Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026
would represent a meaningful step toward stabilizing and modernizing critical assets that directly support public safety, community well-being, accessibility, and climate resilience.
Consistent with Council direction, staff developed a preliminary framework organizing potential bond projects into three high-level categories:
(1) Community Facilities and Quality of Life;
(2) Public Safety; and
(3) Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility.
Projects within these categories were identified through a collaborative, cross- departmental process and evaluated using core City criteria as well as Vision 2050- aligned principles, including equity, public health and safety, climate resilience, sustainability, and opportunities to leverage external funding. Projects were also screened for readiness, feasibility, and deliverability to ensure that any potential ballot measure reflects projects that can be implemented within realistic timeframes and staffing capacity.
In parallel with the policy development and project framework, City Council directed staff to commence a robust community engagement and survey process to inform ballot measure development. To implement this direction, the City contracted with Lake Research Partners to design and administer a statistically valid community survey of Berkeley voters (Contract No:32600095). The survey was fielded from February 19–23, 2026 using live phone and text-to-online methodologies and tested voter priorities and support for potential General Obligation Bond concepts across multiple funding levels, as well as an exploratory question regarding a potential sales tax increase to address the City’s projected budget deficit.
To complement the survey and ensure broader community input beyond likely voters, City staff implemented an expanded engagement strategy from January through March 2026 that included briefings and feedback sessions with the following:
Six (6) City commissions (Environment and Climate Commission; Landmarks Commission; Commission on Disability; Disaster and Fire Safety Commission; Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission; and Transportation and Infrastructure Commission);
Four (4) focus groups (Civic Recreation Users; residents interested in Capital Improvement Program priorities; Community Emergency Response Team groups; and Aquatic Parks stakeholders), and
Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026
Joint community meetings organized by paired Council districts (Districts 5/6; 1/2; 3/8; and 4/7).
These engagements provided qualitative insight into community priorities, equity considerations, geographic differences in infrastructure conditions, concerns regarding affordability and cumulative tax burden, and expectations for oversight and transparency should a bond measure advance.
A website5 has also been developed to provide information on the potential general obligation bond, the list of projects that could be funded by the proposed bond, information about community meetings, and a mechanism for community members to provide their input on the proposed list of projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Many of the infrastructure investments under consideration for a potential November 2026 ballot measure directly advance the City’s environmental sustainability, climate resilience, and environmental justice goals. Modernizing aging public facilities provides opportunities to incorporate energy-efficient building systems, high-performance materials, and low-carbon construction practices consistent with Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan policies.
Several of the proposed project categories and example projects also directly support climate adaptation and resilience objectives, including improvements to stormwater infrastructure, shoreline and waterfront protection, seismic upgrades to critical facilities, and retrofits that enhance emergency response capacity during climate-related emergencies such as extreme heat, wildfire smoke events, flooding, and power outages. Investments in public safety facilities and emergency communications infrastructure further strengthen the City’s ability to respond to increasingly frequent and severe climate-driven hazards.
In addition, proposed investments in sidewalks, ADA accessibility, and pedestrian infrastructure advance sustainable transportation and public health outcomes by improving walkability and accessibility, reducing reliance on vehicle travel, and supporting safer, more connected neighborhoods. Enhancements to parks, recreation facilities, and community centers also contribute to urban greening, heat mitigation, and community resilience by providing cooling spaces and accessible public gathering areas during extreme weather events.
Project prioritization and implementation will continue to be guided by the Vision 2050 framework, which elevates climate resilience, sustainability, equity, and integrated infrastructure planning as core principles. As specific projects are refined, staff will incorporate climate risk screening and lifecycle sustainability considerations to ensure 5 https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures/infrastructure-projects- potential-bond-measure.
Presentation and Discussion of 2026 Community Survey Results ACTION CALENDAR March 17,2026
that public investments are durable, resilient to future climate conditions, and aligned with the City’s long-term environmental and climate goals.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
City Council direction at this stage is necessary to ensure that any potential November 2026 ballot measure is aligned with Council policy priorities, informed by community input, and structured in a manner that is both feasible to implement and positioned for voter approval.
Providing direction now allows staff to refine project categories, develop ballot language, and conduct additional survey testing if authorized. Delaying direction could limit the City’s ability to complete these steps in time to meet statutory deadlines for the November 2026 election.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
City Council could choose to take no action at this time. However, this approach would significantly constrain the City’s ability to conduct additional survey testing, refine project priorities, and develop ballot language in a manner that meets the statutory deadlines for the November 2026 election. Delaying direction may also reduce the City’s flexibility to respond to community feedback, incorporate equity and geographic considerations into project selection, and ensure that any potential ballot measure is fully vetted prior to Council consideration later in 2026.
Alternatively, City Council could direct staff to discontinue ballot measure development for the November 2026 election cycle. While this would avoid near-term ballot-related costs and workload, it would leave the City without a viable funding strategy to address its most urgent infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs, as well as the structural deficit in the General Fund.
CONTACT PERSON
Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office, 510-981- 6903
Attachments:
1: Results of 2026 Community Survey | Lake Research Partners 2: Proposed Infrastructure Project List Presentation
1 LakeResearch.com
Lake Research Partners
Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, NY
LakeResearch.com
202.776.9066
Findings from a
community survey of
500 likely 2026 voters
February 19-23, 2026
David Mermin
Emma Scotty
2 Methodology
• Lake Research Partners designed and administered this survey, which was conducted by live telephone interview and text-to-online. • The survey reached a total of 500 likely November 2026 election voters in Berkeley, California, sampled from the state voter file. • The survey was conducted February 19-23, 2026.
• Data were weighted slightly by gender, region, age, race, party registration, homeownership, and education to reflect the expected demographic composition of likely November general election voters in Berkeley. • The margin of error for the full sample is +/-4.4%.
3 Demographics of Likely Voters in Berkeley
GENDER AGE EDUCATION PARTY REGISTRATION
Under 30 --- 19% High School or Less --- 3% Democrat
30-39 --- 15% Post-H.S. / Some
College --- 21% 79%
40-49 --- 15% College Graduate --- 37% 76% Republican
50-64 --- 21% Post-Graduate --- 39% College Grad
or Post Grad 3%
55% 45% 65+ --- 31% NPP/Other
RACE REGION HOMEOWNER
19%
White --- 67% Hills (Districts 5,6,8) --- 45% Own --- 54% Black --- 9% Central/South (3,4,7) --- 27% Rent --- 43% IDEOLOGY Latino --- 9% West (1,2) --- 28% Oth --- 3% Progressive --- 41% AAPI --- 11% YEARS IN BERKELEY Liberal --- 36%
MENA --- 2% Less than 2 --- 5% 10 to 20 --- 23% Moderate --- 17% Other --- 2% 2 to 5 --- 13% 20 or more --- 36% Conservative --- 4% DK/Ref --- 1% 5 to 10 --- 12% Entire life --- 10%
4 Key Findings – Overview
• Both the GO bond and sales tax ballot measures are in a good position to pass in Berkeley this November. Support for both measures currently surpasses the needed
thresholds, though communication about the measures
would be helpful to ensure passage.
• The GO bond has 70% support on the initial ballot,
above the two-thirds needed to pass. Having a higher
$300m amount on the ballot does not negatively
impact support.
• The sales tax has slightly lower support at 60%, but
since it only needs 50% support, passage looks likely.
• Berkeley voters are generally satisfied with the City and majorities say the City is going in the right direction and is doing a good or excellent job providing services.
• Voters are focused on priorities related to safety – like protecting infrastructure from climate change, 911 dispatch and fire stations, improving earthquake protections, and repairing sidewalks.
5 Key Findings – GO Bond
• Seven in ten voters (70%) would vote Yesto enact a measure to provide funding to replace aging fire stations and emergency response facilities, repair parks and recreation facilities, promote climate change resiliency, and invest in public buildings and infrastructure to create safer, more resilient community spaces by issuing bonds. Only 13% would vote No and 16% are undecided. • Voters across demographics vote Yes at fairly similar margins, though the highest support comes from voters who identify as progressive, those in the Central/South area, and people who have lived in Berkeley for 10-20 years.
• We tested two different versions of the bond measure – one at $300m and one at $200m. Support is statistically the same between the two versions, indicating that there is no reason to not put the higher $300m amount on the ballot. In fact, support is slightly stronger in intensity and holds up to opposition more for the $300m bond.
• After hearing one statement in support and one in opposition to the bond measure, support remains right at the two-thirds mark, with 67% Yes, 18% No, and 14% undecided. • After the statements, the $300m version has higher support (72% Yes, 15% No, 13% undecided) than the $200m (63% Yes, 22% No, 15% undecided). The higher $300m bond does not hurt support and in fact may help the bond hold up under pressure.
6 Key Findings – Sales Tax
• A ½ percent sales tax to address the City’s budget deficit is slightly less popular than the bond measure, but in an even better position to pass since it only needs 50% support.
Six in ten Berkeley voters (60%) would vote Yes on the sales tax, 29% would vote No, and 11% are undecided.
• Similar to the GO bond, support for the sales tax is highest in the Central/South region, and it also has higher support among younger women, liberals, and voters who have lived in Berkeley for over 20 years. Majorities across all major demographics would vote Yes on the sales tax.
• Support for the sales tax remains largely steady after statements in favor and against the measure (58% Yes, 29% No, 13% undecided).
7 Key Findings – Context
• A majority of Berkeley voters (56%) say the City is going in the right direction, while only 22% say wrong direction. This is an improvement since the last survey in 2024, when 49% said right direction and 29% wrong direction.
• The same number (56%) say the City is doing a good or excellent job at providing services to residents, although intensity is low, with 11% who say excellent and 45% who say good. The City’s job rating has improved slightly but remains largely consistent with past surveys.
• While Berkeley voters have a mix of issues that they prioritize,the top issues are safeguarding critical infrastructure from the threats of climate change, including flooding and wildfires (35%) and increasing Berkeley’s safety and accessibility by improving sidewalks, curb ramps, and pathways (31%). Issues related to pollution and flood risk (24%), parks and recreation facilities (23%), and public safety facilities (22%) are also strong priorities. Advancing the Civic Center Vision is the lowest on the list at 11%.
8 Key Findings – Project Priorities
• The top tier of projects that voters prioritize tend to focus on safety. These include renovating the 911 dispatch center (29% extremely important, 66% extremely/very important), repairing sidewalks (27% extremely important, 65% extremely/very important), replacing fire stations (27% extremely important, 56% extremely/very important), upgrading park restrooms (24% extremely important, 62% extremely/very important), and repairing fire stations (22% extremely important, 57% extremely/very important).
• While not the highest priority, voters do place importance on improving earthquake protections and repairing public buildings. Including the Civic Center buildings in a list of other public buildings does not hurt the importance of repairs; voters do not want this to be the focus of funding, but including Civic Center in a list of other buildings for repairs does not have a negative impact.
However, specifying Old City Hall and the Veterans Building is less effective than more generally talking about earthquake protections.
• The lowest priorities tested are new dog parks, Marina docks, and sports field irrigation. Projects for public safety, especially emergency and fire services, cracked sidewalks, and earthquake protections, are higher priorities for Berkeley voters.
9 CONTEXT
10 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q3: Would you say that the city of Berkeley is generally headed in the right direction or the wrong direction? A majority of Berkeley voters think the City is
headed in the right direction, while under a
quarter say it’s going in the wrong direction.
Younger women, progressives and liberals, and
those who have lived in Berkeley for 10-20 years
are the most optimistic.
City Direction
Right
Direction
Wrong
Direction DK Net
Total 56 22 23 +34
Men 55 21 24 +33
Women 57 22 22 +35
< 50 57 17 26 +40
50+ 55 26 20 +29
Men < 50 51 20 29 +31
Women < 50 61 15 24 +46
Men 50+ 58 22 20 +36
Women 50+ 52 28 20 +24
White 58 24 18 +34
POC 51 16 32 +35
Non-College 51 18 31 +33
College 57 23 20 +34
Progressive 60 13 26 +47
Liberal 61 22 16 +39
Mod/Cons 39 35 26 +4
Hills 57 24 18 +33
Central /South 59 22 19 +37
West 50 17 33 +33
Own 56 24 21 +32
Rent 55 20 25 +35
Under 10 years 56 15 29 +41
10-20 years 62 15 23 +47
20 or more years 53 29 18 +24
56 22 23
(+34)
Right Direction Wrong Direction Don't know
11 [T] Do you feel that the City of Berkeley is generally headed in the right direction or do you feel things are headed in the wrong direction? Voters’ rating of the City’s direction has improved since 2024 and has reached the highest level since 2016.
City Direction – Timeseries
51 63 64
51 48 47 47
56 24
13 19
25 32
24 29
2225 24
17 23 21
29 23
23 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 March 2012 March 2014 March 2016 March 2018 October 2021 May 2022 May 2024 February 2026 Right Direction Wrong Direction Don't Know
12 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q4: How would you rate the job the City of Berkeley is doing in providing services to its residents — excellent, good, fair, or poor? A majority of voters also positively rate the City
of Berkeley’s job providing services to residents,
though only 11% say it is doing an excellent job.
Liberals and 10-20 year residents are most likely
to give the City a positive job rating.
City Services Approval
Excellent/
Good
Just
Fair/Poor DK Net
Total 56 39 5 +17
Men 56 40 4 +15
Women 56 38 6 +18
< 50 56 38 6 +18
50+ 56 40 4 +15
Men < 50 51 43 6 +8
Women < 50 59 34 6 +25
Men 50+ 59 38 3 +21
Women 50+ 53 42 5 +10
White 58 38 4 +20
POC 51 42 7 +9
Non-College 49 47 4 +3
College 58 37 5 +21
Progressive 55 40 5 +15
Liberal 63 34 4 +29
Mod/Cons 48 46 6 +3
Hills 57 39 4 +18
Central /South 56 38 6 +18
West 54 41 5 +13
Own 58 38 4 +19
Rent 53 40 6 +13
Under 10 years 54 40 6 +13
10-20 years 61 34 4 +27
20 or more years 55 41 4 +14
11 7
56 39
5 (+17)
Excellent/Good Just Fair/Poor Don't know
Good Fair
Excellent Poor
13 [T] How would you rate the job the City of Berkeley is doing in providing services to its residents — excellent, good, fair, or poor? Ratings have improved slightly since 2024, but the City’s job rating is generally consistent with recent years.
City Services Approval – Timeseries
58 70
62 55
51 54 56
37 28
34 40
45 42 39
4 3 4 5 4 4 50
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
March 2012 March 2014 March 2016 March 2018 October 2021 May 2024 February 2026 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor Don't Know
14 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q5: Now I’m going to read some different issues that have been identified as important needs in the city of Berkeley. If you had to choose, which one or two of the following would be the highest priority for you personally in the city of Berkeley? The top issues that voters choose as their highest priorities are related to safety – protecting infrastructure from the threats of climate change and increasing safety and accessibility by improving sidewalks.
A second tier of priorities includes reducing pollution and flood risk by upgrading storm drains, improving parks and recreation, and replacing public safety facilities.
Issues
35 31
24 23
22 15
11 5
4 1
Safeguarding critical infrastructure from the threats of climate change, including flooding and wildfires
Increasing Berkeley’s safety and accessibility by improving sidewalks, curb ramps, and pathways
Reducing pollution flowing to the Bay and flood risk by upgrading storm drains and installing green infrastructure
Improving parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, dog parks, and community centers Replacing public safety facilities that are at the end of their useful life Improving the Berkeley waterfront and shoreline by protecting waterfront parks and repairing docks
Advancing the Berkeley Civic Center Vision by restoring and modernizing historic buildings
None
Don’t know
Refused
15 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q5: Now I’m going to read some different issues that have been identified as important needs in the city of Berkeley. If you had to choose, which one or two of the following would be the highest priority for you personally in the city of Berkeley? Safeguarding critical infrastructure from climate change is especially important to women and younger voters, particularly younger women, and this is also the top priority across regions. Men, especially younger men, are most concerned with fixing sidewalks, curb ramps, and paths.
Issues by Demographics (1)
Total
Gender Age Gender/Age Region Race
M W < 50 50+ M < 50 W < 50 M 50+ W 50+ Hills Central
/South West White POC
Safeguarding critical
infrastructure 35 29 40 40 30 35 45 24 35 35 38 31 35 33 Improving sidewalks, curb
ramps, and pathways 31 35 28 34 28 40 30 31 26 31 32 30 30 33 Reducing pollution/ upgrading
storm drains 24 22 25 21 26 19 23 25 27 28 18 23 23 24
Improving parks and recreation 23 24 23 27 20 25 29 22 17 20 25 28 25 21 Replacing public safety facilities 22 23 21 20 23 23 18 23 23 25 16 21 23 20 Improving the Berkeley
waterfront and shoreline 15 18 13 13 17 13 13 23 12 10 14 25 17 12 Advancing the Berkeley Civic
Center Vision 11 13 9 11 11 12 10 14 8 9 15 9 11 9
None 5 5 6 5 6 5 5 4 7 7 4 5 4 8
16 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q5: Now I’m going to read some different issues that have been identified as important needs in the city of Berkeley. If you had to choose, which one or two of the following would be the highest priority for you personally in the city of Berkeley? Voters who are undecided about the GO bond measure are particularly concerned with upgrading storm drains to reduce pollution, while those undecided on the sales tax most prioritize safeguarding critical infrastructure. This is also the top priority for Yes voters, while No voters are more concerned with sidewalks.
Issues by Demographics (2)
Total
Education Home ownership Years in Berkeley Combined bond ballot Sales tax ballot Non-
Coll Coll+ Own Rent <10 10-20 20+ Yes No Und Yes No Und Safeguarding critical
infrastructure 35 29 37 36 34 39 38 30 40 21 24 39 25 41 Improving sidewalks, curb
ramps, and pathways 31 33 30 26 37 27 34 32 32 35 23 30 34 27 Reducing pollution/ upgrading
storm drains 24 19 25 26 21 21 26 24 24 13 32 26 22 17
Improving parks and recreation 23 22 24 24 22 28 23 21 23 18 27 24 23 20 Replacing public safety facilities 22 19 23 25 19 17 19 26 22 15 25 21 21 28 Improving the Berkeley
waterfront and shoreline 15 22 13 13 17 11 17 17 15 18 12 15 16 12 Advancing the Berkeley Civic
Center Vision 11 16 9 9 13 13 14 8 11 9 9 11 12 3
None 5 3 6 8 3 7 3 5 2 27 3 2 12 9
17 GO BOND
18 Text of GO Bond Ballot Measure
[GO BOND $300m] Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure to provide funding to replace aging fire stations and emergency response facilities, repair parks and recreation facilities, promote climate change resiliency, and invest in public buildings and infrastructure to create safer, more resilient community spaces by issuing bonds of 300 million dollars, at an average rate of 22 dollars and 14 cents per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?
[GO BOND $200m] Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure to provide funding to replace aging fire stations and emergency response facilities, repair parks and recreation facilities, promote climate change resiliency, and invest in public buildings and infrastructure to create safer, more resilient community spaces by issuing bonds of 200 million dollars, at an average rate of 18 dollars and 47 cents per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?
19 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q6/Q7. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a general obligation bond. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean?
By nearly seven to one, Berkeley voters would vote Yes on a measure providing funding through a general obligation bond to invest in fire stations and emergency response facilities, parks and recreation facilities, climate change resiliency, and public buildings and infrastructure, just above the two-thirds threshold needed for the measure to pass.
Regionally, the highest support is in the Central/South region of the city. Progressives and voters who have lived in Berkeley for 10-20 years are also particularly supportive.
Initial Ballot GO Bond Measure COMBINED Yes No U/D/R Net Total 70 13 16 +57
Men 70 15 15 +55
Women 71 12 17 +59
< 50 72 12 16 +61
50+ 69 14 17 +54
Men < 50 72 14 14 +57
Women < 50 73 10 17 +63
Men 50+ 69 15 17 +54
Women 50+ 69 14 18 +55
White 74 12 14 +62
POC 64 15 21 +49
Non-College 73 5 22 +68
College 70 16 15 +54
Progressive 78 6 16 +73
Liberal 73 10 16 +63
Mod/Cons 52 30 18 +22
Hills 71 13 15 +58
Central /South 75 10 14 +65
West 65 15 20 +50
Own 67 19 14 +48
Rent 74 6 19 +68
Under 10 years 67 12 20 +55
10-20 years 76 11 13 +65
20 or more years 70 15 15 +56
Right direction 79 7 14 +72
Wrong track 60 30 10 +30
39 8
70 13 16
1 (+57)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
Ballot measure passage
threshold (2/3)
20 SPLIT SAMPLED
Q6/Q7. This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a general obligation bond. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean?
We tested two separate versions of the bond measure with different amounts and found that having the larger $300 million amount on the ballot does not impact support. In fact, the strong Yes vote is slightly higher for $300m than $200m.
Older women and liberal voters are more likely to vote Yes on $300m, while younger voters, progressives, and those who have lived in Berkeley for 10-20 years are more likely to vote Yes on the lower $200m version.
Initial Ballot GO Bond Measure - $300m vs $200m
$300 million $200 million
Yes No Yes No
Total 71 12 70 14
Men 70 16 70 14
Women 71 9 71 15
< 50 69 15 76 9
50+ 72 10 65 19
Men < 50 72 21 72 8
Women < 50 67 10 79 10
Men 50+ 68 11 69 19
Women 50+ 75 9 62 19
White 76 11 72 13
POC 61 15 67 16
Progressive 75 5 82 7
Liberal 76 13 71 8
Mod/Cons 56 22 48 38
Hills 71 13 71 14
Central /South 74 11 77 10
West 67 12 63 18
Own 69 16 65 21
Rent 72 7 76 5
Under 10 years 70 13 65 12
10-20 years 71 12 81 10
20 or more years 71 11 69 18
42 6
71 12 16
(+59)
Yes No Und.
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
$300 million* $200 million*
36 9
70 14 15
(+56)
Yes No Und.
Ballot measure passage
threshold (2/3)
21 Text of Support/Oppose Statements – GO Bond Ballot Measure Supporters say the City needs investments in fire services, parks, and building repairs to ensure safety and quality of life, and to save the city money by investing in cost-saving green energy. Building on past successes like repairing streets and increasing affordable housing, this bond will focus on replacing unsafe and undersized fire stations, revitalizing community and senior centers, improving parks and sidewalks, and preparing for sea-level rise and climate change. These investments will improve our quality of life, save the city money, and make us safer.
Opponents say that Berkeley taxpayers keep getting soaked for more and more increases with little to show for it. We funded streets, and the streets are still a mess. We funded housing, and housing costs and homelessness are worse than ever. We can’t afford to pay more in taxes at a time when people are already struggling. We need to look more closely at this high-tax, high-cost city government, cut wasteful and unnecessary spending, and use existing funds efficiently.
22 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q9/Q10. Q10: Next you will hear two statements made by people who support or oppose the general obligation bond measure described earlier. Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds. Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 200 million dollars, at rates of [] per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight? After balanced statements in support and in opposition to the bond measure, support decreases slightly but remains right at the passage threshold.
Moderate and conservative voters are the most likely to vote No, while three quarters of progressives still vote Yes.
Regionally, support remains lowest in the West.
Informed Ballot GO Bond Measure COMBINED
Yes No U/D/R Net
Total 67 18 14 +49
Men 68 19 13 +49
Women 67 18 15 +49
< 50 71 15 14 +56
50+ 64 22 15 +42
Men < 50 71 17 12 +54
Women < 50 71 13 15 +58
Men 50+ 65 21 14 +45
Women 50+ 62 22 16 +40
White 71 17 12 +54
POC 60 20 19 +40
Non-College 66 9 25 +56
College 68 21 11 +47
Progressive 74 11 15 +63
Liberal 69 16 15 +54
Mod/Cons 52 36 12 +17
Hills 68 19 13 +48
Central /South 73 12 15 +61
West 62 23 16 +39
Own 66 24 10 +42
Rent 69 12 19 +57
Under 10 years 62 15 23 +47
10-20 years 74 17 9 +56
20 or more years 68 21 11 +47
Initial Undecided 29 18 52 +11
37 11
67 18 14
0 (+49)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
Ballot measure passage
threshold (2/3)
23 SPLIT SAMPLED
Q9/Q10. Q10: Next you will hear two statements made by people who support or oppose the general obligation bond measure described earlier. Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds. Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 200 million dollars, at rates of [] per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight? The $300m bond holds up better to stress testing, with the Yes vote 9 points higher than Yes on $200m. Younger
women and voters in the Central/South region who heard
the $300m amount are particularly supportive.
Among moderate/conservative voters and in the West,
opposition is higher among those who heard the $200m
version.
Informed Ballot GO Bond Measure - $300m vs $200m
$300 million $200 million
Yes No Yes No
Total 72 15 63 22
Men 72 16 64 21
Women 72 14 62 22
< 50 75 12 67 17
50+ 69 17 58 26
Men < 50 73 18 69 16
Women < 50 77 8 66 19
Men 50+ 71 15 60 26
Women 50+ 67 20 57 25
White 72 15 69 19
POC 70 14 51 27
Progressive 76 7 73 16
Liberal 76 15 63 16
Mod/Cons 59 30 46 42
Hills 70 19 65 20
Central /South 80 10 65 14
West 67 13 56 32
Own 69 19 63 29
Rent 74 11 63 13
Under 10 years 69 13 55 17
10-20 years 73 13 74 22
20 or more years 72 17 63 25
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
$300 million* $200 million*
43 9
72 15 13
(+57)
Yes No Und.
32 13
63 22 15
(+41)
Yes No Und.
Ballot measure passage
threshold (2/3)
24 Voters who are undecided on the bond measure are slightly more likely to be NPP voters, renters, and live in West Berkeley than the overall electorate. They are also more likely to have some college education, lived in Berkeley for under 10 years, and be people of color, especially men. Persuadable voters are similarly likely to be renters, lived in Berkeley for less than 10 years, have some college education, and also include moderates, younger women, college-educated women, and Black voters.
GO Bond Target Profiles
Profile of GO Bond Undecided Voters – 16% of Electorate Demographic % of Undecided % of Electorate
NPP/Other 24 19
65-69 17 8
Some college 27 16
Non-college men 20 12
Under 10 years in Berkeley 37 30
People of color 41 32
Men of color 19 13
Rent 51 43
Rent West 20 13
West 36 28
Profile of GO Bond Persuadable Voters – 16% of Electorate Demographic % of Persuadable % of Electorate
Moderate 23 17
Women < 50 34 27
Some college 29 16
Non-college men 23 12
College+ women 49 43
Under 10 years in Berkeley 40 30
Black 15 9
Black men 11 4
People of color < 50 28 19
Rent 51 43
25 SALES TAX
26 Text of Sales Tax Ballot Measure
[SALES TAX] Shall the City of Berkeley measure to increase funding for essential city services, such as 9-1-1 emergency response; neighborhood police services; fire prevention/protection; youth and senior services; community cultural programs; attracting/ retaining small businesses; and funding for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, by adopting a ½ percent sales tax, providing about $9,000,000 to $10,000,000 yearly for general governmental use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds staying local, be adopted?
27 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q8: This is a ballot measure that would increase the sales tax in the City of Berkeley to help address the City’s projected budget deficit of $32 million. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?:
And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly?: Well, to which side do you lean? Passage of the ½ percent sales tax to address the City’s budget deficit also looks promising. While it has lower initial support than the bond measure, support is well
above the 50% threshold for passage. Demographics with
the highest support for the sales tax include women under 50, liberal voters, Central/South voters, and 20+ year
residents of Berkeley. Even half of voters who say the city is going in the wrong direction would vote Yes.
Initial Ballot Sales Tax Measure
Yes No U/D/R Net
Total 60 29 12 +31
Men 55 33 12 +22
Women 64 25 12 +39
< 50 63 25 12 +38
50+ 57 32 11 +24
Men < 50 55 31 14 +24
Women < 50 69 20 11 +49
Men 50+ 54 35 10 +19
Women 50+ 58 30 12 +29
White 62 27 11 +35
POC 55 32 13 +24
Non-College 63 21 15 +42
College 59 31 11 +28
Progressive 58 30 12 +28
Liberal 66 21 13 +46
Mod/Cons 52 39 9 +13
Hills 56 30 14 +27
Central /South 65 28 6 +37
West 60 27 13 +33
Own 61 29 10 +32
Rent 58 27 15 +31
Under 10 years 54 29 17 +25
10-20 years 58 32 10 +26
20 or more years 65 26 9 +38
Right direction 67 22 11 +45
Wrong track 51 41 9 +10
37 18
60 29
11 0
(+31)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
Ballot measure passage
threshold (50%+1)
28 Text of Support/Oppose Statements – Sales Tax Ballot Measure Supporters say the City must address its projected budget deficit to prevent layoffs of police officers and firefighters, the closure of a fire station, and the loss of vital youth and homeless services. This is a modest change to the sales tax, and it only brings Berkeley to the same tax rates as nearby cities like Oakland and Albany. It will fund essential services to make sure police and firefighters can continue to keep us safe and maintain the city’s quality of life without putting a major burden on taxpayers.
Opponents say this tax hike is yet another burden on taxpayers without any new or improved services to show for it. Berkeley taxpayers simply can’t afford all these tax increases, and we shouldn’t be asked to pay more when nothing will change. Increasing the sales tax will increase the burden on low- and middle-class residents and local small businesses. The City should use its existing budget and avoid deficits instead of asking us for more money.
29 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q11: Next you will [hear/see] two statements made by people who support or oppose the sales tax measure described earlier. Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds. Shall the measure adopting a ½ percent sales tax, providing about $9,000,000 to $10,000,000 yearly for general governmental use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds staying local, be adopted? After pro and con messaging, a solid majority
continues to vote Yes on the sales tax measure,
and opposition remains unchanged. Younger
women, liberals, and 20+ year residents remain
the strongest supporters.
Informed Ballot Sales Tax Measure
Yes No U/D/R Net
Total 58 29 13 +29
Men 56 31 13 +25
Women 60 27 13 +33
< 50 62 26 12 +36
50+ 55 32 14 +23
Men < 50 58 27 15 +31
Women < 50 65 25 10 +40
Men 50+ 54 35 11 +19
Women 50+ 55 29 16 +26
White 62 25 13 +37
POC 50 36 14 +14
Non-College 57 24 19 +33
College 58 30 11 +28
Progressive 57 31 13 +26
Liberal 64 20 16 +43
Mod/Cons 53 39 8 +14
Hills 56 28 16 +27
Central /South 60 28 11 +32
West 60 30 10 +30
Own 60 28 12 +32
Rent 55 29 16 +26
Under 10 years 55 27 17 +28
10-20 years 54 35 11 +18
20 or more years 63 26 11 +37
Initial undecided 23 12 65 +11
36 19
58 29
13 0
(+29)
Yes No Undecided/DK Refused
Lean yes Lean no
Yes - not so strongly No - not so strongly
Yes - strongly No - strongly
Ballot measure passage
threshold (50%+1)
30 Undecided voters on the sales tax are heavily progressive/liberal men, non-college men, and men of color while persuadables are more likely to be Democratic and progressive/liberal men, younger men, non-college men, and renter men. Similar to the bond targets, both undecideds and persuadables have disproportionately lived in Berkeley for under 10 years. Both are also concentrated in the Berkeley Hills, particularly renters in the Hills.
Sales Tax Target Profiles
Profile of Sales Tax Undecided Voters – 11% of Electorate Demographic % of Undecided % of Electorate
Democrat < 50 42 36
Progressive/liberal men 43 34
Some college 27 16
Non-college men 20 12
Under 10 years in Berkeley 43 30
Men of color 19 13
Rent 52 43
Rent Hills 28 15
Hills 54 45
Hills women 30 24
Profile of Sales Tax Persuadable Voters – 15% of Electorate Demographic % of Persuadable % of Electorate
Democratic men 41 33
Democrat < 50 42 36
Progressive/liberal men 42 34
Men < 50 29 21
Some college 26 16
Grad school 46 39
Non-college men 23 12
Under 10 years in Berkeley 40 30
Rent men 32 20
Rent Hills 28 15
Hills 55 45
31 PRIORITIES
32 Text of Priority Items – Top Tier
[Renovate 911 dispatch] Renovate the 911 dispatch center to handle higher call volumes and modernize critical infrastructure [Replace fire stations*] Make fire stations citywide safer and more energy efficient by replacing fire stations that are no longer able to meet demands with new stations run on green energy [Repair sidewalks] Improve safety and accessibility by repairing cracked and uneven sidewalks and upgrading curb ramps citywide [Upgrade park restrooms*] Upgrade deteriorating public restrooms at Berkeley parks [Repair fire stations*] Make fire stations citywide safer and more energy efficient by conducting essential repairs and adding green energy capacity
[Earthquake protections for buildings*] Improve earthquake protections and address safety concerns to fully re-open historic city buildings
[Protect Waterfront paths] Protect paths and roads on Berkeley’s Waterfront from flooding due to sea level rise [Repair public buildings – w/ Civic Center*] Repair public buildings such as the Public Safety Building, the Animal Services Facility, South Berkeley Senior Center, and Civic Center Buildings to improve their energy efficiency and safety [Mental health building] Expand mental health service capacity by replacing crumbling offices with a new energy efficient mental health services building
[Repair public buildings*] Repair public buildings such as the Public Safety Building, the Animal Services Facility, and South Berkeley Senior Center to improve their energy efficiency and safety
33 Text of Priority Items – Lower Tier
[Repair /rebuild community centers] Repair and rebuild community centers that are out of date, energy inefficient, too small, or vulnerable to earthquakes
[Safe/accessible playgrounds] Make playgrounds safer and more accessible [Earthquake protections – specific buildings*] Improve earthquake protections and address safety concerns to fully re-open historic city buildings such as Old City Hall and the Veterans Building [Add park restrooms*] Add public restrooms to Berkeley parks [Repair park paths /parking lots] Improve safety and accessibility in the City’s parks by repairing park pathways and parking lots [South Berkeley green space] Expanding accessible green open space in South Berkeley [Repair recreational facilities] Repair and modernize aged public recreational facilities like pools, soccer fields, and basketball courts
[Repair seawall] Rebuild the failing seawall that threatens public access to South Cove [Sports fields irrigation] Fix failing irrigation and drainage at the City’s most used sports fields [Repair Marina’s docks] Repair Marina’s docks to extend their lifespan 50-plus years [New dog parks] Build additional dog parks across the City to meet growing demand
34 *SPLIT SAMPLED
Q12: Now I am going to read you a list of different types of projects the City of Berkeley is considering. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you for the City to invest in.
Of potential projects that the measures could fund, the top priorities for voters are renovating the 911 dispatch center, replacing outdated fire stations, and repairing sidewalks. The lowest priorities are new dog parks, repairing Marina docks, and sports fields irrigation.
Priority Items
Extremely important Very important
29 27
27 24
22 18
18 18
17 17
15 15
14 13
12 12
11 11
9 8
4 66
56 65
62 57
53 52
47 58
48 54
50 41
53 45
48 43
42 33
32 21
Renovate 911 dispatch
Replace fire stations*
Repair sidewalks
Upgrade park restrooms*
Repair fire stations*
Earthquake protections for buildings*
Protect Waterfront paths
Repair public buildings – w/ Civic Center*
Mental health building
Repair public buildings*
Repair/rebuild community centers
Safe/accessible playgrounds
Earthquake protections – specific buildings*
Add park restrooms*
Repair park paths/parking lots
South Berkeley green space
Repair recreational facilities
Repair seawall
Sports fields irrigation
Repair Marina’s docks
New dog parks
35 *SPLIT SAMPLED
Q12: Now I am going to read you a list of different types of projects the City of Berkeley is considering. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you for the City to invest in.
Upgrading deteriorating park restrooms is a higher priority than adding new park restrooms.
Fire stations are a top priority, and voters do not shy away from replacing rather than repairing fire stations – replacing fire stations has slightly higher intensity as a priority than repairing.
Priority Items – Park and Fire Language Tests
Extremely important Very important
Add public
restrooms to
Berkeley parks*
Upgrade
deteriorating public
restrooms at
Berkeley parks*
13 24
53 62
Make fire stations citywide safer
and more energy efficient by
conducting essential repairs and
adding green energy capacity*
Make fire stations citywide safer
and more energy efficient by
replacing fire stations that are no
longer able to meet demands with
new stations run on green energy*
22 27
57 56
36 *SPLIT SAMPLED
Q12: Now I am going to read you a list of different types of projects the City of Berkeley is considering. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you for the City to invest in.
While including the examples of Old City Hall and the Veterans Building brings down the salience of improving earthquake protections and building safety, adding Civic Center Buildings to a list of other public buildings for repair does not have an impact. Neither example should be a focal point – talking about buildings in the broader context and emphasizing safety is most effective.
Priority Items – Building Repair Language Tests
Extremely important Very important
Improve earthquake
protections and
address safety
concerns to fully re-
open historic city
buildings*
Improve earthquake
protections and
address safety
concerns to fully re-
open historic city
buildings such as Old
City Hall and the
Veterans Building*
18 14
53 41
Repair public buildings such as the
Public Safety Building, the Animal
Services Facility, and South Berkeley
Senior Center to improve their
energy efficiency and safety*
Repair public buildings such as the
Public Safety Building, the Animal
Services Facility, South Berkeley
Senior Center, and Civic Center
Buildings to improve their energy
efficiency and safety*
17 18
48 47
37 *SPLIT SAMPLED
Q12: Now I am going to read you a list of different types of projects the City of Berkeley is considering. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you for the City to invest in.
The public safety projects (911 dispatch center and fire stations) are top priorities across demographics. Replacing fire stations is especially important to younger women and voters in Central/South.
Priority Items by Demographics (1) – Top Tier
Extremely important Total
Gender Age Gender/Age Region Race
M W < 50 50+ M < 50 W < 50 M 50+ W 50+ Hills C/S West White POC Renovate 911 dispatch 29 26 31 26 32 21 29 30 33 31 33 22 29 28 Replace fire stations* 27 25 28 32 22 28 34 22 22 26 34 22 26 29 Repair sidewalks 27 24 28 24 29 20 28 28 29 26 26 28 26 29 Upgrade park restrooms* 24 23 25 22 26 21 23 26 26 24 25 23 23 26 Repair fire stations* 22 22 21 18 25 19 17 24 26 27 20 14 22 21 Earthquake protections for
buildings* 18 17 19 18 18 18 17 16 21 17 19 19 16 21
Protect Waterfront paths 18 14 22 16 19 14 18 14 25 19 16 19 17 19 Repair public buildings – w/
Civic Center* 18 12 23 17 18 16 18 8 27 19 17 17 17 20
Mental health building 17 16 18 17 17 14 19 18 17 17 17 18 15 21 Repair public buildings* 17 14 19 15 18 12 18 16 21 21 10 16 16 16
38 *SPLIT SAMPLED
Q12: Now I am going to read you a list of different types of projects the City of Berkeley is considering. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you for the City to invest in.
Yes voters are particularly energized by the 911 dispatch, fire stations, and sidewalks.
Upgrading park restrooms is the top priority for renters and voters who have mixed responses across the ballots.
Priority Items by Demographics (2) – Top Tier
Extremely important Total
Education Home ownership Years in Berkeley Combined bond ballot Sales tax ballot Ballot target
Non-
Coll Coll+ Own Rent <10 10-20 20+ Yes No Yes No Yes all Mixed Renovate 911 dispatch 29 29 29 28 30 28 24 32 34 12 35 18 39 23 Replace fire stations* 27 29 26 27 26 21 30 29 29 12 32 15 33 25 Repair sidewalks 27 28 26 26 29 20 26 32 29 18 34 14 33 23 Upgrade park restrooms* 24 31 22 18 32 27 21 24 27 21 26 22 20 30 Repair fire stations* 22 20 22 26 15 12 19 29 27 0 28 8 35 13 Earthquake protections for
buildings* 18 16 19 18 19 14 17 21 23 2 25 6 26 13
Protect Waterfront paths 18 22 17 19 17 11 23 20 22 9 23 10 22 16 Repair public buildings – w/
Civic Center* 18 21 17 14 22 17 22 16 18 5 22 10 19 19
Mental health building 17 17 17 14 21 20 14 17 20 3 23 8 24 13 Repair public buildings* 17 16 17 18 16 15 15 19 21 3 25 1 27 10
39 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q12: Now I am going to read you a list of different types of projects the City of Berkeley is considering. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you for the City to invest in.
The lower tier priorities are generally lower to voters across demographics.
Priority Items by Demographics (1) – Lower Tier
Extremely important Total
Gender Age Gender/Age Region Race
M W < 50 50+ M < 50 W < 50 M 50+ W 50+ Hills C/S West White POC Repair/rebuild community
centers 15 13 18 17 14 13 21 13 15 14 22 11 14 18
Safe/accessible playgrounds 15 13 16 13 17 13 13 13 20 16 12 16 14 17 Earthquake protections –
specific buildings* 14 13 16 12 16 13 12 13 19 15 17 12 14 16 Repair park paths/parking
lots 12 8 16 12 13 7 15 9 16 9 17 13 11 14
South Berkeley green space 12 10 14 10 14 9 11 11 17 12 15 9 12 13 Repair recreational facilities 11 10 12 8 15 6 10 14 15 10 14 12 11 12 Repair seawall 11 9 13 9 13 10 9 8 17 10 13 12 10 14
Sports fields irrigation 9 9 9 7 11 8 7 10 12 8 6 14 9 9 Repair Marina’s docks 8 6 9 6 9 6 7 7 11 6 7 11 8 8
New dog parks 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 7 3 4 7 3 4 5
40 ALL RESPONDENTS
Q12: Now I am going to read you a list of different types of projects the City of Berkeley is considering. For each one, please tell me how important it is to you for the City to invest in.
Building new dog parks and repairing Marina’s docks are relatively low priorities even for voters who vote Yes on both the bond and sales tax.
Priority Items by Demographics (2) – Lower Tier
Extremely important Total
Education Home ownership Years in Berkeley Combined bond ballot Sales tax ballot Ballot target
Non-
Coll Coll+ Own Rent <10 10-20 20+ Yes No Yes No Yes all Mixed Repair/rebuild community
centers 15 15 16 14 17 14 17 15 18 7 19 4 19 14
Safe/accessible playgrounds 15 15 15 13 16 13 14 16 18 4 19 5 19 12 Earthquake protections –
specific buildings* 14 15 14 13 17 13 13 16 18 6 18 8 21 11 Add park restrooms* 13 16 12 9 18 15 14 10 14 5 14 10 11 15 Repair park paths/parking
lots 12 16 11 13 11 8 11 16 16 4 17 5 17 9
South Berkeley green space 12 11 13 13 11 9 10 15 14 4 15 8 16 10 Repair recreational facilities 11 11 11 9 15 12 7 13 13 4 14 7 14 11 Repair seawall 11 10 12 11 11 12 8 12 13 8 13 9 15 8
Sports fields irrigation 9 10 9 8 12 8 10 10 11 4 11 6 10 9 Repair Marina’s docks 8 8 8 6 10 6 9 8 8 8 9 6 8 8
New dog parks 4 4 4 4 5 5 7 2 4 1 6 2 6 3
41 Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, NY
LakeResearch.com
202.776.9066
David Mermin
[email protected]
Emma Scotty
[email protected]
1 City of Berkeley Voter Survey
Live Phone and Text to Online
February 19-23 2026
N=500 Likely November 2026 General Election Voters
Splits: A/B, C/D
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
Region
Council District 5,6,8 ................................ ...... 45 100 0 0 Council District 3,4,7 ................................ ...... 27 0 100 0 Council District 1,2 ................................ ......... 28 0 0 100
Party registration
Democrat ................................ ....................... 79 83 70 80 Republican ................................ ....................... 3 3 1 4 NPP /Other ................................ .................... 19 15 28 16
NPP ................................ ............................... 15 14 22 10 Other ................................ ................................ 4 1 6 6
Q1. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place where you can talk safely?
Yes, cell and can talk safely ........................... 50 46 48 58 Yes, cell and cannot talk safely ... [CALL BACK]
No, not on cell, but own one ............................. 2 4 1 1 No, not on cell, and do not own one ................. 0 0 0 0 (Don’t know/refused) ................... [TERMINATE]
Text to online ................................ ................. 48 50 51 41
Q2. Although it is some time from now, what are the chances of you voting in the November 2026 general election for Governor, Congress, and other offices? Are you almost certain to vote, will you probably vote, are the chances about 50-50, are you probably not going to vote, or are you definitely not going to vote?
Almost certain to vote ................................ ..... 97 96 97 97 Probably will vote ................................ ............. 3 4 3 3 50-50 ................................ ...................... [TERMINATE] Probably not ................................ ............ [TERMINATE] Definitely not ................................ ........... [TERMINATE] Don't know ................................ .............. [TERMINATE]
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 2
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
2 Q3. [T] Would you say that the city of Berkeley is generally headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Right Direction ................................ ............... 56 57 59 50 Wrong Direction ................................ ............. 22 24 22 17 (Don’t know) ................................ ................... 23 18 19 33
Q4. [T] How would you rate the job the City of Berkeley is doing in providing services to its residents — excellent, good, fair, or poor?
Excellent ................................ ........................ 11 11 13 8 Good ................................ .............................. 45 46 42 45 Fair ................................ ................................ 32 32 31 33 Poor ................................ ................................ . 7 7 7 8 (Don’t know) ................................ ..................... 5 4 6 5
Excellent /Good ................................ .............. 56 57 56 54 Fair /Poor ................................ ....................... 39 39 38 41
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 3
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
3 Q5. [T*] Now I’m going to read some different issues that have been identified as important needs in the city of Berkeley. If you had to choose, which one or two of the following would be the highest priority for you personally in the city of Berkeley? [RANDOMIZE]
[ACCEPT UP TO TWO RESPONSES]
Safeguarding critical infrastructure from the
threats of climate change, including
flooding and wildfires ................................ 35 35 38 31 Increasing Berkeley's safety and
accessibility by improving sidewalks,
curb ramps, and pathways ....................... 31 31 32 30 Reducing pollution flowing to the Bay and
flood risk by upgrading storm drains
and installing green infrastructure............. 24 28 18 23 Improving parks, playgrounds, recreation
facilities, dog parks, and community
centers ................................ ..................... 23 20 25 28 Replacing public safety facilities such as
fire stations and emergency response
buildings that are at the end of their
useful life ................................ .................. 22 25 16 21 Improving the Berkeley waterfront and
shoreline by protecting waterfront parks
and repairing docks ................................ .. 15 10 14 25 Advancing the Berkeley Civic Center Vision
by restoring and modernizing historic
buildings for community, arts, and civic
use ................................ ........................... 11 9 15 9
None ................................ ................................ 5 7 4 5 Don't know ................................ ....................... 4 4 4 4 Refused ................................ ........................... 1 1 0 1
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 4
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
4 The City of Berkeley is considering asking voters to approve a measure on the November 2026 ballot that would increase investments in Berkeley’s infrastructure.
Next you will [hear/see] a few different versions of ballot measures that may appear on the ballot in Berkeley this November. Here is the first measure.
Q6. SSA: [GO BOND – $300m] This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a general obligation bond.
Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure to provide funding to replace aging fire stations and emergency response facilities, repair parks and recreation facilities, promote climate change resiliency, and invest in public buildings and infrastructure to create safer, more resilient community spaces by issuing bonds of 300 million dollars, at an average rate of 22 dollars and 14 cents per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?
If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ................. 42 47 38 36 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ...... 15 10 25 14 Lean yes ................................ ........................ 14 14 11 17 Undecided/DK ................................ ................ 16 14 15 21 Lean no ................................ ............................ 3 3 5 1 No - not so strongly ................................ .......... 3 4 3 2 No - strongly ................................ .................... 6 6 3 9
(Refused) ................................ ......................... 1 2 0 0
Yes ................................ ................................ 71 71 74 67 No ................................ ................................ . 12 13 11 12
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 5
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
5 Q7. SSB: [GO BOND – $200m] This is a ballot measure that would provide funding through a general obligation bond.
Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure to provide funding to replace aging fire stations and emergency response facilities, repair parks and recreation facilities, promote climate change resiliency, and invest in public buildings and infrastructure to create safer, more resilient community spaces by issuing bonds of 200 million dollars, at an average rate of 18 dollars and 47 cents per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?
If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ................. 36 39 36 32 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ...... 17 21 11 15 Lean yes ................................ ........................ 18 12 30 16 Undecided/DK ................................ ................ 15 15 13 19 Lean no ................................ ............................ 2 3 3 0 No - not so strongly ................................ .......... 3 2 3 5 No - strongly ................................ .................... 9 10 4 13
(Refused) ................................ ......................... 0 0 1 0
Yes ................................ ................................ 70 71 77 63 No ................................ ................................ . 14 14 10 18
6/7.Combined initial Go Bond
Yes - strongly ................................ ................. 39 43 37 34 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ...... 16 16 18 15 Lean yes ................................ ........................ 16 13 20 16 Undecided/DK ................................ ................ 16 14 14 20 Lean no ................................ ............................ 2 3 4 0 No - not so strongly ................................ .......... 3 3 3 3 No - strongly ................................ .................... 8 8 3 11
(Refused) ................................ ......................... 1 1 0 0
Yes ................................ ................................ 70 71 75 65 No ................................ ................................ . 13 13 10 15
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 6
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
6 Now here is a different measure that could be on the ballot this year.
Q8. [SALES TAX] This is a ballot measure that would increase the sales tax in the City of Berkeley to help address the City’s projected budget deficit of $32 million.
Shall the City of Berkeley measure to increase funding for essential city services, such as 9-1-1 emergency response; neighborhood police services; fire prevention/protection; youth and senior services; community cultural programs; attracting/ retaining small businesses; and funding for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, by adopting a ½ percent sales tax, providing about $9,000,000 to $10,000,000 yearly for general governmental use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds staying local, be adopted?
If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ................. 37 33 42 37 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ...... 15 14 16 15 Lean yes ................................ .......................... 8 8 7 8 Undecided/DK ................................ ................ 11 14 6 13 Lean no ................................ ............................ 5 4 6 5 No - not so strongly ................................ .......... 5 6 7 2 No - strongly ................................ .................. 18 19 15 19
(Refused) ................................ ......................... 0 1 0 0
Yes ................................ ................................ 60 56 65 60 No ................................ ................................ . 29 30 28 27
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 7
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
7 Q9. SSA: [GO BOND – 300m] Next you will [hear/see] two statements made by people who support or oppose the general obligation bond measure described earlier: [ROTATE STATEMENTS]
Supporters say the City needs investments in fire services, parks, and building repairs to ensure safety and quality of life, and to save the city money by investing in cost-saving green energy. Building on past successes like repairing streets and increasing affordable housing, this bond will focus on replacing unsafe and undersized fire stations, revitalizing community and senior centers, improving parks and sidewalks, and preparing for sea-level rise and climate change. These investments will improve our quality of life, save the city money, and make us safer. [87 words] Opponents say that Berkeley taxpayers keep getting soaked for more and more increases with little to show for it. We funded streets, and the streets are still a mess. We funded housing, and housing costs and homelessness are worse than ever. We can’t afford to pay more in taxes at a time when people are already struggling. We need to look more closely at this high-tax, high-cost city government, cut wasteful and unnecessary spending, and use existing funds efficiently. [79 words] Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds.
Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 300 million dollars, at rates of 22 dollars and 14 cents per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?
If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ................. 43 45 44 38 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ...... 20 18 31 15 Lean yes ................................ .......................... 9 7 5 14 Undecided/DK ................................ ................ 13 11 10 20 Lean no ................................ ............................ 3 5 2 1 No - not so strongly ................................ .......... 3 5 2 2 No - strongly ................................ .................... 9 10 5 10
(Refused) ................................ ......................... 0 0 0 0
Yes ................................ ................................ 72 70 80 67 No ................................ ................................ . 15 19 10 13
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 8
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
8 Q10. SSB: [GO BOND – 200m] Next you will [hear/see] two statements made by people who support or oppose the general obligation bond measure described earlier: [ROTATE STATEMENTS]
Supporters say the City needs investments in fire services, parks, and building repairs to ensure safety and quality of life, and to save the city money by investing in cost-saving green energy. Building on past successes like repairing streets and increasing affordable housing, this bond will focus on replacing unsafe and undersized fire stations, revitalizing community and senior centers, improving parks and sidewalks, and preparing for sea-level rise and climate change. These investments will improve our quality of life, save the city money, and make us safer. [87 words] Opponents say that Berkeley taxpayers keep getting soaked for more and more increases with little to show for it. We funded streets, and the streets are still a mess. We funded housing, and housing costs and homelessness are worse than ever. We can’t afford to pay more in taxes at a time when people are already struggling. We need to look more closely at this high-tax, high-cost city government, cut wasteful and unnecessary spending, and use existing funds efficiently. [79 words] Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds.
Shall the City of Berkeley enact a measure issuing bonds of 200 million dollars, at rates of 18 dollars and 47 cents per 100 thousand dollars of assessed property value, with 100 million dollars issued every five years commencing in 2027, and requiring regular audits and independent oversight?
If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ................. 32 31 36 28 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ...... 17 20 12 16 Lean yes ................................ ........................ 15 15 18 12 Undecided/DK ................................ ................ 15 15 20 11 Lean no ................................ ............................ 4 2 4 8 No - not so strongly ................................ .......... 4 5 3 4 No - strongly ................................ .................. 13 12 7 21
(Refused) ................................ ......................... 1 0 1 1
Yes ................................ ................................ 63 65 65 56 No ................................ ................................ . 22 20 14 32
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 9
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
9 9/10.Combined Go Bond engaged debate
Yes - strongly ................................ ................. 37 38 40 33 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ...... 18 19 21 15 Lean yes ................................ ........................ 12 11 11 13 Undecided/DK ................................ ................ 14 13 15 15 Lean no ................................ ............................ 4 3 3 4 No - not so strongly ................................ .......... 4 5 3 3 No - strongly ................................ .................. 11 11 6 16
(Refused) ................................ ......................... 0 0 0 1
Yes ................................ ................................ 67 68 73 62 No ................................ ................................ . 18 19 12 23
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 10
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
10 Q11. [SALES TAX] Next you will [hear/see] two statements made by people who support or oppose the sales tax measure described earlier: [ROTATE STATEMENTS]
Supporters say the City must address its projected budget deficit to prevent layoffs of police officers and firefighters, the closure of a fire station, and the loss of vital youth and homeless services. This is a modest change to the sales tax, and it only brings Berkeley to the same tax rates as nearby cities like Oakland and Albany. It will fund essential services to make sure police and firefighters can continue to keep us safe and maintain the city’s quality of life without putting a major burden on taxpayers. [90 words]
Opponents say this tax hike is yet another burden on taxpayers without any new or improved services to show for it. Berkeley taxpayers simply can’t afford all these tax increases, and we shouldn’t be asked to pay more when nothing will change. Increasing the sales tax will increase the burden on low- and middle-class residents and local small businesses. The City should use its existing budget and avoid deficits instead of asking us for more money. [76 words] Sometimes in a survey like this, people change their minds.
Shall the measure adopting a ½ percent sales tax, providing about $9,000,000 to $10,000,000 yearly for general governmental use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds staying local, be adopted?
If the election were held today, would you vote Yes or No on this measure, or are you undecided?
[IF YES/NO]: And is that Yes/No strongly or not so strongly? [IF UNDECIDED]: Well, to which side do you lean?
Yes - strongly ................................ ................. 36 34 39 35 Yes - not so strongly ................................ ...... 15 14 16 14 Lean yes ................................ .......................... 8 7 6 11 Undecided/DK ................................ ................ 13 16 11 10 Lean no ................................ ............................ 4 2 7 3 No - not so strongly ................................ .......... 6 6 6 8 No - strongly ................................ .................. 19 20 15 20
(Refused) ................................ ......................... 0 1 0 0
Yes ................................ ................................ 58 56 60 60 No ................................ ................................ . 29 28 28 30
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 11
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
11 Q12. Now I am going to read you a list of different types of projects the City of Berkeley is considering.
For each one, please tell me how important it is to you for the City to invest in. Is that extremely important, very important, moderately important, slightly important, or not important at all? {ROTATE LIST}
Sorted by “Extremely important”
12u.Renovate 911 dispatch............................ 29 31 33 22 D12t.Replace fire stations .............................. 27 26 34 22 12p.Repair sidewalks ................................ ..... 27 26 26 28 D12f.Upgrade park restrooms ........................ 24 24 25 23 C12s.Repair fire stations ................................ 22 27 20 14 C12b.Earthquake protections for
buildings ................................ ................... 18 17 19 19 12l.Protect Waterfront paths ........................... 18 19 16 19 D12r.Repair public buildings - w/
Civic Center ................................ ............. 18 19 17 17 12o.Mental health building ............................. 17 17 17 18 C12q.Repair public buildings .......................... 17 21 10 16 12a.Repair/rebuild community
centers ................................ ..................... 15 14 22 11 12d.Safe/accessible playgrounds ................... 15 16 12 16 D12c.Earthquake protections -
specific buildings ................................ ...... 14 15 17 12 C12e.Add park restrooms .............................. 13 11 9 19 12h.Repair park paths/parking lots ................. 12 9 17 13 12n.South Berkeley green space ................... 12 12 15 9 12j.Repair recreational facilities ..................... 11 10 14 12 12m.Repair seawall ................................ ....... 11 10 13 12 12i.Sports fields irrigation ................................ . 9 8 6 14 12k.Repair Marina's docks ............................... 8 6 7 11 12g.New dog parks ................................ .......... 4 4 7 3
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 12
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
12 a. [Repair /rebuild community centers] Repair and rebuild community centers that are out of date, energy inefficient, too small, or vulnerable to earthquakes Extremely important ................................ ....... 15 14 22 11 Very important................................ ................ 39 41 41 33 Moderately important ................................ ..... 29 26 27 36 Slightly important ................................ ........... 10 9 6 14 Not important at all ................................ ........... 6 8 4 5 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 1 0 1
Important ................................ ........................ 54 55 63 44 Not important ................................ ................. 45 44 36 55
b. SSC: [Earthquake protections for buildings] Improve earthquake protections and address safety concerns to fully re-open historic city buildings Extremely important ................................ ....... 18 17 19 19 Very important................................ ................ 35 37 36 31 Moderately important ................................ ..... 28 26 27 31 Slightly important ................................ ........... 11 11 12 9 Not important at all ................................ ........... 8 9 5 8 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 0 1 3
Important ................................ ........................ 53 54 55 50 Not important ................................ ................. 46 46 44 48
c. SSD: [Earthquake protections – specific buildings] Improve earthquake protections and address safety concerns to fully re-open historic city buildings such as Old City Hall and the Veterans Building
Extremely important ................................ ....... 14 15 17 12 Very important................................ ................ 27 27 29 25 Moderately important ................................ ..... 32 35 27 33 Slightly important ................................ ........... 17 16 20 15 Not important at all ................................ ........... 9 7 7 14 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 0 0 1
Important ................................ ........................ 41 41 46 37 Not important ................................ ................. 58 58 54 62
d. [Safe/accessible playgrounds] Make playgrounds safer and more accessible
Extremely important ................................ ....... 15 16 12 16 Very important................................ ................ 35 40 31 29 Moderately important ................................ ..... 31 29 36 28 Slightly important ................................ ........... 12 9 12 17 Not important at all ................................ ........... 7 6 6 8 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 1 2 2
Important ................................ ........................ 50 56 43 45 Not important ................................ ................. 49 43 55 53
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 13
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
13 e. SSC: [Add park restrooms] Add public restrooms to Berkeley parks
Extremely important ................................ ....... 13 11 9 19 Very important................................ ................ 41 39 47 39 Moderately important ................................ ..... 29 29 28 29 Slightly important ................................ ........... 10 11 10 7 Not important at all ................................ ........... 7 10 4 6 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 1 1 0
Important ................................ ........................ 53 49 56 58 Not important ................................ ................. 46 50 43 42
f. SSD: [Upgrade park restrooms] Upgrade deteriorating public restrooms at Berkeley parks
Extremely important ................................ ....... 24 24 25 23 Very important................................ ................ 38 35 43 40 Moderately important ................................ ..... 26 29 19 29 Slightly important ................................ ............. 8 8 12 5 Not important at all ................................ ........... 3 4 2 3 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 0 0 0 0
Important ................................ ........................ 62 59 68 63 Not important ................................ ................. 38 41 32 37
g. [New dog parks] Build additional dog parks across the City to meet growing demand
Extremely important ................................ ......... 4 4 7 3 Very important................................ ................ 16 15 18 18 Moderately important ................................ ..... 27 26 27 29 Slightly important ................................ ........... 22 21 27 20 Not important at all ................................ ......... 29 34 21 28 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 1 1 2
Important ................................ ........................ 21 18 24 21 Not important ................................ ................. 78 80 75 77
h. [Repair park paths /parking lots] Improve safety and accessibility in the City’s parks by repairing park pathways and parking lots
Extremely important ................................ ....... 12 9 17 13 Very important................................ ................ 33 32 31 36 Moderately important ................................ ..... 32 36 32 26 Slightly important ................................ ........... 14 14 14 15 Not important at all ................................ ........... 8 8 6 9 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 1 0 1
Important ................................ ........................ 45 41 48 49 Not important ................................ ................. 54 58 51 50
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 14
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
14 i. [Sports fields irrigation] Fix failing irrigation and drainage at the City’s most used sports fields
Extremely important ................................ ......... 9 8 6 14 Very important................................ ................ 24 24 27 22 Moderately important ................................ ..... 40 43 42 32 Slightly important ................................ ........... 20 18 16 28 Not important at all ................................ ........... 5 5 7 2 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 2 1 2 2
Important ................................ ........................ 33 32 33 36 Not important ................................ ................. 65 66 65 63
j. [Repair recreational facilities] Repair and modernize aged public recreational facilities like pools, soccer fields, and basketball courts
Extremely important ................................ ....... 11 10 14 12 Very important................................ ................ 32 30 35 32 Moderately important ................................ ..... 35 38 32 34 Slightly important ................................ ........... 16 18 12 18 Not important at all ................................ ........... 4 4 6 2 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 2 1 2 3
Important ................................ ........................ 43 40 49 43 Not important ................................ ................. 55 59 49 54
k. [Repair Marina’s docks] Repair Marina’s docks to extend their lifespan 50-plus years
Extremely important ................................ ......... 8 6 7 11 Very important................................ ................ 24 26 24 20 Moderately important ................................ ..... 38 39 38 36 Slightly important ................................ ........... 20 17 24 21 Not important at all ................................ ........... 8 8 7 10 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 3 4 1 2
Important ................................ ........................ 32 32 31 32 Not important ................................ ................. 66 64 68 66
l. [Protect Waterfront paths] Protect paths and roads on Berkeley’s Waterfront from flooding due to sea level rise
Extremely important ................................ ....... 18 19 16 19 Very important................................ ................ 34 33 34 36 Moderately important ................................ ..... 28 29 28 25 Slightly important ................................ ........... 11 11 15 8 Not important at all ................................ ........... 7 8 5 7 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 2 1 2 5
Important ................................ ........................ 52 51 49 56 Not important ................................ ................. 46 48 49 40
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 15
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
15 m. [Repair seawall] Rebuild the failing seawall that threatens public access to South Cove
Extremely important ................................ ....... 11 10 13 12 Very important................................ ................ 31 32 34 27 Moderately important ................................ ..... 29 29 28 29 Slightly important ................................ ........... 16 15 15 17 Not important at all ................................ ........... 6 7 2 7 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 8 7 9 7
Important ................................ ........................ 42 42 46 39 Not important ................................ ................. 50 51 45 53
n. [South Berkeley green space] Expanding accessible green open space in South Berkeley
Extremely important ................................ ....... 12 12 15 9 Very important................................ ................ 36 37 34 35 Moderately important ................................ ..... 29 29 29 28 Slightly important ................................ ........... 12 10 14 15 Not important at all ................................ ........... 9 11 5 10 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 2 1 2 2
Important ................................ ........................ 48 49 50 44 Not important ................................ ................. 50 50 48 53
o. [Mental health building] Expand mental health service capacity by replacing crumbling offices with a new energy efficient mental health services building
Extremely important ................................ ....... 17 17 17 18 Very important................................ ................ 40 38 41 44 Moderately important ................................ ..... 24 25 26 22 Slightly important ................................ ............. 8 10 8 6 Not important at all ................................ ........... 8 8 6 8 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 3 3 2 3
Important ................................ ........................ 58 54 58 62 Not important ................................ ................. 40 43 40 35
p. [Repair sidewalks] Improve safety and accessibility by repairing cracked and uneven sidewalks and upgrading curb ramps citywide
Extremely important ................................ ....... 27 26 26 28 Very important................................ ................ 38 38 42 34 Moderately important ................................ ..... 26 28 24 26 Slightly important ................................ ............. 5 4 5 8 Not important at all ................................ ........... 4 5 2 3 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 0 0 2
Important ................................ ........................ 65 64 68 62 Not important ................................ ................. 35 36 31 37
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 16
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
16 q. SSC: [Repair public buildings] Repair public buildings such as the Public Safety Building, the Animal Services Facility, and South Berkeley Senior Center to improve their energy efficiency and safety
Extremely important ................................ ....... 17 21 10 16 Very important................................ ................ 31 29 40 27 Moderately important ................................ ..... 33 31 30 40 Slightly important ................................ ........... 10 9 14 10 Not important at all ................................ ........... 7 10 4 6 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 0 3 1
Important ................................ ........................ 48 50 49 43 Not important ................................ ................. 51 50 47 56
r. SSD: [Repair public buildings – w/ Civic Center] Repair public buildings such as the Public Safety Building, the Animal Services Facility, South Berkeley Senior Center, and Civic Center Buildings to improve their energy efficiency and safety
Extremely important ................................ ....... 18 19 17 17 Very important................................ ................ 30 29 29 30 Moderately important ................................ ..... 35 31 45 32 Slightly important ................................ ........... 10 14 4 10 Not important at all ................................ ........... 5 5 4 8 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 2 0 1
Important ................................ ........................ 47 48 47 47 Not important ................................ ................. 51 50 53 51
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 17
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
17 s. SSC: [Repair fire stations] Make fire stations citywide safer and more energy efficient by conducting essential repairs and adding green energy capacity
Extremely important ................................ ....... 22 27 20 14 Very important................................ ................ 36 39 36 30 Moderately important ................................ ..... 27 23 28 33 Slightly important ................................ ............. 6 4 8 8 Not important at all ................................ ......... 10 7 7 15 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 0 0 1 0
Important ................................ ........................ 57 66 56 44 Not important ................................ ................. 43 34 43 56
t. SSD: [Replace fire stations] Make fire stations citywide safer and more energy efficient by replacing fire stations that are no longer able to meet demands with new stations run on green energy
Extremely important ................................ ....... 27 26 34 22 Very important................................ ................ 29 28 30 30 Moderately important ................................ ..... 27 29 22 29 Slightly important ................................ ........... 12 10 13 13 Not important at all ................................ ........... 4 6 1 3 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 1 0 3
Important ................................ ........................ 56 54 64 52 Not important ................................ ................. 42 45 36 45
u. [Renovate 911 dispatch] Renovate the 911 dispatch center to handle higher call volumes and modernize critical infrastructure
Extremely important ................................ ....... 29 31 33 22 Very important................................ ................ 37 35 38 40 Moderately important ................................ ..... 23 25 17 27 Slightly important ................................ ............. 5 3 9 3 Not important at all ................................ ........... 5 5 2 7 (Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 2 1 0
Important ................................ ........................ 66 66 71 62 Not important ................................ ................. 33 32 28 38
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 18
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
18 Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions for statistical purposes only.
Q13. [T] How long have you lived in Berkeley? [DO NOT READ, RECORD WITHIN RANGE]
Less than two years ................................ ......... 5 3 8 5 Two to less than five years ............................. 13 12 18 10 Five to less than ten years ............................. 12 11 15 11 Ten to less than twenty years ......................... 23 26 18 23 Twenty years or more ................................ .... 36 35 32 43 All your life ................................ ..................... 10 13 8 9 (Don't know/refused) ................................ ........ 0 1 0 0
Q14. [T] What best describes your gender? [SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]
Man ................................ ................................ 45 47 46 40 Woman ................................ .......................... 55 53 54 60 Nonbinary ................................ ........................ 0 0 0 0 Prefer to self-describe/other ............................. 0 0 0 0 (Refused) ................................ ......................... 0 0 0 0
Q15. [T] Just to make sure we have a representative sample, could you please tell me whether or not you are from a Latino, Hispanic, or Spanish-speaking background? Q16. [T] [ASK ALL] And please tell me which one, or more than one, of these racial or ethnic groups you identify with?
[TEXT] Which one, or more than one, of these racial or ethnic groups do you identify with? [RANDOMIZE/READ CHOICES/ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
[IF “OTHER” OR “BIRACIAL” OR “MULTI-RACIAL” PROMPT:] Which two or three of these do you identify with the most?
White or Caucasian ................................ ........ 67 71 59 69 Black or African American ................................ 9 11 6 9 Latino/Latina or Hispanic ................................ .. 9 5 14 10 Asian American or Pacific Islander ................. 11 9 17 8 Native or Indigenous American ........................ 0 0 0 0 Middle Eastern or North African ....................... 2 1 2 2 (Other) ................................ ............................. 2 1 2 3 (Don't know/refused) ................................ ........ 1 1 1 1
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 19
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
19 Q17. [T] In terms of local politics, do you consider yourself progressive, liberal, moderate, or conservative?
Progressive ................................ .................... 41 36 44 47 Liberal ................................ ............................ 36 38 33 36 Moderate ................................ ........................ 17 20 20 11 Conservative ................................ .................... 4 4 2 5
(Don't know) ................................ ..................... 1 1 1 1 (Refused) ................................ ......................... 1 1 1 1
Q18. [T] What is the last year of schooling that you have completed?
1 - 11th Grade ................................ .................. 0 0 0 0 High School Graduate ................................ ...... 3 2 6 3 Vocational or technical school .......................... 0 0 0 0 Some college but no degree .......................... 16 12 16 22 Associate degree ................................ ............. 5 3 4 7 4-year college graduate or
bachelor's degree ................................ ..... 37 42 46 22 Graduate School or advanced
degree ................................ ...................... 39 41 28 46 (Refused) ................................ ......................... 0 0 0 0
Non-college ................................ .................... 24 17 26 33 College graduate ................................ ............ 76 83 74 67
Q19. [T] Do you own your own home or do you rent?
Own ................................ ............................... 54 64 41 50 Rent ................................ ............................... 43 33 56 48 (Other - unsheltered, live in dorm, with
parents, etc) ................................ ............... 3 3 3 2 (Don't know/refused) ................................ ........ 0 0 0 0
City of Berkeley Voter Survey – February 19-23 2026 Page 20
CENTRAL
TOTAL HILLS /SOUTH WEST
Weighted N= 500 225 135 140
Unweighted N= 500 220 144 136
20 Age
18-24 years ................................ .................... 12 12 16 7 25-29 years ................................ ...................... 7 5 13 4 30-34 years ................................ ...................... 6 4 11 6 35-39 years ................................ ...................... 9 4 7 17 40-44 years ................................ ...................... 6 6 6 6 45-49 years ................................ ...................... 9 5 8 16 50-54 years ................................ ...................... 7 8 4 7 55-59 years ................................ ...................... 6 9 4 3 60-64 years ................................ ...................... 8 9 3 10 65-69 years ................................ ...................... 8 10 7 6 70-74 years ................................ ...................... 6 8 5 5 Over 74 years ................................ ................ 17 19 16 13 (Don’t know /Refused) ................................ ..... 0 0 0 0
Under 30 ................................ ........................ 19 17 29 10 30 - 39 ................................ ........................... 15 8 18 23 40 - 49 ................................ ........................... 15 11 14 22 50 - 64 ................................ ........................... 21 27 11 21 65 & over ................................ ....................... 31 37 27 24
Berkeley’s Infrastructure: Needs and Community
Priorities
2026 Potential Bond Measure
2 Agenda
Berkeley’s Infrastructure: Needs & Priorities
The goal is to receive feedback on the
City's proposed infrastructure project
list for a potential $300M GO Bond.
• _
• Berkeley’s Infrastructure Needs
• Past Investments & Current
Conditions
• Draft Project Portfolio
• Community Input & Discussion
Above Image: Berkeley & East Bay Cityscape.
3 When infrastructure fails, the impacts don’t stay in one place.
Berkeley relies on interconnected
systems:
_
• Pathways and sidewalks connect daily life
• Community spaces support health and
belonging
• Public safety facilities protect lives
• Waterfront and climate infrastructure
protects neighborhoods
A citywide approach helps prevent
closures,
service loss, and higher costs.
Infrastructure
Need
Berkeley’s Infrastructure Needs
4 What We Maintain(abridged version):
• 42,000 trees;
• 300+ miles of sidewalks;
• 215 miles of streets;
• 53 miles of bicycle infrastructure;
• 54 parks;
• 95 buildings;
• 63 play areas;
• 38 public restrooms;
• 5 community centers;
• 3 resident camps; and
• 2 pools...and more!
_
Much of this infrastructure is 75+ years old.
_
Current estimates:
• $1.65–$2B in unfunded infrastructure and deferred
maintenance citywide.
Infrastructure
Portfolio
Berkeley’s Infrastructure Needs
Above Image: Infrastructure Inventory Graphic from 25-26 City of Berkeley CIP Book.
How Does the City Fund Infrastructure?
5 Annual funding is not enough to address infrastructure and deferred maintenance.
Reliance on one-time, restricted, and voter-approved sourcesmakes long-term planning difficult.
Berkeley’s Infrastructure Needs
Permanent /
Ongoing
General Fund
• ~$2.4M per
year
• ~$9.9M for
Streets
One-Time /
Volatile
One-Time
Revenues
•P r o p e r t y
Transfer Tax
(>$16M)
• Interest
Income (
above $6M)
Restricted by
Use
Restricted
Revenues
• Streets
•S e w e r
•S t o r m w a t e r
• Streetlights
•M a r i n a
Voter-
Approved
Local Measures
•P a r c e l T a x e s
(Parks,
Measure FF
– 2020 &
2024)
• Bonds
(Measures M
& T1)
External
Grants
•F e d e r a l
• State
• Private
T1 $100M bond
+ leveraged
$83M grants =
$183M total
6 Infrastructure
Funding Gaps
*NOTE
AMOUNTS ARE ESTIMATES FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
Available Funding $40,998,776.00 $37,727, 476.00 $36,664,976.00 Anticipated FF Funds $15,000,000.00 $15,000, 000.00 $15,000,000.00 Projected T1 Spend down $12,001,652.00 $7,649,576.00 $0.00 Capital & Maint. Need $1,831,954,652.58 $1,868, 593,745.63 $1,905,965,620.54 Current funding covers just ~2% of need,
leaving a 98% structural shortfall.
Berkeley’s Infrastructure Needs
Capital Need
$1.87B
Funding Available
FY 27–29 Average:
$38.9M *
* $38.9M reflects General Fund, one-time, and restricted revenues, Measure FF & T1 Spend down Projections not included in this amount.
Above Image: City of Berkeley Capital Projects Team
When Infrastructure Investment Is Delayed
7 Asset Impacts
Cost Impacts
Infrastructure wears down faster
Safety and access risks increase
Service disruptions are more common
Construction costs continue to rise
Funding supports fewer projects
Delays lead to higher long-term costs
Delaying investment leads to greater risks and higher long-term costs Berkeley’s Infrastructure Needs
Past Investments (Measure T1 Highlights)
8 Willard Clubhouse
North Berkeley Senior Center
Marina Roadway
Berkeley Rose Garden
Past Investments & Current Conditions
Telegraph Public Restroom
Adult Mental Health Center
Sidewalk Improvements
Park Improvements
e.g. San Pablo Park
Potential Future Project Investments
9 Past Investments & Current Conditions
Crosswalk Improvements to
Major Intersections
More ADA Parking Spaces
e.g. Strawberry Creek Park
Repair and Improvements to
Veterans Building
Repair and Improvements to
Maudelle Shirek (Old City Hall)
Repair and Improvements to
Marina Docks Timber
Repair and Improvements to
Berkeley Waterfront Bay Trail
Improvements to Playgrounds
e.g. Glendale La Loma Park
Repair and Improvements to
Public Safety Facilities
10 _
Expanded & Reliable Services
• New and improved programs
• Spaces that support reliable services
• _
Improved Safety
• Seismic and facility improvements
• Safer buildings and emergency readiness
_
• _
Improved Access & Capacity
• ADA upgrades and modernized spaces
• Facilities serve more people
_
• _
Environmental Sustainability & Resilience
• Green and stormwater improvements
• Energy-efficient systems and lower long-term costs
Capital investments support people, programs,
and services — not just buildings. Infrastructure
ROI
Above Images: Maudelle Shirek Building current state (top) & Interior Rendering with repair and expansion (bottom)
11 Project
Portfolio
How projects* were evaluated and prioritized:
Community use and equity
• Is there equitable community benefit?
Geographic balance
• Are projects fairly distributed across districts?
Public health and safety
• Does the project improve safety or well-being?
Infrastructure resilience
• Will the investment deliver long-term value?
Deliverability and readiness
• Is the project ready to move forward?
External funding potential
• Can the project leverage grants or other funding?
*Applied within a $100M per-category cap ($300M total).
Above Images: Veterans Building Current State (top) & Interior Rendering with repair and programming possibilities (bottom) 12 Project
Themes
Community Facilities & Quality of Life
Parks, playgrounds, restrooms, aquatics, dog parks,
cultural centers and waterfront improvements.
Public Safety
Fire station modernization and critical upgrades
to essential emergency-response facilities.
Critical Infrastructure & Accessibility
Core systems and facilities that require seismic
upgrades or repairs – Civic Center (i.e.,
Maudelle
Shirek Building) improvements, ADA, 50/50
program sidewalk projects.
Draft Project Portfolio
13 Community
Facilities
Above Images: Glendale La Loma Park older play equipment and sand surfacing (bottom) alongside San Pablo Park with recent playground and safety improvements (top).
Lead Projects
¾ Modernization of high-use community
hubs
• Frances Albrier Community Center
• King Pool & Locker Room
• Harrison Field
• Live Oak Courts & Lighting
• San Pablo Sports Field
• Citywide Dog Parks –
4-6 Sites
• Park Upgrades:
Codornices Park • Glendale La Loma Park • Harrison Park • Cedar Rose Park • Cesar Chavez Park
Draft Project Portfolio
Proposed Project List | Community Facilities Highlight
14 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Community Facilities • Climate Resiliency • ADA
Bond Allocation
• $30M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Only major community center not rebuilt or seismically upgraded.
• High-use facility at San Pablo Park needs modernization. • New center will support daily programs and serve as a community resilience hub in emergencies.
Readiness
• Concept design complete; construction ~36 months
after funding
Frances Albrier Community Center
Before: Aging Facility, Current State of Frances Albrier Community Center (FACC) After: Modern Community & Resilience Center, Concept Design of FACC (Siegel & Strain Architects)
Proposed Project List | Community Facilities Highlight
15 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Quality of Life Improvements • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $500k - $750k each (100% of project; potential Parks
Tax support)
Why This Project
• Replaces aging restrooms with smart restroom facilities. • Improves safety, accessibility, and growing demand.
Readiness
• Construction could begin ~12 months after funding
Park Restrooms
Cedar Rose, Codornices, Harrison, and Cesar Chavez Parks Before: Example of open cinderblock restroom at Codornices Park (left) and temporary restrooms at Cesar Chavez Park (right)
After: Example of permanent restroom (concept rendering from Exeloo Corporation) 16 Quality of Life
Above Images: Bay Trail showing pavement damage (bottom left) alongside sections that have received recent improvements (top right).
Lead Projects
_
¾ Neighborhood parks, open space,
waterfront access, and climate resilience
• Adeline Corridor Open Space
• Aquatic Park –
Dreamland Area Improvements
• Cesar Chavez Park – Pathway
• Marina Docks – Timber Pile Replacement
• Sea Level Rise – Bay Trail/Marina Blvd
• Sea Level Rise – University Ave Bike Park
• South Cove Seawall Replacement
• University Ave / Seawall Dr / Bay Trail /
Plaza
Draft Project Portfolio
Proposed Project List | Quality of Life Highlight
17 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Community & Park Amenities • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $2.1M (25% match; leverages grants & Parks Tax)
Why This Project
• Implements a community-approved plan to improve a
heavily used waterfront play area.
• Upgrades playgrounds, drainage, picnic areas, restrooms, and parking.
Readiness
• Concept design complete; construction ~18 months
after funding
Aquatic Park – Dreamland Area
Before: Aging Playground
After: Improved Waterfront Play Area, Concept Design of Dreamland (RRM Design Group) Proposed Project List | Quality of Life Highlight
18 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Climate Resiliency • Revenue-Generating Asset
Bond Allocation
• $6M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Replaces failed timber piles that damage docks and
private boats, taking marina slips out of service.
• Builds on Phase 1 to replace remaining at-risk piles with durable concrete piles designed to last 50+ years and
withstand sea level rise.
Readiness
• Near shovel-ready; construction could begin ~12–15
months after funding
Marina Docks Timber Replacement
Before: Decayed timber piles
After: New long-life concrete piles
Proposed Project List | Quality of Life Highlight
19 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Climate Resiliency • Recreation Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $5M (100% of project; limited grant eligibility)
Why This Project
• Prevents failure of a corroded seawall that supports boat hoists and the Bay Trail at South Cove.
• Protects public access and marina operations from
closure due to structural failure.
Readiness
• Preliminary studies underway; construction could begin ~36 months after funding
South Cove Sailing Basin
Seawall Replacement
Before: Corroded, deteriorating seawall
After: New, resilient seawall with sheet pile wall and enforcement structures 20 Public Safety
Above Images: Water damage from roof leaks at PSB (top
left) and failing HVAC at Fire Station 5 (bottom right).
Lead Projects
_
_
_
¾ 911 Dispatch Center: 2100 MLK Jr. Way
• Expansion and modernization
¾ Fire Station 4: 1900 Marin Ave
• Full replacement, expansion
¾ Fire Station 6: 999 Cedar Street
• Remodel, potential move to new Fire HQ
¾ Fire Training Center: 997 Cedar Street
• Relocate and modernize training center
Draft Project Portfolio
Proposed Project List | Public Safety Highlight
21 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Public Safety Infrastructure
Bond Allocation
• $4M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Modernizes the 911 Dispatch Center to handle rising call volumes and aging infrastructure.
• Expands the operations floor and upgrades technology, HVAC, training, and wellness spaces to support readiness and staff retention.
Readiness
• Needs assessment complete; ready for design
Dispatch Center Improvements
Before: Constrained, outdated dispatch workspace
After: Modernized, efficient 911 operations center (concept rendering) Proposed Project List | Public Safety Highlight
22 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Public Safety Infrastructure
Bond Allocation
• $28M (100% of project; limited grant eligibility)
Why This Project
• The current fire training facility is undersized, outdated, and located in a residential area.
• A new, purpose-built training center is needed to
support modern training, scheduling, and parking needs
for the Fire Department.
Readiness
• Early planning complete; construction timeline
dependent on full funding
Fire Training Center Replacement
Before: Constrained, outdated training site, including water damage (right image) After: Concept Drawing of a purpose-built modern fire training center
Proposed Project List | Public Safety Highlight
23 Past Investments & Current Conditions
Training center
in a residential
neighborhood,
undersized and
does not
support the
modern mission
Apparatus are parked
inches away from roll up
doors, creating narrow
spaces for personnel to
circulate
To we r s , o n c e
necessary for
drying cotton
hoses, are
now obsolete
Exercise equipment is
typically set up adjacent
to apparatus and
personal protective
equipment (or PPE) that
off-gas diesel fumes and
known carcinogens
24 Critical
Infrastructure
Lead Projects
_
¾ Upgrades of two buildings to advance
the Civic Center Vision and
Implementation Plan
• Maudelle Shirek Building (2134 MLK Jr.)
• Veterans Memorial Building (1931 Center)
¾ Modernization of high use civic
facilities
• MLK Jr. Civic Center Building (2180 Milvia)
• Public Safety Center (2100 MLK Jr.)
• Berkeley Animal Shelter (1 Bolivar Dr.)
• MLK Jr. Civic Center Annex (1947 Center)
Above Images:Exterior facades of deferred maintenance at Maudelle Shirek (Old City Hall) Building.
Draft Project Portfolio
Proposed Project List | Critical Infrastructure Highlight 25 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Quality of Life • Climate Resiliency •
ADA • Community Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $6.7M (20%–100% of total project cost)
Why This Project
• Seismically upgrades Berkeley's first landmark that
predates modern codes and is currently closed to the
public due to safety risks.
• Restores the building for civic use with accessible
hearing rooms, meeting spaces, and community uses.
Readiness
• Concept design complete; FEMA grant pending
Maudelle Shirek Building (Old City Hall)
Before: Seismically vulnerable historic Old City Hall
After: Civic building for public use, with ADA upgrades; Concept rendering Proposed Project List | Critical Infrastructure Highlight 26 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Historic Preservation • Quality of Life • Community Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $13.9M (20%–100% of total project cost)
Why This Project
• Strengthens a historic building currently closed for assemblies due to seismic safety concerns.
• Future use as a community arts and cultural center with performance, rehearsal, gallery and gathering spaces for Berkeley's cultural and artistic groups.
Readiness
• Concept design complete; FEMA grant pending
Veterans Memorial Building
Before: Seismically unsafe, underutilized historic building After: Stabilized facility ready for arts and community use
27 Accessibility
Above Images: Examples of changes in level (elevations) on sidewalks that require improvements
Lead Projects
_
¾ Citywide ADA accessibility
improvements
• Remove sidewalk trip hazards
• Fix crosswalk mobility barriers
• Upgrade non-compliant curb ramps
¾ Fund 50/50 Program Sidewalk Projects
• Repair lifted and damaged sidewalks
• Prevent future hazards
Draft Project Portfolio
Proposed Project List | Accessibility Highlight
28 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Pedestrian / Accessibility • Facilities
Bond Allocation
• $4.3M (100% of project; no alternative funding sources) Why This Project
• Addresses a Citywide backlog of ADA accessibility
barriers identified in the ADA Transition Plan.
• Funds upgrades to paths of travel, restrooms, signage, and building access to improve compliance and access
for people with disabilities.
Readiness
• Projects identified; implementation can begin as funding becomes available
ADA Barrier Removal Projects
Before: On-street accessible parking with blocked sidewalk access, creating barriers for wheelchair users and pedestrians.
After: Accessible parking with clear sidewalk access (PROWAG-compliant).
Proposed Project List | Accessibility Highlight
29 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Pedestrian Safety • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $14M (50% of Bond Funding Requested for Sidewalk
Repair Backlog)
Why This Project
• Advances public safety and ADA compliance by reducing the City’s sidewalk repair backlog.
• Scales up the existing cost-share program to accelerate repairs citywide.
Readiness
• Ongoing program; shovel-ready and ready to scale
immediately
50/50 Sidewalk Program
Before: Damaged sidewalks and long repair waitlist
After: Safer, accessible sidewalks delivered faster citywide Illustrative Timeline
City Council to
discuss possible
revenue measures
and questions to be
included
Dec 2, 2025
Launch community
engagement
If needed, Council gives
additional direction on
proposed measure(s)
and options for funding
mechanisms (1/27/26)
Jan 2026
First survey
development,
including meetings
with staff, survey to
field
Feb 2026
Presentation and
discussion of first
community survey
results; Council refines
which issues deserve
additional testing with
more focused language
Mar 17, 2026
Possible second
survey
April 2026
Presentation and
discussion of second
community survey
results and direction
about next steps
May 19, 2026
Draft ballot
language to Council
(from May 2026
direction)
June 2026
Revised draft ballot
language to Council
July 2026
Adopt final ballot
language and
resolutions placing
measures on the
ballot; Last Council
meeting before recess
July 28, 2026
Last day to place a
Measure on the
Ballot
Aug 7, 2026
30 2026 Community Survey: Ballot Measures
31 We’re asking for input on:
_
Community Input & Discussion
Input &
Discussion
What would
create the
greatest long-
term benefit
for Berkeley?
Where would
investment most
improve access
and equity?
What needs or
communities are
missing?
Which projects
feel most
urgent?
Most
Urgent
What’s
Missing
Long-
term
Benefit
Access
&
Equity
Scan the QR Code to
visit our website and
stay connected!
Funding Measure: General Obligation (GO) Bond
Projected average tax rate for a new $300M GO Bond—when combined with existing authorizations—remains below historical levels and is estimated at $44 per $100,000 in assessed value.
32 Projected average tax rate for a
existing authorizations—remain
a new $300M GO Bond—when
ns below historical levels and is
n combined with
se s t i m a t e dat $44existing authorizations remain
per $100,000 in assessed value
ns below historical levels and is
.
s estimated at $44What a GO Bond Is What it Funds Examples • Requires two-thirds
voter approval
• Long-term financing for
capital projects
• Repaid through property
taxes
• Typically repaid over ~30
years
• Capital only (no
operating costs)
• Facility modernization
and replacement
• Safety and climate-
resilience projects
• Buildings & facilities
• Streets & transportation
safety
• Parks, pools, and
recreation
• Stormwater and
waterfront projects
Berkeley’s Infrastructure: A Community Conversation
Appendix A: Proposed Project List
(Comprehensive)
Proposed Project List | Highlights
Proposed Project List | Highlights
34 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Fire Facilities • Public Safety Infrastructure
Bond Allocation
• $48M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Replaces an undersized 1960-era station no longer able to support current staffing or operational needs.
• Supports expanded staffing and future ambulance service recommended by the CityGate Standards of Coverage
Study.
Readiness
• Conceptual layout complete; recommended option is full replacement on expanded site
Fire Station No. 4 Replacement
Before: Current station
After: Modern station (concept design)
Proposed Project List | Highlights
35 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Fire Facilities • Public Safety Infrastructure
Bond Allocation
• $22M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Upgrades a 1960s-era station that no longer meets
current staffing and operational needs.
• Supports an additional firefighter per shift with updated sleeping, turnout storage, office, and fitness space.
Readiness
• Conceptual layout complete; renovation & expansion
recommended
Fire Station No. 6 Improvements
Before: Current station
After: Modern station (concept design)
Proposed Project List | Highlights
36 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Public Safety Infrastructure
Bond Allocation
• $4M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Modernizes the 911 Dispatch Center to handle rising call volumes and aging infrastructure.
• Expands the operations floor and upgrades technology, HVAC, training, and wellness spaces to support readiness and staff retention.
Readiness
• Needs assessment complete; ready for design
Dispatch Center Improvements
Before: Constrained, outdated dispatch workspace
After: Modernized, efficient 911 operations center (concept rendering)
Proposed Project List | Public Safety Highlight
37 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Public Safety Infrastructure
Bond Allocation
• $28M (100% of project; limited grant eligibility)
Why This Project
• The current fire training facility is undersized, outdated, and located in a residential area.
• A new, purpose-built training center is needed to
support modern training, scheduling, and parking needs
for the Fire Department.
Readiness
• Early planning complete; construction timeline
dependent on full funding
Fire Training Center Replacement
Before: Constrained, outdated training site, including water damage (right image) After: Concept Drawing of a purpose-built modern fire training center Proposed Project List | Highlights
38 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Community Facilities • Climate Resiliency • ADA
Bond Allocation
• $30M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Only major community center not rebuilt or seismically upgraded.
• High-use facility at San Pablo Park needs modernization. • New center will support daily programs and serve as a community resilience hub in emergencies.
Readiness
• Concept design complete; construction ~36 months
after funding
Frances Albrier Community Center
Before: Aging Facility, Current State of Frances Albrier Community Center (FACC) After: Modern Community & Resilience Center, Concept Design (Siegel & Strain Architects)
Proposed Project List | Highlights
39 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Community Facilities • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $25M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Replaces aging pools and locker rooms with a modern,
competition-capable 25-meter facility.
• Improves safety, accessibility, and long-term usability for community and youth programs.
Readiness
• Construction could begin ~24 months after funding
King Pool (& Locker Room) Improvements
Before: Aging pool and locker rooms
After: Modern 25m pool and
updated facilities
Proposed Project List | Highlights
40 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Quality of Life Improvements • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $6M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Funds design and construction of 4 new or expanded
Open Space areas within the Adeline Corridor Plan
south of Ashby Avenue to expand park access in an
equity priority area.
Readiness
• Construction could begin ~24 months after funding
Adeline Corridor Open Space
Proposed Project List | Highlights
41 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Quality of Life Improvements • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $500k - $750k each (100% of project; potential Parks
Tax support)
Why This Project
• Replaces aging restrooms with smart restroom facilities. • Improves safety, accessibility, and growing demand.
Readiness
• Construction could begin ~12 months after funding
Park Restrooms
Cedar Rose, Codornices, Harrison, and Cesar Chavez Parks Before: Example of open cinderblock restroom at Codornices Park (left) and temporary restrooms at Cesar Chavez Park (right)
After: Example of permanent restroom (concept rendering from Exeloo Corporation) Proposed Project List | Highlights
42 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Community & Park Amenities • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $2.1M (20% match; leverages grants & Parks Tax)
Why This Project
• Implements a community-approved plan to improve a
heavily used waterfront play area.
• Upgrades playgrounds, drainage, picnic areas, restrooms, and parking.
Readiness
• Concept design complete; construction ~18 months
after funding
Aquatic Park – Dreamland Area
Before: Aging Playground
After: Improved Waterfront Play Area, Concept Design of Dreamland (RRM Design Group)
Proposed Project List | Highlights
43 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Park Amenities • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $2.5M (100% of project; potential Parks Tax support)
Why This Project
• Modernizes the heavily used 2–5 play area to meet
current safety and ADA accessibility standards.
• Improves play structure, paths, site furnishings, fencing, and overall access.
Readiness
• Concept design complete; construction ~12 months
after funding
Cedar Rose Park – 2–5 Play Structure
Before: Existing Condition of Park and Play Structure
After: Modern, Updated Play Area, Concept Design (Base Landscape Architecture) Proposed Project List | Highlights
44 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Park Amenities • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $3.5M (100% of project; potential Parks Tax)
Why This Project
• Modernizes play areas, parking, and pathways to improve safety and ADA access.
• Reimagines the 2–5 and 5–12 play areas, site furnishings, and circulation.
Readiness
• Concept design in progress; construction ~18 months
after funding
Glendale LaLoma Park Improvements
Before: Existing park conditions
After: Concept design of upgraded park (RRM Design Group)
Proposed Project List | Highlights
45 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Park Amenities • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $2.5M (100% of project; potential Parks Tax support)
Why This Project
• Adds 4–6 new dog parks citywide to meet strong
community demand.
• Includes fencing, seating, utilities, signage, and ADA improvements.
Readiness
• Construction could begin ~12 months after funding
Dog Parks – City Wide
Before: Limited, off-leash, dog areas -- César Chávez
Park pictured (Photo Credit: Beth LaBerge/KQED)
After: New, accessible dog parks across Berkeley (example pictured Ohlone Dog Park) Proposed Project List | Highlights
46 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Sports Facilities • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $6M (100% of project; potential Parks Tax)
Why This Project
• Replaces failing natural turf to double field capacity and reduce maintenance closures.
• Supports more reliable, year-round field use.
Readiness
• Construction could begin ~24 months after funding
Harrison Field: Conversion to Artificial Turf
Before: Existing field conditions
After: Example of Synthetic Turf System with Cork Infill
Proposed Project List | Highlights
47 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Sports Facilities • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $3M (66% of project; potential Parks Tax)
Why This Project
• Levels basketball courts, converts the soccer practice field to turf, and upgrades lighting.
• Improves safety, field quality, and evening access for community use.
Readiness
• Construction could begin ~24 months after funding
Live Oak Park Improvements
Before: Aerial view of Live Oak -- Uneven courts and limited lighting After: Example of improved courts, turf field, and upgraded lighting, (concept rendering) Proposed Project List | Highlights
49 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Recreation Amenities • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $3M (60% of project; potential Parks Tax and/or State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) grant)
Why This Project
• Repairs the 1.5-mile perimeter path to address
deteriorated pavement and drainage issues.
Readiness
• Near shovel-ready; construction ~24 months after
funding
Cesar Chavez Park Improvements
Before: Current conditions of pathway perimeters for Cesar Chavez Park
Proposed Project List | Highlights
50 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Climate Resiliency • Accessibility • Recreation Amenities Bond Allocation
• $1.9M (50% of project; climate scope grant-eligible)
Why This Project
• Rebuilds failing, narrow trail segments to safely serve high volumes of walkers and cyclists.
• Addresses shoreline erosion and frequent flooding at
Virginia Street Extension that cuts off access to Cesar Chavez Park during king tides.
Readiness
• Preliminary design and environmental review funded;
construction ~24–30 months after funding
Marina Blvd
Shoreline Resiliency & Public Access
Before: Flood-prone trails and eroding pathways
Proposed Project List | Highlights
51 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Climate Resiliency • Revenue-Generating Asset
Bond Allocation
• $6M (100% of project)
Why This Project
• Replaces failed timber piles that damage docks and
private boats, taking marina slips out of service.
• Builds on Phase 1 to replace remaining at-risk piles with durable concrete piles designed to last 50+ years and
withstand sea level rise.
Readiness
• Near shovel-ready; construction could begin ~12–15
months after funding
Marina Docks Timber Replacement
Before: Decayed timber piles
After: New long-life concrete piles
Proposed Project List | Highlights
52 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Climate Resiliency • Recreation Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $5M (100% of project; limited grant eligibility)
Why This Project
• Prevents failure of a corroded seawall that supports boat hoists and the Bay Trail at South Cove.
• Protects public access and marina operations from
closure due to structural failure.
Readiness
• Preliminary studies underway; construction could begin ~36 months after funding
Seawall Drive Bay Trail Improvements
Before: Corroded, deteriorating seawall
After: Example of Bay Trail Improvements at Berkeley Marina Proposed Project List | Highlights
53 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Climate Resiliency • Recreation Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $5M (100% of project; limited grant eligibility)
Why This Project
• Prevents failure of a corroded seawall that supports boat hoists and the Bay Trail at South Cove.
• Protects public access and marina operations from
closure due to structural failure.
Readiness
• Preliminary studies underway; construction could begin ~36 months after funding
South Cove Sailing Basin
Seawall Replacement
Before: Corroded, deteriorating seawall
After: New, resilient seawall with sheet pile wall and enforcement structures
Proposed Project List | Highlights
54 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Climate Resiliency • Recreation Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $2.75M (50% of project; climate scope grant-eligible) Why This Project
• Protects University Avenue from flooding and storm
surge that threaten critical roadway access, utilities, and nearby wetlands.
• Activates newly converted open space with a
community-designed bike park.
Readiness
• Construction could begin ~36 months after funding
University Avenue
Sea Level Rise Protection & Bike Park
Before: Flood-prone trail
After: Resilient shoreline protection and bike park (concept design) Proposed Project List | Highlights
55 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Pedestrian Safety • Accessibility
Bond Allocation
• $14M (50% of Bond Funding Requested for Sidewalk
Repair Backlog)
Why This Project
• Advances public safety and ADA compliance by reducing the City’s sidewalk repair backlog.
• Scales up the existing cost-share program to accelerate repairs citywide.
Readiness
• Ongoing program; shovel-ready and ready to scale
immediately
50/50 Sidewalk Program
Before: Damaged sidewalks and long repair waitlist
After: Safer, accessible sidewalks delivered faster citywide
Proposed Project List | Highlights
56 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Pedestrian / Accessibility • Facilities
Bond Allocation
• $4.3M (100% of project; no alternative funding sources) Why This Project
• Addresses a Citywide backlog of ADA accessibility
barriers identified in the ADA Transition Plan.
• Funds upgrades to paths of travel, restrooms, signage, and building access to improve compliance and access
for people with disabilities.
Readiness
• Projects identified; implementation can begin as funding becomes available
ADA Barrier Removal Projects
Before: On-street accessible parking with blocked sidewalk access, creating barriers for wheelchair users and pedestrians.
After: Accessible parking with clear sidewalk access (PROWAG-compliant).
Proposed Project List | Highlights
57 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Health Facilities/ Critical Infrastructure • Accessibility Bond Allocation
• $3.25M (City share; ~40% of $8M total, pending State
grant)
Why This Project
• Replaces an aging, inaccessible building with a certifiable mental health facility to expand outpatient services.
• Adds treatment rooms and group space to nearly double capacity for Medi-Cal beneficiaries and vulnerable
residents.
Readiness
• Schematic design complete; State grant decision
expected Summer 2026
Berkeley Mental Health – Facility Improvements
Before: Aging, inaccessible facility with limited capacity After: Safer, new clinic with expanded treatment and group space (concept rendering)
Proposed Project List | Highlights
58 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Quality of Life • Climate Resiliency •
ADA • Community Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $2M (100% of total project cost)
Why This Project
• Replaces roof, HVAC, drainage, electrical, and plumbing systems and includes programmatic updates to improve
operational efficiency and animal care conditions at the Dona Springs Animal Shelter.
Readiness
• HVAC and roofing assessment reports completed;
construction could begin ~24 months after funding is
secured
Animal Services Facility Modernization
Before: Current exterior and interior of Berkeley Animal Shelter Proposed Project List | Highlights
59 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Quality of Life • Climate Resiliency •
ADA • Community Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $3.9M (100% of total project cost; combined with
$5.5M Measure T1 Phase 2 seismic retrofit project)
Why This Project
• Replaces end-of-life HVAC systems to ensure reliable
cooling, improve energy efficiency, and support
continued operations at the South Berkeley Senior
Center.
Readiness
• Permitting underway for the T1 seismic project;
Construction could begin ~18 months after funding.
South Berkeley Senior Center Improvements
Before: Existing boiler and water heating system (electric heat pump replacement underway in 2026). South Berkeley Senior Center exterior.
Proposed Project List | Highlights
60 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Quality of Life • Climate Resiliency •
ADA • Community Amenities
.
Bond Allocation
• $6.5M (100% of total project cost)
• .
Why This Project
• Repairs aging building systems and upgrades HVAC,
electrical, seismic, and ADA features to modernize the
West Berkeley Family Wellness Center and improve
safety, accessibility, and service delivery.
Readiness
• Preliminary facility assessment completed. Construction could begin ~42 months after funding.
West Berkeley Family Wellness Center
Modernization
Before: Current exterior of West Berkeley Family Wellness Center Proposed Project List | Highlights
61 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Historic Preservation • Climate Resiliency • ADA • Community Services
Bond Allocation
• $18.3M (100% of total project cost)
Why This Project
• Modernizes aging building systems, including seismic, HVAC, electrical, elevator, and ADA upgrades, to
improve safety, accessibility, and reliability for a major City services hub.
Readiness
• Building system assessments completed; Construction
could begin ~36 months after funding.
City Offices & Permit Center (1947 Center)
Improvements
Before: Current exterior and interior of 1947 Center Street
Proposed Project List | Highlights
62 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Quality of Life • Climate Resiliency •
ADA • Community Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $11.7M (100% of total project cost)
Why This Project
• Replaces end-of-life mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and addresses hazardous materials,
waterproofing, and ADA upgrades at Berkeley City Hall.
Readiness
• Building system assessments completed; construction
could begin ~36 months after funding.
City Hall (2180 Milvia) Improvements
Before: Current exterior and interior of 2180 Milvia, subject to leaks Proposed Project List | Highlights
63 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Public Safety • Climate Resiliency •
ADA • Essential Services
Bond Allocation
• $8.4M (100% of total project cost)
Why This Project
• Modernizes building systems and internal spaces at the Public Safety Building to support reliable 24-hour
emergency services, including HVAC, electrical, roofing, security, and ADA upgrades.
Readiness
• Building system assessments underway; construction
could begin ~36 months after funding.
Public Safety Building (2100 MLK)
Improvements
Before: Current exterior and interior of Public Safety Building (2100 MLK)
Proposed Project List | Highlights
64 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Historic Preservation • Climate Resiliency • ADA • Community Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $6.7M (20%–100% of total project cost)
Why This Project
• Seismically upgrades Berkeley's first landmark that
predates modern codes and is currently closed to the
public due to safety risks.
• Restores the building for civic use with accessible
hearing rooms, meeting spaces, and community uses.
Readiness
• Concept design complete; FEMA grant pending
Maudelle Shirek Building (Old City Hall)
Before: Seismically vulnerable historic Old City Hall
After: Civic building for public use, with ADA upgrades; Concept rendering Proposed Project List | Highlights
65 Proposed Project List | Highlights
Category
• Facilities • Historic Preservation • Quality of Life • Community Amenities
Bond Allocation
• $13.9M (20%–100% of total project cost)
Why This Project
• Strengthens a historic building currently closed for assemblies due to seismic safety concerns.
• Future use as a community arts and cultural center with performance, rehearsal, gallery and gathering spaces for Berkeley's cultural and artistic groups.
Readiness
• Concept design complete; FEMA grant pending
Veterans Memorial Building
Before: Seismically unsafe, underutilized historic building After: Stabilized facility ready for arts and community use
Parks and Waterfront
Commission INFORMATION CALENDAR
April 14, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission
Submitted by: Carrie Rybczynski, Vice-Chair, Park, Recreation and Waterfront Commission
Subject: Bond Measure Subcommittee — Final Report
INTRODUCTION
The Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront (PRW) Commission is responsible for reviewing and advising the City Council on the policies, projects, planning efforts, activities, funding, and the physical condition of parks, pools, camps, recreation centers, the Marina, and public greenery.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Over the past two months, the PRW subcommittee on the 2026 bond measure has participated in the community process for the 2026 bond measure and has produced a report that evaluates the proposed bond program. In addition, the PRW subcommittee on potential dog park locations has produced a report with preliminary recommendations.
At its regular meeting on March 11, 2026, the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission took action to send the two reports to Council as an Information Item: M/S/C:
Stewart/Nash/U) Ayes: Muszynski; Nash; Philips; Rybcynski; Stewart. Noes: None;
Absent: None.
Attachments:
1: Bond Measure Subcommittee — Final Report
2: PRWC Dog Park Subcommittee Recommendations
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
22
ATTACHMENT 1
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission
Bond Measure Subcommittee — Final Report
Prepared by: Leigh Stewart, Mary Muszynski, Ben Nash
Date: March 11, 2026
To: Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission, for transmittal to City Council
1. Summary
Berkeley has approximately $1.65 billion in unfunded capital liabilities, including roughly $340 million for Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront alone.[^1] Construction costs continue to rise. A $300 million infrastructure bond is the right response — and the city has done serious work to get it right.
The City contracted with a professional survey company to conduct a 500-resident poll, held community meetings, consulted six commissions, and convened four focus groups with targeted constituencies. The $300 million figure polled at 72% support — stronger, notably, than $200 million.[^2] The defined-project-list approach directly addresses what went wrong with Measure L, which failed at 59% in 2022 after being criticized as too large, too vague, and too bundled.[^3] There is appetite for this.
This report focuses on the 20 PRW projects ($107.6 million) and offers five recommendations:
clarify the pool strategy, improve selection transparency, strengthen climate framing, reconsider the Civic Center allocation, and address the Southeast Berkeley gap.
The commission enthusiastically supports this bond — the need, the process, and the great majority of the project list. We want it to pass. The recommendations below are offered in that spirit — we believe addressing them will strengthen the bond and improve its chances with voters.
2. PRW Project Review
The subcommittee has reviewed all 20 PRW projects through meetings with the PRW Director, community outreach sessions, subcommittee discussion, and review of the December 2 staff report and supporting materials. Below is our assessment of each project.
Community Facilities
Frances Albrier Community Center — $30M. This is a major community facility serving West Berkeley. Based on resident feedback and commissioner input, this is one of the strongest items on the list.
King Pool & Locker Room Replacement — $25M. The pool itself is needed — King is an
outdated 1960s facility. However, the subcommittee has concerns about the pool strategy that go beyond this single line item. The city does not own the land at King; it sits on BUSD property. The question is not just whether to upgrade King, but whether the city's overall pool plan is resilient — particularly given the risk of leaving the flats with no pool at all. See Section 3A.
Shoreline & Sea Level Rise
South Cove Seawall — $5M. Critical infrastructure. As the PRW Director noted in discussions with the subcommittee, if this seawall fails — which he described as a real risk given its condition — the entire landmass where the sailing clubs operate becomes unusable, and the city would have to fund repairs later at higher cost.[^4] The shoreline projects are well-positioned for state and federal matching grants. Measure T1 demonstrated this model: $100 million in bond funds leveraged an additional $80 million in grants, producing over $183 million in total infrastructure investment.[^1]
University Ave / Seawall Dr / Bay Trail / Plaza — $5M. Supports climate resilience and sea level rise adaptation. Highly competitive for existing state grants.
Marina Docks Timber Pile Replacement — $6M. Critical for maintaining the marina as a revenue source for the Waterfront. This is a deferred maintenance that is not eligible for known grants or Parks Tax — it can only be funded through general fund or bond or the Marina Fund.[^5] Marina Blvd Sea Level Rise & Bay Trail — $1.9M. Climate resilience infrastructure that protects access to the north side of the Waterfront, Cesar Chavez Park, and prevents SLR damage to important commercial tenants (Doubletree, Marine Center, and berth slips). Highly competitive for existing state grants.
University Ave Sea Level Rise – Bike Park — $2.75M. Supports climate goals and adds a new Bike Park (on newly-vacant land) and has gone through an extensive community planning process . Highly competitive for existing state grants.
Park Amenities & Open Space
Adeline Corridor Open Space — $6M. One of the strongest items on the list. South Berkeley is projected for significant residential growth and needs more green space as a matter of equity. In a landlocked city, opportunities to create new open space are rare — this is one of them. Per the PRW Director, a $825,000 federal earmark has already been secured for design.[^4] Glendale-La Loma Park Improvements — $3.5M. Safety and ADA improvements to playgrounds, parking lot, and pathways.[^5] Playstructure is close to 50 years old, needs replacement. Play structures are consistently among the highest-demand categories in community feedback, particularly popular with families.
Cesar Chavez Park Restroom & Pathway — $3M. This is a high-use waterfront park and it urgently needs a proper bathroom. The pathway has deteriorated significantly and does not meet current ADA accessible codes, and needs replacement. Only 60% of the project cost comes from the bond; the project is highly competitive for State Coastal Conservancy grants.[^5] Cedar Rose Play Structure — $2.5M. The play structure has not been replaced in almost three decades. Play structures are extremely popular with families — high-use, high-visibility
improvements that generate broad support.
Aquatic Park Dreamland Area — $2.1M. One of the best returns on bond investment. The full Dreamland project totals $8.4 million — including a bioswale, parking, restroom, and an expanded play area roughly 175% the size of the current one.[^4] The bond's $2.1 million serves as the 25% local match with over $6 million likely from a local developer.[^5] Very popular with families.
Dog Parks (4–6 sites citywide) — $2.5M. Dogs using regular parks creates significant conflict among residents. Dedicated dog parks are a relatively inexpensive way to address a real and widespread problem, and distributing sites citywide means broad benefit.
Restrooms: Cedar Rose ($500K), Codornices ($500K), Harrison ($750K) — $1.75M total.
Overdue bathroom replacements at well-used parks.[^5] Public restrooms are a critical basic service.
Sports Facilities
Harrison Field Turf Conversion — $6M. Strong community support. Harrison is a heavily used field; conversion to artificial turf would roughly double usable field capacity and significantly reduce maintenance and irrigation costs — and may increase revenue as well. Berkeley used to have a reputation for having the best sports fields in the region. It's important to keep investing here.
Live Oak Soccer/Basketball/Lighting — $3M. Needed modernization at a well-used facility — re- levels uneven basketball courts, converts soccer field to turf, and adds lighting.[^5] Popular with families and youth sports. 66% of the project cost comes from the bond; the remainder may be funded with Parks Tax.[^5]
San Pablo Sports Field Irrigation & Drainage — $1.6M. Critical system upgrade. Will significantly reduce maintenance and irrigation costs and allow this very popular, heavily used park to serve even more residents.
3. Recommendations
A. The pool strategy needs more work
The bond proposes upgrading King Pool for $25 million. Upgrading our existing pools is reasonable — but the current plan doesn't account for the fact that the city doesn't control any of its pool sites, and that creates real risk.
Both remaining city-operated pool sites — King and West Campus — sit on BUSD land.[^6] The city does not own any pool site. Willard has already been lost; BUSD reclaimed the site in 2010.
West Campus has only four years remaining on its lease, and BUSD could choose not to renew — as it did with Willard. King has 24 years on its lease, but the City Attorney requires a minimum 25- year lease for bond-funded construction, meaning the lease would need to be renegotiated before bond funds could be spent.[^4]
The Frances Albrier Community Center Replacement Project included an option for a 25-meter community pool with play elements.[^4] It is the only potential pool site where the city owns the land outright.
If West Campus is lost, the city could end up with only one pool — at King, in Northeast Berkeley, the area that already has the highest park density in the city. The flats would have no pool at all.
If the city is confident that both leases will be secure for the long term, then upgrading King is reasonable. But even in that case, the city should seriously consider building a pool at San Pablo Park. It would put aquatic infrastructure on city-owned land, and its location near Southeast Berkeley adds particular value — SE has the fewest city park facilities of any quadrant and zero PRW projects on the current bond list.
If there is any doubt about whether West Campus will be available for the next decade, then a pool at San Pablo Park is essential. Staff estimates suggest the cost difference between replacing King and building new at San Pablo would not justify the risk of depending entirely on BUSD's continued cooperation.
The PRW Director has had preliminary conversations with the BUSD superintendent, who indicated that the district has no current plans for the King or West Campus sites and is willing to discuss sale, trade, or longer leases.[^4] This is encouraging, but informal — it is not a binding commitment, and the history with Willard shows how quickly circumstances can change.
The city should have more confidence in its pool site agreements before going to voters. In particular, the commission urges Council to assess the long-term viability of the West Campus lease, given that losing it would leave King as the city's only pool.
B. The selection process needs more transparency
The December 2 staff report lists five selection criteria: health, life, and safety needs; critical infrastructure condition and accessibility; community use and equity; geographic distribution; and potential to leverage external or matching funds.[^1] These are good criteria. The problem is that the staff report does not document how the criteria were applied — no scoring, no weighting, no documented analysis of how individual projects were evaluated against each criterion. The PRW Director confirmed in discussions with the subcommittee that there was no formal scoring system.[^4]
This matters because when multiple reasonable criteria point in different directions — as they inevitably do — the lack of a transparent process makes it impossible to understand why certain trade-offs were made. Southeast Berkeley is one example — see Section 3E.
The commission recommends that Council document how the selection criteria were balanced or applied.
C. Climate framing is an opportunity
Many projects on the list have significant climate benefits — electrification, sea level rise protection, resilient infrastructure — but these are not being communicated to voters.
Polling shows that environmental and climate infrastructure is among the most popular categories with residents, while waterfront projects poll poorly.[^2] But waterfront projects are climate projects — the seawall, the Bay Trail, the sea level rise adaptation work. This is a communication gap that may be leaving support on the table.
The seawall is the clearest example: if it fails, the city loses an entire recreation area, disproportionately affecting users of low-cost activities like sailing and windsurfing — and then has to pay to fix it anyway, at higher cost. That's climate resilience, equity, and fiscal responsibility in one project.
Several shoreline projects in the bond list are also consistent with the regional shoreline adaptation planning now required by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, reinforcing their importance as long term climate resilience infrastructure.
Finally, many facility projects also involve electrification and gas removal. These climate benefits are real but invisible in the current framing.
The commission recommends that the city make the climate benefits of these projects visible to voters. This does not change the project list — it changes how the list is presented, and it aligns with what polls best.
D. Civic Center improvements are difficult to justify
Old City Hall and Veterans Memorial Building are included in the bond for seismic work. The commission has significant concerns about this allocation.
Community reaction to these projects has been consistently tepid to negative — met with skepticism at the Willard community meeting and across focus groups and commission consultations. These are closed buildings that are not currently serving the public.
The bond covers seismic work only. But seismic investment in closed buildings creates an implicit commitment to full rehabilitation, which would cost hundreds of millions more.[^4] This is not just a one-time expense — it is the first installment on a much larger obligation.
Berkeley has $1.65 billion in unfunded capital liabilities. PRW alone has a $340 million backlog.[^1] With that much deferred maintenance on active-use facilities — pools, playgrounds, parks that residents use every day — it is hard to see why seismic work on closed buildings should take priority.
These are Public Works projects, not PRW. But they share a ballot, and they affect whether the bond reaches the two-thirds threshold it needs. Voters who see money going to buildings they don't use may be harder to persuade on the rest of the bond.
The commission recommends that Council either provide a substantially stronger public justification for these projects — one that explains why they should take priority given the scale of unfunded needs elsewhere — or consider reallocating those funds to higher-impact items.
E. Southeast Berkeley deserves a closer look
Southeast Berkeley had the fewest city park facilities of any quadrant.[^7] BMC 6.42.020.C establishes a standard of two acres of parks and open space per 1,000 residents, with areas below that standard designated as high priority for investment. The Equitable Future report (2016), produced by this commission, documents the SE deficit in detail.[^7] It is not referenced in the staff report.
The word "southeast" does not appear anywhere in the 50-page staff report.[^1] Neither does "quadrant." No census tract analysis was performed. "Geographic distribution" appears exactly once — as a criterion name — with no supporting analysis.
The result is zero PRW projects in the quadrant with the fewest city park facilities. This is also consistent with a pattern: Measure T1 was similarly light on Southeast Berkeley improvements.
This may reflect legitimate trade-offs against other criteria — but without a transparent process, there is no way to know.
The commission recommends that Council specifically address the SE quadrant omission and explain how geographic distribution was weighed against other criteria in the selection process.
4. Conclusion
This bond is necessary and well-structured. The commission is enthusiastic about the vast majority of the PRW project list and believes this bond can and should pass. The recommendations above are intended to make it stronger — to close gaps in the pool strategy, improve transparency, sharpen the climate case, address geographic equity, and ensure every dollar on the ballot can be defended to voters. We urge Council to address these items before the bond goes to voters.
Sources
[^1]: City of Berkeley, "Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election," Staff Report, December 2, 2025. [^2]: Polling results presented by PRW Director to subcommittee, March 3, 2026. Results not yet public at time of writing; expected to be presented to Council March 17. [^3]: Ballotpedia, "Berkeley, California, Measure L, Housing and Infrastructure Bond Measure (November 2022)." 26,545 yes (59.42%) / 18,130 no (40.58%). [^4]: PRW Director Scott Ferris, in discussions with the subcommittee (January–March 2026). [^5]: City of Berkeley, "Discussion Regarding Potential Ballot Measures — Supplemental," December 2, 2025. (Attachment 5, corrected project details.) [^6]: City of Berkeley, Citywide Pools Master Plan, 2009, p. 7: "These are all pool venues currently operated by City of Berkeley and located on BUSD property." [^7]: Parks & Waterfront Commission Subcommittee on Planning, Berkeley Parks Planning for an Equitable Future, July 2016.
[^8]: City of Berkeley, Frances Albrier Community Center Replacement Project — Executive Summary with Attachments, Siegel and Strain Architects, 2019. Design goals include "net-zero and all-electric strategies"; existing gas equipment flagged as conflicting with the city's all-electric goal.
Addendum A: Selection Criteria Analysis — PRW Bond Projects The December 2 staff report lists five core criteria used to evaluate projects for the bond, plus additional criteria from the Vision 2050 framework.[^1] No definitions are provided in the report.
The following definitions are inferred from project descriptions, the bond's category structure, and city context. Each PRW project is then assessed against these criteria.
Criteria Definitions
1. Health, Life, and Safety (HLS) Does this project protect the public from physical harm? Seismic hazards, structural failure, ADA non-compliance, lack of basic sanitation. Across the full bond, the paradigm case is fire stations — not just because the buildings are aging, but because without functional fire infrastructure, the city's ability to protect residents is compromised. For parks:
seawall failure risk, safety hazards at aging facilities, missing restrooms.
2. Critical Infrastructure Condition and Accessibility (CICA) How deteriorated is the asset, and can the public actually use it? This covers the deferred maintenance backlog — assets that are failing or approaching failure — and the rising cost of maintaining them in their current state. The "accessibility" piece includes ADA compliance and the $48M backlog identified in the city's Self- Evaluation and Transition Plan. Distinct from HLS: this is about asset condition and cost trajectory, not immediate danger to people.
3. Community Use and Equity (CUE) How many people does this serve, and does it reach underserved populations? This criterion blends two things: raw usage volume and distributional fairness. These can pull in opposite directions — a heavily used Northeast Berkeley facility scores high on use but low on equity if NE already has the highest park density. Bundling them as a single criterion means the trade-off between the two is never made explicit.
4. Potential to Leverage External or Matching Funds (LEV) Can this bond dollar unlock additional dollars? Grant eligibility and matching fund ratios — where bond funds serve as local match to access state or federal grants. The inverse also matters: some projects (marina docks, King Pool) have no alternative funding path, meaning the bond is the only option.
5. Climate Resiliency and Sustainability (CRS) Does this project protect against climate impacts or advance decarbonization? Sea level rise adaptation, electrification, gas removal, stormwater management. For parks, this is strongest in the shoreline projects. Many facility rehabs likely include electrification as part of modernization, but this is not documented in current project descriptions.
Geographic Distribution is omitted from the per-project analysis below. It is a portfolio-level criterion — applied to the overall project list rather than scored per project. The staff report lists it as a criterion but provides no supporting analysis. See Sections 3B and 3E of this report for a full discussion.
Per-Project Assessment
Shoreline & Sea Level Rise
Project HLS CICA CUE LEV CRS
South Cove
Seawall $5M
Yes —
"imminent
failure,"
immediate
safety
Yes — full
replacement
Moderate — low-
cost recreation,
equity angle
Yes — 20%
match
unlocks
state/federal
grants
Yes
Univ Ave /
Seawall Dr /
Bay Trail
$5M
Low —
proactive
adaptation
Moderate Yes — major
public trail, high
traffic
Yes — 20%
match,
grant-eligible
Yes
Marina
Timber Piles
$6M
Moderate
— structural
Yes —
timber piles,
50+ yr fix
Moderate —
marina users, but
revenue source
No — not
eligible for
grants[^5]
Moderate
Marina Blvd
Sea Level
Rise $1.9M
Low —
proactive
adaptation
Moderate Yes — Bay Trail
connection, high
traffic
Yes — 50%
match,
grant-eligible
Yes
Univ Ave
Bike Park
$2.75M
Low —
proactive
adaptation
Moderate Yes — Bump
track elements for
youth
Yes — 50%
match,
grant-eligible
Yes
Community Facilities
Project HLS CICA CUE LEV CRS
Albrier $30M Moderate
— seismic;
only major
community
center not
rebuilt or
upgraded;
emergency
shelter
Yes —
dramatically
undersized,
aging
Yes — high-use
facility, West
Berkeley (equity)
Low —
limited
eligibility for
FEMA/sustai
nable energy
grants[^5]
Yes —
conceptual
design
targets net-
zero and
all-electric;
includes
heat
pumps, 216
kW solar
array[^8]
King Pool
$25M
Low Yes —
1960s
facility, full
replacement
Yes on use
(doubles
programmatic
capacity), weak
on equity (NE
has highest park
density)
No —
difficult to
secure
grants for
pool
facilities[^5]
Likely —
modernizati
on, but not
documente
d
Park Amenities & Open Space
Project HLS CICA CUE LEV CRS
Adeline
Corridor $6M
Low — new
construction
No — new
construction
Yes — equity-
priority area,
South Berkeley
growth, rare
new open space
Moderate —
federal
earmark for
design
secured[^4]
High - new
green space
in urban
area
reduces
Urban Heat
Island, new
trees absorb
CO2
Glendale-La
Loma Play
$3.5M
Moderate —
safety/ADA
Yes —
aging, ADA
access
Yes — play
structures,
families
Low Low
Cesar Chavez
Pathway and
Restroom
$3M
Moderate —
basic
sanitation
(portable
toilets)
Yes —
pathways
deteriorating
, do not
meet ADA
codes
Yes — high-use
waterfront park
Yes — 60%
bond, highly
competitive
for State
Coastal
Conservanc
y grants[^5]
Low
Cedar Rose
Play $2.5M
Low Moderate —
heavily used
play area
needs
safety/acces
sibility
upgrade
Yes — families,
high-visibility
Low Low
Dreamland
$2.1M
Low Moderate Yes —
expanded play
area
Yes — 25%
local match,
with $6M+
likely from
additional
sources[^5]
Moderate —
bioswale
Dog Parks
$2.5M
Low No — new
construction
Yes — citywide,
addresses
significant
community
demand
Low Low
Restrooms
$1.75M
Moderate —
public
health, basic
sanitation
Yes —
aging/overdu
e
Yes — well-
used parks
Low Low
Sports Facilities
Project HLS CICA CUE LEV CRS
Harrison Turf
$6M
Low Yes — failing
natural fields
Yes — heavily
used, doubles
capacity
Low Moderate –
water
savings
Live Oak $3M Low Moderate —
modernizatio
n
Yes — families,
youth sports
Low Low – water
savings from
turf
San Pablo
Irrigation and
Drainage
$1.6M
Low Yes — failing
irrigation/drai
nage, most
used sports
fields in the
city
Yes — most
used sports
fields
No — not
eligible for
grants[^5]
Low
ATTACHMENT 2
PRWC Dog Park Subcommittee Recommendations
Executive Summary
Between October and November 2025, Dog Park Subcommittee members visited several locations identified by the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Department (PRWD) as potential dog park locations.
Our reviews and recommendations are below. All locations have existing parks; based on PRWD guidance, Subcommittee members recommend converting a portion of the following parks to dog parks.
Subcommittee Mission
Berkeley is a city that values equity, public health, and community engagement. As dog ownership rises and urban density increases, the demand for off-leash recreation areas has outpaced available space. Berkeley currently only has 2 dog parks; the first one, Ohlone Dog Park, was established in 1979 and was one of the first in the nation. Then, in 1998, the 17-acre Off Leash Area in Cesar Chavez Park started a trial period, and in 2000, it was formally authorized as a designated Off-Leash Area. This proposal urges the City of Berkeley to prioritize the creation and expansion of dedicated dog parks/dog play areas to support public health, safety, and neighborhood vitality.
The Need for More Dog Parks
Currently, Berkeley has limited off-leash dog areas, which are often overcrowded or located far from many residential neighborhoods, such as Cesar Chavez Park. This shortage can create tension in shared-use parks, encourage off-leash activity in inappropriate areas, and diminish the quality of life for both dog owners and non-dog owners alike.
Dog Park Site Recommendations
1. King School Park
2. Glendale La Loma Park
3. Berkeley Way Mini Park
4. San Pablo Park
5. Aquatic Park
King School Park
Staff-provided description of proposed dog area: West side of King Park (small) Address: 1700 Hopkins Street
Neighborhood: Hopkins
District: 5
Councilmember: Shoshana O’Keefe
Approx. Park Acreage: 1.72 acres | 74,920 sq. ft.
Topography: Flat
Ground Surface: Grass
Site Conditions
Fencing Feasibility: Good ease of enclosure with low fencing (too low for dogs) existing along two edges, so within existing paths. A new dog fence system is needed. Though there is room for this, and possibly a planted setback strip along the main path and sidewalk edges.
Water Source: Existing fountain or irrigation tap likely Drainage: No signs of ponding or erosion; slight slope toward Hopkins; relatively flat and elevated above sidewalk and path.
Shade / Trees: Existing street and park trees around perimeter, sunny.
Ground Cover Condition: Natural turf is not well-maintained. A minimal scope could support DG or gravel.
Potential Conflicts: Proximity to picnic and play areas.
Neighborhood Receptivity: Observed dog activity on leash.
Other notes
● Community input is needed. This is a well-used park throughout the day. It’s not clear how much this lawn area is used. It was empty while the rest of the park was active. The area size would support split small and large dog areas or one big area.
Photos
King West looking from the sidewalk at Hopkins King West toward the play area
Glendale La Loma Park
Staff-provided description of proposed dog area: Second level of Glendale, La Loma Park (medium-sized park)
Address: 1300 Glendale Ave
District: 6 Councilmember: Brent Blackaby
Approx. Park Acreage: 5.61 acres | 244,400 sq. ft.
Topography: Sloped - Terraced
Ground Surface: Grass
Site Context
Surrounding Land Uses: Residential
Access: Street frontage, street parking, ADA access, neighborhood Visibility & Safety: Slope interrupts sightlines from the lower terrace, but “eyes on the park” from neighbors overlooking spaces.
Fencing Feasibility: Good.
Water Source: unknown
Drainage: No signs of ponding or erosion; minimal to steep slopes.
Shade / Trees: Mostly sunny. Some shade from surrounding trees.
Ground Cover Condition: Natural grass turf not well-maintained. Possibly not irrigated.
Potential Conflicts: Proximity to homes for noise.
Neighborhood Receptivity: Unknown.
Photos – Glendale La Loma Park
Berkeley Way Mini Park
Photos
San Pablo North of Ballpark
Site Conditions
Existing park: Yes
Surrounding neighborhood: Yes
Flat land: partly
Ground material: Grass
Other notes
● Two halves of this grassy strip are separated by a walking path that leads from the sidewalk to the park
● One half has a slope (closer to the baseball dugout)
● Lots of dogs play at this park
Photos
Aquatic Park
Site conditions
Existing park: Yes
Surrounding neighborhood: No
Flat land: Partly
Ground material: Dirt and grass
Other notes
● Existing water fountain (not flowing) with ground level dog bowl. ● The open space next to the parking lot and train tracks is pretty flat with a slight grade and a few trees as you walk further along the path.
● Mostly small hills, but the pictured section is flat.
Photos
Environment & Climate Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
CONSENT CALENDAR
May 19, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Berkeley Environment and Climate Commission (ECC) Submitted by: Alison LaBonte, Chairperson, ECC
Subject: Affirming All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure and City Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION
The Berkeley Environment and Climate Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to:
• Adopt a formal policy prohibiting the installation of new natural gas infrastructure (hereafter referred to as “gas”) or the replacement of existing gas equipment with new gas equipment in any project funded by the proposed 2026 General Obligation Bond Measure;
• Include explicit all-electric construction and retrofit language in the bond measure itself; and
• Direct staff to apply this no-new-gas standard as a condition of all City capital spending, beyond bond-funded projects, thus affirming that public funds shall not be used to install new gas infrastructure in any municipal facility.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
All-electric construction is increasingly cost-competitive with gas-dependent construction. Electric systems eliminate ongoing gas utility costs, reduce long-term maintenance burdens, and position City facilities to benefit from falling costs of electric technologies. Any potential upfront cost differential is outweighed by the quantifiable benefits to public health, lifecycle savings, and avoided climate risk. No new appropriation is required to implement this policy direction.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley is preparing a proposed $300 million General Obligation Bond Measure for the November 2026 ballot. The measure proposes to fund major capital projects across three categories: Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront; General Facilities and Buildings; and Fire Department facilities.
This bond measure represents one of the largest single investments in municipal infrastructure in Berkeley's recent history — and one of the most significant opportunities to permanently align City capital spending with Berkeley's climate
All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure CONSENT CALENDAR and City Capital Projects MAY 19, 2026
commitments. Many of the proposed projects involve ground-up construction or comprehensive building renovations, making them ideal candidates for all-electric design at little or no additional cost.
Despite Berkeley's status as a national leader in building electrification policy, passing a first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas in new construction in 2019, there are no longer any laws prohibiting natural gas use in buildings, and no explicit electrification requirement has been proposed for the bond measure. While the 2024 ruling by the Ninth Circuit in opposition to Berkeley’s natural gas ban, and recent changes in state law limit changes to the building code, no restrictions exist on how a municipality chooses to direct its own spending. Other Bay Area cities, such as San Francisco, enacted all electric requirements applying to city buildings before proceeding to more expansive requirements that remain in force to this day. Without such a requirement, bond-funded projects could default to gas equipment for heating, cooking, water heating, or other building systems, locking in fossil fuel infrastructure for decades and undermining the City's climate goals.
This is a strategic planning priority, advancing Berkeley's goal to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.
At the March 25, 2026 meeting, the commission took the following action:
Action: M/S/C (Ranney/Binns) to approve the substantive content of the report to Council, regarding the inclusion of building electrification in relation to the potential City of Berkeley $300M General Obligation Bond for the November 2026 Ballot and municipal capital projects, as revised at the March 25, 2026 meeting, with additional minor edits to ensure consistency and clarity throughout.
Vote: Ayes - Ranney, La Bonte, Tahara, Mahmoudian, Kesselman, Binns, Brown, Athanasiou, Syed; Noes - None; Abstain - None; Absent - McGuire.
BACKGROUND
The proposed 2026 bond measure applies to existing and new municipal buildings, which is a domain where the City has full discretion over construction standards. The City is free to ensure that its own facilities reflect its stated climate values, and has a rare opportunity to do so on a large scale.
The list of proposed projects span a wide range of building types and uses. Where projects involve full replacement or substantial renovation, such as community centers, fire stations, the Fire Training Center, and multiple civic buildings, all-electric design is achievable with current technology and at competitive cost. For projects involving more limited scope (e.g., mechanical system upgrades), a no-new-gas standard would at minimum prevent the installation of new gas-fired equipment where electric alternatives
All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure CONSENT CALENDAR and City Capital Projects MAY 19, 2026
are available. The City should also strongly consider reducing reliance on other fossil fuel infrastructure where suitable alternatives exist, such as solar and storage for backup power.
Furthermore, the proposed bond measure explicitly lists "energy-efficient systems and lower long-term costs" and "environmental sustainability and resilience" among its stated values in evaluating and prioritizing projects. Codifying an all-electric requirement in the bond measure language is a direct and concrete expression of those values and a fulfillment of the measure's own stated goals. Such a requirement, both applying to projects funded by the bond measure and all future city projects, would implement crucial components of the Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy, adopted by Council in 20211.
The public is supportive. Council polling of the measure revealed that the top infrastructure priority for Berkeley residents was climate resilience, with 35% of residents listing it as one of their top two priorities2.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Natural gas combustion in buildings is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and indoor air pollution. Installing new or replacement gas infrastructure in bond-funded municipal buildings would:
• Lock in fossil fuel dependency in City-owned facilities for 20–40 years, well beyond Berkeley's 2045 carbon neutrality target;
• Undermine Berkeley's credibility as a climate leader and signal to the public that the City's electrification commitments do not apply to its own operations; and • Expose building occupants, including community members (especially the more vulnerable young and elderly), fire fighters, and City employees, to the known indoor air quality risks associated with gas combustion appliances, which approach $1 billion annually across the Bay Area3.
Conversely, requiring all-electric construction across bond-funded projects (and all City capital spending) would meaningfully reduce municipal emissions, improve indoor air quality in public facilities, demonstrate institutional leadership, and create durable, future-proof infrastructure aligned with California's clean energy grid trajectory. 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley-Existing-Buildings-Electrification-Strategy.pdf 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2026-03- 17%20Special%20Agenda%20Packet%20-%20Council.pdf
3 https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-9-rule-4-nitrogen-oxides-from-fan-type- residential-central-furnaces/2021-amendments/documents/20230127_factsheet_rg09040906- pdf.pdf?rev=29d5bd3e4204460298a2ca1f02ac9214&sc_lang=en
All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure CONSENT CALENDAR and City Capital Projects MAY 19, 2026
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
1. The bond measure is the right vehicle. Because the bond measure will govern how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on City facilities over the next decade, it is the ideal place to enshrine an electrification requirement. Including it in the measure language increases public accountability and provides another reason for Berkeley voters to support it.
2. City polling indicates that the public is highly supportive of climate and green infrastructure goals.
3. There is no technical barrier. All-electric construction is viable across every project type in the proposed portfolio. Several of the proposed projects have already completed conceptual design; the Commission encourages the City to verify and update those designs to reflect an all-electric standard where they have not already done so.
4. The City's own spending is within its control. Berkeley can and should hold its own buildings to the highest electrification and emissions standards to improve the health of its residents and that of the environment.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
n/a
CITY MANAGER
The City Manager concurs with the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report, recognizing that this has been the City of Berkeley’s typical practice since 2020, when the since-repealed Prohibition on Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings became effective.
In addition, to improve regional air quality and reduce the amount of NOx and particulate matter emissions, the Bay Area Air District has adopted zero NOx emissions standards for natural gas fired furnaces and water heaters (Rules 9-4 and 9-6). These rules begin implementation on Jan 1, 2027 (for water heaters under 75,000 BTU/hr, typically residential size) and will impact commercial furnaces on Jan 1, 2029, and commercial water heaters (75,000 – 2M BTU/hr) on Jan 1, 2031. Electric heat pumps will comply with these regulations, applicable to all sales and installations in the Bay Area, in both replacements in existing construction and in new construction.
Although electrification is now standard practice and will increasingly be required throughout the Bay Area for water and space heating, the City Manager notes that there may be limited instances in which exceptions to the electrification of municipal facilities during new construction or the replacement of existing gas equipment may be needed.
For example, electrical and/or physical constraints of an existing municipal facility or local grid capacity may limit or eliminate safe, effective electrical replacement options for gas systems at time of replacement. Among the infrastructure projects currently
All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure CONSENT CALENDAR and City Capital Projects MAY 19, 2026
under consideration for funding through the potential bond measure, the King Pool may require a gas alternative.
If such an exception would be sought due to technical infeasibility, the City Manager would come to City Council for approval of a gas alternative.
CONTACT PERSON
Alison LaBonte, Chairperson, ECC
Attachments:
1. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
Affirming All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure and City Capital Projects
WHEREAS, installing new or replacement natural gas infrastructure in bond-funded municipal buildings would lock in fossil fuel dependency in City-owned facilities for 20– 40 years, well beyond Berkeley's 2045 carbon neutrality target; and WHEREAS, installing new or replacement gas infrastructure in bond-funded municipal buildings would undermine Berkeley's credibility as a climate leader and signal to the public that the City's electrification commitments do not apply to its own operations; and WHEREAS, installing new or replacement gas infrastructure in bond-funded municipal buildings would expose building occupants, including community members (especially the more vulnerable young and elderly), fire fighters, and City employees, to the known indoor air quality risks associated with gas combustion appliances, which approach $1 billion annually across the Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, requiring all-electric construction across bond-funded projects and all City capital spending would meaningfully reduce municipal emissions, improve indoor air quality in public facilities, demonstrate institutional leadership, and create durable, future-proof infrastructure aligned with California's clean energy grid trajectory.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley will adopt a formal policy prohibiting the installation of new natural gas infrastructure (hereafter referred to as “gas”) or the replacement of existing gas equipment with new gas equipment in any project funded by the proposed 2026 General Obligation Bond Measure;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that the City of Berkeley will include explicit all- electric construction and retrofit language in the bond measure itself; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley will direct staff to apply this no-new-gas standard as a condition of all City capital spending, beyond bond- funded projects, thus affirming that public funds shall not be used to install new gas infrastructure in any municipal facility.
Communications
All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.
City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/
To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:
1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”
2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting
3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)
4. Click the “Search” button
5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned
6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF