with a knife. 40mm launcher deployed as officers ordered the subject/older brother to exit the house. The 1

I
14 | P a g e
subject complied and was detained. It was determined that the accusations the caller made was not true. The mother of the three brothers was contacted. No arrest was made.

70. Patrol Rifle
Officers responded to an armed robbery where the suspect was armed with an AR-15 style rifle. An area check for the suspect and get-away vehicle was conducted, but officers were unsuccessful in locating the suspect.

Approximately 6 hours later, officers located the suspect vehicle occupied by a driver. Officers attempted to stop this vehicle, but it fled and almost collided with several vehicles when it failed to stop for traffic lights. The suspect ultimately jumped out of his car and ran. Patrol rifle deployed as officers secured a perimeter so they could conduct a search for the suspect. He was located by officers hiding on the roof of a residence. He was arrested for armed- robbery.
11 71. Patrol Rifle
Caller reported a fight involving twelve individuals where one person pulled out a gun and shot someone. A suspect and get-away vehicle descriptions were provided. Officers located a car and possible suspects that matched the descriptions provided by the caller. Patrol rifle deployed as officers initiated a high-risk stop. The person stopped proved not to be the suspect and was released. The suspect was not located; however, a victim was later located at the hospital suffering from a non-life-threatening gunshot wound. 4 72. FN303
Caller reported someone walking down the street with a large amount of blood on him. Another caller reported that the victim was possibly stabbed by a suspect. A suspect description was provided. Officers located this suspect and deployed FN303 launcher as they detained him. Victim was located and advised that he was involved in a scooter accident and was not stabbed. 4 73. Patrol Rifle,
40MM Launcher
Investigators served an arrest warrant on 64-year-old suspect in the forced oral copulation of a 14-year-old child. Patrol rifle and 40mm launcher deployed as Investigators served the warrant. The suspect was located and arrested.

Outside
City Limits

74. Patrol Rifle,
FN303
A victim called the police after someone pointed a gun and threatened to kill her. The suspect was located, but he entered his house and refused to come out. Officers employed de-escalation and negotiation techniques and convinced the suspect to exit his house. Patrol rifle and FN303 launcher deployed as the suspect was detained. He was arrested for pointing a gun and threatening to kill the victim.
5 75. Patrol Rifle
Officer located and followed a stolen vehicle. Patrol rifle deployed as officers conducted a high-risk felony car stop. The driver was arrested. He was on probation and had methamphetamine in his possession.

Outside
City Limits

76. Patrol Rifle
Caller/employee of a business reported someone attempting to steal a company vehicle. Officers located the company vehicle with the ignition on and suspect still in the driver seat. Patrol rifle deployed. Officers contacted the suspect and arrested him for attempting to steal the vehicle. He was already on probation for stealing cars.
13 77. 40MM Launcher,
Patrol Rifle
Smithfield Police Department in Rhode Island reported a victim was scammed out of $50,000 and the suspect was in a hotel in Berkeley. Officers contacted the hotel staff and they provided a room number to the suspect. A search 14

I
15 | P a g e
warrant was signed by a local judge to search/detain the occupants in that room. 40mm launcher and patrol rifle were deployed during the service of the search warrant. No suspects were located

78. FN303,40MM
Launcher
Caller/hotel manager reported a hotel guess being belligerent and throwing trash from the third story. Officers arrived and contacted the subject in the room where the subject challenged the officers to a fight. Officers left to speak with the manager who advised she was going to refund the subject his money and wanted him removed from the property. Officers recontacted the subject with the manager. The manager and the officers asked the subject to leave, but he refused and grabbed a bottle of pepper spray and threatened to spray the officers. The officers retreated and waited for backup. 40mm launcher deployed. Officers contacted the subject again and took him into custody. 15 79. 40MM Launcher
Caller reported a domestic dispute involving an ex refusing to leave her apartment. She provided the suspect's name and said that he will fight the police. Officers knew this person as a subject with a long history of violence and assault on police officers. 40MM launcher deployed as officers contacted the subject and negotiated his surrender. He was arrested for violating a restraining order protecting the victim and for violating his probation. 9 80. Patrol Rifle
Investigators were conducting surveillance on a suspect related to a case where the suspect shot at a witness during a catalytic converter theft. The investigators attempted to detain the suspect, but he fled on foot. Investigators chased the suspect as the suspect threw a backpack. Investigators caught the suspect and detained him. They recovered the backpack containing methamphetamine and a ghost gun with 15 rounds inside. Investigators then served a warrant at the suspects hotel room. Patrol rifle deployed as entry was made into the hotel room. Ammunition, a reciprocating saw, extra saw blades, and vehicle jacks were located. Evidence was seized and the suspect arrested.

Outside City Limits

81. 40MM Launcher
Caller/sister reported her brother was suicidal. She reported that her brother takes drugs. The mother took the phone from the daughter and reported that her son was on methamphetamine and was holding a large knife to his own neck. Then dispatch heard the caller/sister screaming. 40mm launcher deployed as officers arrived on scene. Subject ran out of the house and threw the knife.

Officers detained the subject and placed him on a psychiatric evaluation hold. 16 82.

Patrol Rifle,
Remington 700
Rifle, LRAD,
Diversionary
Device, FN303,
40mm launcher
An armed robbery occurred where one suspect pointed a gun at the victim's face while a second suspect beat up the victim and stole his property.

Investigations lead to several search warrants including a high-risk warrant served by the Special Response Team. The LRAD was used to communicate with occupants in the residence. Two AR-15 pistols and a handgun were located during the warrant service. This case is an on-going investigation. 9 83. Patrol Rifle
Victim called the police and reported a violent domestic violence situation.

Dispatch reported hearing a violent confrontation between the victim and suspect/boyfriend. The victim reported that the suspect had a gun and pointed it at his head and threatened suicide. Officers responded and formed a perimeter around the residence. Patrol rifle deployed. The victim was located and so was the suspect. He was arrested. The gun was located and seized. 9 84. 40MM Launcher Detainee in the jail refused to be transported to the Santa Rita Jail. He was screaming at officers and made threats to fight them. Attempts to deescalate 4

I
16 | P a g e
the subject were unsuccessful. 40mm launcher deployed as officers opened the cell door and handcuffed him. He did not fight the officers and was transported to the Santa Rita Jail.

85. 40MM Launcher,
FN303
Caller reported a man waving a knife inside of a BART train in Berkeley. The caller reported that this man was "acting weird." BART PD requested emergency assistance. FN303 and 40mm deployed. Subject was located and detained.
4 86. Patrol Rifle,
40MM Launcher
Investigators were serving an arrest/search warrant for child abuse. Patrol rifle and 40mm launcher were deployed as investigators entered the residence. The suspect, mother of the reported child abuse case, charged at a detective with a large kitchen knife over her head. She plunged the knife downwards into the detective's chest. The knife did not puncture his Kevlar vest, but broke his body worn camera. 40mm launcher was utilized, but she held onto the knife. The detective and the suspect fell onto the floor where they struggled for the knife.

She cut a supervisor's finger before the knife was wrestled out of her hand. She was placed on a psychiatric evaluation hold and subsequently charged with attempted murder.
8 87. 40MM Launcher
A caller reported two males acting suspiciously in a vehicle and provided dispatch with the vehicle's license plate. A records show that the car was a vehicle that was carjacked via handgun from Oakland. Officers responded and located the car. 40mm launcher was deployed as officers detained the driver.

He was arrested.
12 88. FN303
A caller reported being assaulted with a sword as the suspect chased her. The caller provided a suspect and suspect vehicle description. A supervisor located the vehicle and conducted a vehicle stop. 40mm launcher deployed as officers detained the suspect. The caller refused to participate in the investigation and walked away from the officer. The suspect provided his version of what occurred and was released at the scene.
5 Below is a table that shows the total number of times a specified equipment was deployed in 2022. It should be noted that different types of equipment may be deployed in one incident and the same equipment may be deployed by multiple officers within a single incident.

EQUIPMENT Number of
Deployments
Patrol Rifle 43
40MM Single Launcher 50
40MM LTL Multi-Launcher 0
FN 303 Launcher 20
FN Pava Impact Projectile 0