Berkeley City Council
June 16, 2026

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

56.9 New Members’ Pension Contributions
New Members hired on or after January 1, 2013, shall pay 50% of the normal share of cost required by PEPRA. Employees will pay an additional 1% contribution to the City’s CalPERS employer contribution rate via automatic payroll deduction. Employees will pay an additional 1% contribution to the City’s CalPERS employer contribution rate via automatic payroll deduction. The City shall designate such payments to the City’s CalPERS employer contribution rate as an Employer Pickup as defined by Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code.

ARTICLE 9 - LAYOFF PROCEDURE
SECTION 57:

LAYOFF POLICY
This layoff policy for the City of Berkeley is intended to provide the maximum employment protection to the City staff should a layoff become necessary. The policy also aims to minimize the impact such a layoff might have on the City's affirmative action accomplishments.

57.1 Announcement of Layoff

57.1.1 The City Council, City Manager, and the Chief of Police shall make every reasonable effort to manage and budget the City's resources effectively and to plan for the delivery of City services in a manner which will avoid the necessity to layoff career City employees. If a reduction in the work force for more than thirty (30) calendar days is necessitated by, but not limited to, a material change in duties and organization, adverse working conditions, return of employees from leaves of absence, or shortage of work or funds, the City Manager shall notify the Director of Human Resources of the intended action and the reason for the layoff.

57.1.2 Immediately following a decision which may involve the potential layoff of career employees, the City Manager shall freeze all current vacancies in the Police Department service in similar and related classifications to those likely to be targeted for layoff, as well as all related full-time, benefited, of temporary (see glossary) positions which are expected to last six (6) months or more, and notify the department head that such current and anticipated vacancies will be frozen until further notice in order to implement the provisions of Section 57.6.

57.2 Seniority Service Date

57.2.1 All service of persons in the employ of the City shall be counted toward the establishment of an employee's City seniority service date, including, for example, permanent, probationary, provisional, temporary (full-time and intermittent), seasonal, and exempt employment, as well as leaves of absence for obligatory military service while an employee with the City. Less than full-time service will be consolidated in equivalences of full-time service for the purpose of establishing the City seniority service date. Time off, or vacation or compensatory time forfeited in lieu of time off, as a result of formal disciplinary action will be subtracted from the rank seniority service date, however, such date(s) shall not affect any employee's date(s) relative to bidding for shifts or vacation.

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

57.2.2 All service of persons in the employ of the City in a promotional rank above the entry- level rank shall be counted toward the establishment of an employee's rank seniority service date including only probationary and permanent service as well as leaves of absence for obligatory military service while an employee of the City. Less than full- time service will be consolidated in equivalences of full-time service for the purpose of establishing the rank seniority service date. Time off as a result of disciplinary action will be subtracted from the rank seniority service date.

57.2.3 All time spent in an appointed rank shall be credited to the employee's service in the employee's permanent rank. In computing both City and rank seniority, all time spent on paid leaves of absences shall be included, and all time spent on unpaid leaves of absence in excess of two consecutive payroll periods shall be excluded.

57.2.4 The Human Resources Department will maintain up-to-date and current City and rank seniority service dates for all City employees holding probationary and permanent appointments.

57.3 Establishment of Seniority Lists

57.3.1 Whenever a layoff of one or more career employees becomes necessary, as defined above, such layoffs shall be made according to City-wide classification seniority lists. Upon receiving notification that the City Manager must proceed with a possible reduction in the work force and following receipt of information concerning the specific positions, programs, and departments involved, the Human Resources Department will immediately establish separate probationary and permanent seniority lists for each classification targeted for layoff.

57.3.2 The names of all City employees holding permanent and probationary appointments in a given classification will be listed on the appropriate list in descending order by City seniority service date in the entry-level position and by rank seniority service date in promotional positions. Except as provided in Section 57.4 below, employees on all lists shall be laid off on the basis of their seniority service dates (i.e., employees with the least amount of total service shall be laid off first). All emergency, temporary, and provisional employees working in classifications similar to those identified for layoff must be terminated prior to the layoff of probationary or permanent employees. Employees on the probationary seniority list for a specific classification will be laid off prior to employees on the permanent seniority list for that class.

57.3.3 Probationary or permanent employees temporarily acting out of classification and holding a provisional appointment in another classification will only be listed on a seniority list of the class in which they hold permanent or probationary status targeted for layoff.

57.3.4 If two (2) or more employees on a seniority list have identical seniority service dates, the tie shall be broken based on established departmental procedures for awarding commission numbers in such instances.

57.4 Employee Retreat Rights

57.4.1 Before an employee with permanent or probationary status may be released from employment with the City of Berkeley, the Human Resources Department must consider the employee's right to retreat to lower-level classifications through which

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association they were originally promoted or any subsequently created intermediate-level career classification series. Retreat rights shall also extend to employees who have not previously been promoted through a classification but for whom the classification is a natural progression or beginning in the classification series.

57.4.2 In the process of retreating, the rank seniority date list shall be utilized. Employees with the least amount of rank seniority shall retreat first; provided, however, that a retreat from any rank below the employee's current rank shall be based on a rank seniority date which is derived from a combination of all credited service in the rank to which the employee has retreated and all credited service in higher ranks held on a probationary or permanent Identification Expert will be available only to employees who have previously held such ranks on a permanent or probationary basis. There shall be no retreat rights to appointed ranks or positions.

57.4.3 If an employee is qualified for retreat into more than one classification with comparable salary ranges or if a vacancy exists in a classification to which an employee is entitled to retreat, the options shall be discussed with the employee, and due consideration shall be given to the employee's preferences. However, it is the prerogative of the City Manager to determine the final placement offer to the employee.

57.4.4 The retreating employee has a right to be retained in the highest salary range possible which is equal to or less than their present salary range. An employee involved in layoff does not have a right of mandatory placement to positions with a higher salary range, i.e., promotion.

57.5 Employee Notification

57.5.1 Emergency, temporary, intermittent, seasonal, etc., employees shall be notified individually, in writing, of pending layoff as soon as possible, but no definite time period is required. However, at least two (2) weeks notification is desirable, if possible.

57.5.2 Provisional employees shall be notified individually, in writing, of pending layoff as soon as possible, with no less than fifteen (15) calendar days notification if targeted for release or reassignment.

57.5.3 Permanent, probationary, and career-exempt employees should be notified individually, in writing, of pending layoffs as soon as possible, with no less than thirty (30) calendar day notification if targeted for release, reassignment, or retreat. Notice to an employee absent from work for any reason shall be sent by United States Mail, return receipt requested.

If an employee fails to accept a bona fide offer of reassignment or retreat in writing within five (5) calendar days after receipt of the offer, the employee forfeits further right to employment retention. Acceptance of a reassignment or retreat does not remove the right of appeal under Section 57.9.

57.6 Flexible Placement Program

57.6.1 In order to minimize the negative impact of a layoff, the City Manager will, as previously stated in Section 57.1, impose a city-wide freeze on all appropriate vacancies as soon as it has been determined that a layoff of career City employees may be

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

necessary.

57.6.2 Following the release of all emergency, temporary, and provisional employees in classes similar to those targeted for layoff and as soon as employees targeted for layoff or retreat have been identified and the provisions under Section 57.3 and 57.4 have been carried out, the Human Resources Department will review and identify the frozen vacant classifications into which employees ultimately targeted for layoff may be placed on the basis of total experience and education. In making this decision, a waiver of minimum qualification standards and/or the substitution of related experience and education may be made with an understanding on the part of management and supervisory personnel that adequate on-the-job training, which can be completed within no more than six (6) months, will be provided to facilitate job adjustment and to compensate for the waiver of qualification standards, if that has occurred.

57.6.3 Assignments under the Flexible Placement Program shall be limited to positions in the same or lesser salary range as the classification from which the employee is to be laid off.

57.6.4 Offers to positions under the Flexible Placement Program shall be made according to City seniority service date and in accordance with the probationary and permanent seniority list certification process outlined in Section 57.3. All offers and placements made under this provision of the layoff policy shall be documented in detail, with records available for audit and review at all times.

57.6.5 If an employee fails to accept a bona fide written offer of an alternative job within five (5) calendar days after receipt of the offer, they will forfeit further rights to employment retention. Acceptance of an alternative job under the Flexible Placement Program in no way jeopardizes an employee's standing on the reemployment priority lists on which their name has been placed in accordance with Section 57.7.

57.7 Reemployment Lists

57.7.1 The names of all probationary and permanent employees released or retreated from positions in the competitive service as a result of layoff or retreat must be placed on reemployment priority lists for those classifications from which the employee was removed, as well as all other classifications to which they have retreat rights in accordance with Section 57.4.

57.7.2 The reemployment priority list for employees who were laid off shall remain in effect for three (3) years. Said list shall remain in effect indefinitely for employees who were retreated.

57.7.3 Departments with vacancies in any classification for which there is an active reemployment priority list must use the reemployment priority list to fill their positions and may not use any other recruitment or appointment method to fill a vacancy until appropriate reemployment lists have been exhausted.
2023 - 2026 Memorandum of Understanding
City of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

57.7.4 When a vacancy occurs in a class for which there is a reemployment priority list, the

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

name of the employee on the appropriate reemployment priority list with the highest seniority date shall be certified to the selecting official. Employees so certified from the reemployment priority list must be appointed to the existing vacancy.

57.7.5 If a former employee fails to accept a bona fide written offer of reemployment within five (5) calendar days, their name will be removed permanently from the reemployment priority list from which the offer was made. Failure to accept an offer to reemployment to the class with the highest salary range for which the employee is eligible for reemployment will result in automatic removal from all reemployment priority lists. However, the employee may decline (or accept) reemployment to lower salary range classifications without jeopardizing their standing on the reemployment priority list for the classification from which they were original terminated.

57.7.6 Upon reappointment to the classification from which the employee was originally separated or demoted, the employee has the right to be placed at the step of the salary range which the employee held at the time of layoff or demotion.

57.8 Career-Exempt Employees
Only those employees holding full-time, benefited, exempt positions who, in the past, have achieved permanent status and have been continuously employed without a break in service between their career and exempt appointment, have the right to retreat to previously held career classifications, placement on the reemployment priority lists, and all other provisions governing layoff procedures. For the purpose of layoff, such employees shall be referred to as "career-exempt."

57.9 Appeal Procedures
Any permanent, probationary, or career-exempt employee who is laid off, demoted, or reassigned as a result of layoff and who believes that the layoff procedure has been administered in violation of the terms of this agreement as it pertains to the employee's case may appeal the action under the grievance procedure, including that provision relating to non-disciplinary arbitration. In addition, employees may at all times before, during, and subsequent to layoff review all records, including seniority lists, reemployment priority lists, documentation pertaining to appointments under the Flexible Placement Program, etc., which pertain to their classification and their rights under the provisions of the layoff policy.

57.10 Audit

57.10.1 On an annual basis, the City Manager's Office shall order an audit by an outside auditor of all vacant positions filled in each department and authorized positions which have not been filled to determine whether the vacancies occurred in classifications for which reemployment priority lists were in existence and, if so, whether the appointments made by the selecting official were in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 57.7. In the event vacancies for which reemployment priority lists are in existence remain unfilled, the auditor shall offer an opinion as to whether or not the reasons for leaving the positions vacant appear to be legitimate. A report of the audit must be transmitted to the City Manager and the City Council.

57.10.2 If it is determined that a vacancy has been filled by a non-reemployment priority list eligible in a classification for which a reemployment priority list existed which included available applicants at the time, the former employee with reemployment rights shall be hired and given retroactive pay from the date that the vacancy

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

occurred. The employee who was originally to fill the vacancy shall continue to be retained in City employment.

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

SIGNATURE PAGE

FOR BERKELEY POLICE ASSOCIATION FOR THE CITY OF BERKELEY Neil Egbert, BPA President Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager Jonathan Murphy, BPA Chief Negotiator Janelle Rodrigues, Director of Human Resources

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Farimah Brown, City Attorney

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

EXHIBIT A
Hourly Rates Following Council Adoption

EFFECTIVE
DATE

DESCRIPTION STEP HOURLY
RATE
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 1 58.8111
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 2 61.5419
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 3 64.4092
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 4 66.4991
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 5 68.6470
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 6 70.9020
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 7 73.1955

07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 1 76.0831
07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 2 78.5765
07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 3 81.1597

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 4 83.8422
07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 5 86.6146

07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 1 91.2864
07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 2 94.2998
07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 3 97.4330
07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 4 100.6453
07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 5 104.0181

07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 1 101.8768
07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 2 105.2790
07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 3 108.7581
07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 4 112.4129
07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 5 116.1543
Hourly Rates Effective January 2027

EFFECTIVE DATE DESCRIPTION STEP HOURLY RATE
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 1 64.4092
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 2 66.4991
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 3 68.6470
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 4 70.9020
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 5 73.1955

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

EXHIBIT B

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

EXHIBIT C

GLOSSARY
Allocation: The assignment of a single position to the proper class in accordance with the duties performed, and the authority and responsibilities exercised.

Classification (class): A group of positions sufficiently similar in respect to their duties and responsibilities that: (a) the same descriptive title may be used with clarity to designate each position allocated to the class; (b) the same minimum requirements as to education, experience, knowledge, ability and other qualifications may be required of all incumbents; (c) the same tests of fitness may be used to choose qualified employees and, (d) the same schedule of compensation can be made to apply with equity under the same employment conditions.

Career Employee: An employee who is appointed to a position in the competitive service and who has a probationary or permanent appointment with the City of Berkeley.

Continuous Testing: An examination process in which applications are accepted on a continuous basis, not subject to a closing date with a viable list maintained at all times.

Demotion: The movement of an employee from one class to another class having a lower maximum rate of pay.

Domestic Partner: A person residing with and sharing the common necessities of life with a City of Berkeley employee, where both intend to continue this arrangement indefinitely. They are unmarried; at least eighteen (18) years of age; not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the State of California, and mentally competent to consent to contracts.

Employee: A person who has been legally appointed under the City of Berkeley Personnel Ordinance and the Personnel Rules and Regulations, who is on the City payroll and whose employment has not been terminated and whose position is included in this representation unit.

Flexing of Shifts (aka Offsetting of Overtime): Changing of hours of work to avoid the payment of overtime.

Full-Time: An assignment of forty hours per week; a full-time employee works an assignment of forty hours per week or a combination of assignments totaling forty hours per week.

High Risk Classifications: A group of positions whose duties and responsibilities present: (a) significant probability or chance of injury, damage or loss of life; (b) exposure to risk and; (c) ability to incur the risk.

Impasse: "Impasse" means that the City and the Association have a dispute over matters within the scope of representation and have reached a point in meeting and negotiating over the dispute at which their differences in positions are so substantial or prolonged that future meetings would be futile.

Jury Duty Period: The period of time from which an employee appears in court as required by law to serve on an inquest jury or trial jury until such time as the employee is discharged from such service by the court. "Jury Duty Period" expressly covers only that period of time spent by the employee in service of the court as a juror and does not include any time spent in court by the employee as a result of being a party to the action, being a witness to the action, or being subpoenaed to testify in the action.

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

Lateral Entry: Recruitment and selection status of candidates who have successfully completed P.O.S.T. academy training and meet the minimum requirement for Police Officer-Lateral classification.

Position: A grouping of duties and responsibilities which constitute a single assignment which is in a classification covered by this Agreement.

Promotion: The movement of an employee from one class to another class having a higher maximum rate of pay.

Promotional Examination: An examination for promotion to a class in the competitive service in which participation is limited to current employees with permanent status and/or to former permanent or probationary employees who are on current mandatory reemployment lists of layoff.

Provisional: A career employee who is temporarily serving in a higher level or unclassified position as a temporary assignment, pending examination, classification, or in the absence of the permanent incumbent.

Reclassification: Reallocation of a position from one classification to another classification based upon consideration of the kind and level of assigned duties and responsibilities.

Reemployment: Reappointment of a former probationary or permanent employee to a vacant position who has been laid off under Section 55.7 of the Layoff section in this Agreement.

Regular Hourly Salary: The Regular Monthly Salary multiplied by twelve (12) months and divided by 2080 annual work hours.

Regular Monthly Salary: The base pay for a classification (as included in Exhibit A of this Agreement).

Reinstatement: Appointment to a vacant position of a former probationary or permanent employee, within two years of the termination date, without obtaining new eligibility through examination.

Reinstatement is not mandatory and a former employee must request consideration in writing.

Eligibility for reinstatement is no guarantee of appointment and former probationary employees who did not obtain permanent status must complete their probationary period in accordance with Section

32. Rejection (Probation): The separation of any employee from the service before the completion of the probationary period.

Release Time: Paid time off permitted employees, during their scheduled hours of work, to perform Association activities as provided by this Agreement. This paid time off is in addition to the employee paid leave and is subject to the conditions of the applicable sections of this Agreement.

Termination: The separation of an employee from the service of the City. Termination may include death, discharge, layoff, resignation, retirement, and work completion.

Transfer: The movement of any employee from one position to another within the same class in another department or the movement of an employee from one class to another class having a comparable level of duties and responsibilities and the same maximum rate of pay.

Vacation Year: A period that annually commences at the close of the last City pay period for which the payday falls in March. For example, if paychecks were issued on March 27 to pay employees for the pay period running from March 8 until March 21, the next vacation year would commence on March 22.

20263 - 20286 Memorandum of
UnderstandingCity of Berkeley Berkeley Police Association

Y-Rate: An employee occupying a position which is reallocated to a class, the maximum salary for which is less than the incumbent's present salary or occupying a position in a class the salary rate or range for which is reduced, shall continue to receive their present salary. Such salary shall be designated as a Y-rate and when that employee vacates this position, it shall be filled in accordance with new salary range established. Y-rating shall not apply to employees who are demoted for just cause, including unacceptable level of performance, or as a result of demotion under the provisions of the Layoff policy.

Berkeley Police Association Classification and Salary Table for Representation Units E and F 2026-2028

EFFECTIVE
DATE

DESCRIPTION STE
P
HOURLY
RATE
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 1 58.8111
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 2 61.5419
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 3 64.4092
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 4 66.4991
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 5 68.6470
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 6 70.9020
07/05/2026 POLICE OFFICER 7 73.1955
07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 1 76.0831
07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 2 78.5765
07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 3 81.1597
07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 4 83.8422
07/05/2026 POLICE SERGEANT 5 86.6146
07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 1 91.2864
07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 2 94.2998
07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 3 97.4330
07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 4 100.6453
07/05/2026 POLICE LIEUTENANT 5 104.0181
07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 1 101.8768
07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 2 105.2790
07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 3 108.7581
07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 4 112.4129
07/05/2026 POLICE CAPTAIN 5 116.1543
Hourly Rates Effective January 2027

Berkeley Police Association Classification and Salary Table for Representation Units E and F 2026-2028

EFFECTIVE DATE DESCRIPTION STEP HOURLY RATE
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 1 64.4092
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 2 66.4991
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 3 68.6470
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 4 70.9020
01/03/2027 POLICE OFFICER 5 73.1955

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Utility Easements for East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water meters at 80 and 90 Bolivar Drive

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to grant utility easements for two East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water meters at City- owned buildings at 80 and 90 Bolivar Drive at Aquatic Park.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None

CURRENT SITUATION
EBMUD requires two additional utility easements (1 and 2) to construct, operate, and maintain two new water meters at City-owned buildings at 80 Bolivar Drive (Bay Area Outreach and Recreation Program (BORP) and 90 Bolivar Drive (Waterside Workshops). During the design phase, EBMUD determined that the initial utility easement for the water main underneath Bolivar Drive granted by the City in 2023 did not include water meters outside of vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian paths of travel.

Therefore, two new small utility easements are needed in order to complete the work.

BACKGROUND
On October 3, 2023, the City granted a utility easement to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”) to install a new water main underneath City-owned Bolivar Drive at Aquatic Park between Addison Street and Bancroft Way to provide water for street fire hydrants and potable water service at City-owned buildings at 80 Bolivar Drive and 90 Bolivar Drive (Waterside Workshops and BORP) (Ordinance 7,883-N.S.)

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
There are no environmental effects associated with the recommendation contained in this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Two utility easements are needed to permit East Bay Municipal Utility District to install two new water meters at City-owned buildings at 80 and 90 Bolivar Drive at Aquatic Park that are outside of vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian paths of travel.

21

Utility Easements for EBMUD water meters at 80 and 90 Bolivar Drive CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director of Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront, 510-981-6700 Robert Chan, Assistant Civil Engineer, Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront, 510-981-6392 Attachments:
1: Ordinance
Exhibit 1

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

GRANT OF TWO UTILITY EASEMENTS TO EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT FOR WATER SERVICE AT 80 and 90 BOLIVAR DRIVE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. Conveyance of property authorized.

The City Manager is hereby authorized to grant to the East Bay Municipal Utility District two utility easements at 80 and 90 Bolivar Drive, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, for the real property described therein.

Section 2. Posting.

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

Attachments:

Exhibit 1

K25-93.10 – GOE – Meter Easement - RW 5843 A & B - City of Berkeley (Also see RW 5769 - EA 23-001)

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
East Bay Municipal Utility District

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
East Bay Municipal Utility District
P. O. Box 24055 - MS #903
Oakland, CA 94623
Attn: Real Estate Services (KK)
RW 5843 A & B – Meter Easements
(Also see RW 5769 - EA 23-001)
Bolivar Drive, Berkeley, CA

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
APN: 060-2521-003-01 (portion of)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 27383, Grantee is exempt from paying recording fees.

R&T 11911 - Consideration is less than $100
Certificate of Acceptance Attached

GRANT OF EASEMENT & AGREEMENT
THIS INDENTURE, made by and between City of Berkeley, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter called the Grantor, and EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, a public corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, hereinafter called the Grantee,
WITNESSETH:

THAT the Grantor, for a good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency whereof are hereby acknowledged, hereby grants to the Grantee and to its successors and assigns an easement and rights-of-way for a term of thirty-five (35) years (“Term”) for the purpose of laying down, constructing, reconstructing, removing, replacing, repairing, maintaining, operating and using, as the Grantee may see fit, any facilities necessary for the transmission of utilities, including meters, all necessary braces, connections, fastenings and other appliances and fixtures, in, under, along and across those certain real properties labeled Easement 1 (RW 5843-A), as described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, and Easement 2 (RW 5843-B), as described in Exhibit "C" and shown on Exhibit "D", attached hereto and made a part hereof (collectively, the “Easement Area”).

TOGETHER with the right of ingress to and egress from said rights-of-way and the right at all times to enter in, over and upon said rights-of-way and every part thereof and also to use said rights-of-way for all purposes connected with the laying down, constructing, reconstructing, replacing, removing, repairing, maintaining, operating and using said facilities.

THIS Easement and Agreement shall commence on the date of execution and shall continue for the term of thirty-five (35) years. Notwithstanding expiration of the term, Grantee shall have the right to remain in the Easement Area and continue to operate, maintain, and use its facilities for a reasonable transition period, not to exceed twenty-four (24) months following expiration, or until such time as the facilities are removed or relocated by Grantee, whichever occurs first.

Ord. Exhibit 1

K25-93.10 – GOE – Meter Easement - RW 5843 A & B - City of Berkeley (Also see RW 5769 - EA 23-001)

GRANTEE agrees, upon completion of any work hereunder, to restore the surface of the ground as near as possible to the condition prior to commencement of such work.

GRANTOR reserves the right to access, enter, use, and enjoy the Easement Area provided that such use:
(a) does not interfere with, obstruct, or endanger the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use of Grantee’s facilities; (b) is at all times subordinate to Grantee’s rights under this Easement; and (c) does not damage or impair Grantee’s facilities or access thereto.

THE above paragraph notwithstanding, Grantor shall not place or permit to be placed within the Easement Area any buildings or structures, including but not limited to houses, garages, outbuildings, swimming pools, tennis courts, retaining walls, decks, or patios, nor allow any condition that interferes with Grantee’s full use and enjoyment of the Easement.

GRANTOR may operate, maintain, inspect, repair, or replace existing improvements within the Easement Area, provided that:
(a) such activities do not interfere with Grantee’s rights; (b) no expansion or material modification of such improvements occurs without Grantee’s prior written consent;
(c) Grantor shall not make any physical connection or bonding whatsoever between said improvements with Grantee’s facilities;
(d) Grantee receives sixty (60) days prior written notice of non-emergency work; (e) Grantor shall be liable for any damage to Grantee resulting from Grantor’s failure to maintain the improvements within the Easement Area and shall be liable for any complaints, claims, losses, or suits that arise as a result of the aforementioned failure.

GRANTOR may landscape the Easement Area in a manner consistent with Grantee’s use; provided, however, that Grantor shall not plant trees or alter the existing surface elevation (grade) of the Easement Area by more than one (1) foot without Grantee’s prior written consent.

GRANTOR agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend upon a determination of responsibility or as otherwise required by law, Grantee, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent arising out of or resulting from Grantor’s exercise of its aforementioned rights, including but not limited to the operation, maintenance, inspection, repair, or replacement of Grantor’s improvements within the Easement Area, except to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Grantee.

IF Grantor’s use, maintenance, repair, or development of the Property, shall cause a reasonable necessity to relocate Grantee’s facilities, such relocation shall be performed by Grantee at the sole cost and expense of Grantor. The parties shall cooperate in good faith to identify a mutually acceptable alternative location for such facilities, and Grantor shall grant any replacement easement reasonably necessary for continued operation.

K25-93.10 – GOE – Meter Easement - RW 5843 A & B - City of Berkeley (Also see RW 5769 - EA 23-001)

GRANTEE retains the right to temporarily restrict Grantor’s use of the Easement Area as reasonably necessary for safety or operational purposes.

IN the event of any conflict between the rights of Grantor and Grantee under this Easement, the rights of Grantee shall control to the extent necessary for safe and reliable operation of Grantee’s facilities.

GRANTEE agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Grantors, their officers, agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all loss, liability, expense, claims, costs, suits, damages and attorney’s fees, arising directly out of the Grantee’s negligence, and its agent’s negligence, in operation and/or performance under this Agreement.

THIS Easement and Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed in all respects by the laws of the State of California.

THIS Grant of Easement and Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and neither party relies upon any warranty or representation not contained in this Easement. The Easement may only be modified by amendment in writing signed by each party.

The parties hereby acknowledge having read this Agreement and hereby agree to all terms, rights and remedies as set forth herein.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, all and singular, the rights above described unto the Grantee and the Grantee's successors and assigns for the Term.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this indenture this ______ day of _________________, 20____.

City of Berkeley, a California municipal corporation

Sign: ___________________________________

Name: ___________________________________

Title: City Manager

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works Department Subject: Approving Proposed Projects Anticipated to be paid for by the State’s Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funds for FY 2026-27

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving a proposed list of projects that will utilize funding from the State of California’s Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) and authorize the City Manager to submit the proposed list to the California Transportation Commission.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Based on information provided by CaliforniaCityFinance.com and the League of California Cities, Berkeley can expect to collect an estimated $3,601,256 in Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) allocated funding in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027, Fund 127-State Transportation Tax. No budgetary action is required at this time.

RMRA appropriations will be allocated during the adoption of the FY 2027 Budget.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
California Senate Bill 1 (SB1), signed into law on April 28, 2017, increased certain vehicle fuel and registration taxes and fees, and with those funds has created an RMRA, a portion of which is distributed to jurisdictions. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) requires jurisdictions to submit annual documentation that RMRA funds were specifically adopted for allowed local streets and roads purposes. In order to receive this funding, the City is required to annually submit to the State a list of projects anticipated to be completed. For FY 2027, the CTC requires the submission of a list of projects proposed to be funded with RMRA during FY 2027 by July 1, 2026. The adoption of the attached resolution by Council is a CTC requirement for RMRA funding; however, the provided project list is a plan and RMRA allows for the funding of projects not included in this list as long as projects meet RMRA’s requirements. Council adoption meets the public input requirement.

Complete streets improvements such as bike lanes, curb ramps, and pedestrian crossing improvements are allowable uses of RMRA funds. In addition to the previously designated projects listed in last year’s Resolution No. 71,814–N.S., which will have RMRA expenditures taking place in FY 2027, staff selected the FY 2027 Street

22

Approving Proposed Projects Anticipated to be Paid for by the State’s CONSENT CALENDAR Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funds for FY 2026-27 June 16,2026

Rehabilitation projects for use of RMRA. The projects are summarized below, and the complete list is provided in the Resolution (Attachment 1).

Pavement maintenance or rehabilitation as part of the FY 2027 Street Rehabilitation Project. Selected segments include:
 Segment 1, 6th St from Camelia St to Cedar St (0.25 miles) – Heavy Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 2, 6th St from Cedar St to Virginia St (0.13 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 3, 6th St from Virginia St to University Ave (0.31 miles) – Light Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 13-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 4, 8th St from Gilman St to Page St (0.20 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 5, 8th St from Page St to University Ave (0.61 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.
 Segment 6, Bataan Ave from 7th St to 8th St (0.06 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.
 Segment 7, Belrose Ave from Derby St to Claremont Ave (0.12 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 8, Bowditch St from Bancroft Way to Haste St (0.19 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 9, Bowditch St from Haste St to Dwight Way (0.06 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.

Approving Proposed Projects Anticipated to be Paid for by the State’s CONSENT CALENDAR Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funds for FY 2026-27 June 16,2026

 Segment 10, Camelia St from 6th St to 8th St (0.12 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.
 Segment 11, Channing Way from Shattuck Ave to Bowditch St (0.61 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 12, Channing Way from Bowditch St to Piedmont Ave (0.25 miles) – Heavy Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 13, Claremont Ave from East City Limit to Ashby Ave (0.19 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 14, Claremont Ave from Ashby Ave to South City Limit (0.57 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 15, Claremont Blvd from Belrose Ave to Claremont Ave (0.17 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 16, Delaware St from 6th St to San Pablo Ave (0.31 miles) – Heavy Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 17, Derby St from College Ave to Warring St (0.18 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 18, Derby St from Warring St to Belrose Ave (0.23 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 19, Dwight Way from Milvia St to Shattuck Ave (0.13 miles) – Heavy Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 7 to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 20, Dwight Way from Shattuck Ave to Dana St (0.36 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.

Approving Proposed Projects Anticipated to be Paid for by the State’s CONSENT CALENDAR Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funds for FY 2026-27 June 16,2026

 Segment 21, Dwight Way from Dana St to Telegraph Ave (0.13 miles) – Heavy Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 7 to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 22, Dwight Way from Telegraph Ave to Piedmont Ave (0.41 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 23, Forest Ave from College Ave to Claremont Blvd (0.36 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 24, Francisco St from San Pablo Ave to Dead End (0.47 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 25, Grant St from North End to Rose St (0.06 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 26, Grant St from Rose St to Cedar St (0.25 miles) – Heavy Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 27, Grant St from Cedar St to Lincoln St (0.06 miles) – Light Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 13-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 28, Grant St from Lincoln St to Virginia St (0.06 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 29, Grant St from Virginia St to Francisco St (0.06 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 30, Grant St from Francisco St to Ohlone Park (0.10 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 31, Grant St from Hearst Ave to University Ave (0.11 miles) – Heavy Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.

Approving Proposed Projects Anticipated to be Paid for by the State’s CONSENT CALENDAR Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funds for FY 2026-27 June 16,2026

 Segment 32, Grant St from University Ave to Addison St (0.06 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 33, Grant St from Addison St to Allston Way (0.13 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 34, Grant St from Allston Way to Bancroft Way (0.13 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 35, Grant St from Bancroft Way to Channing Way (0.13 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 36, Grant St from Channing Way to Dwight Way (0.13 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 37, Hearst Ave from Sacramento St to Martin Luther King Jr Way (0.50 miles) – Heavy Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.
 Segment 38, Piedmont Ave at End of Bancroft Way (0.14 miles) – Heavy Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 39, Piedmont Ave from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way (0.26 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 40, Piedmont Ave from Derby St to Stuart St (0.16 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 41, Piedmont Ave from Stuart St to Ashby Ave (0.15 miles) – Light Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 13-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 42, Piedmont Crescent from Dwight Way to Warring St (0.05 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.

Approving Proposed Projects Anticipated to be Paid for by the State’s CONSENT CALENDAR Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funds for FY 2026-27 June 16,2026

 Segment 43, Virginia St from 2nd St to San Pablo Ave (0.56 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation* of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 44, Warring St from Dwight Way to Derby St (0.29 miles) – Light Maintenance* of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 45, Woolsey St from College Ave to Claremont Ave (0.24 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027. *Specific treatment will be determined by assessment, Light Maintenance typical treatment includes, Slurry Seal, or Fog Seal. Heavy Maintenance typical treatment includes Chip Seal, Slurry Seal, Thin Maintenance Overlay, Double Chip Seal then Slurry Seal. Light Rehabilitation typical treatment includes Overlay (2” and under) or Thin Mill and Fill. Heavy Rehabilitation typical treatment includes Overlay (2” and under) or Thin Mill and Fill, Cold-in-Place Recycling, Full depth Reclamation, Pulverize and Resurfacing.

BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed the Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB1) to address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system. SB1 provides for the deposit of various funds for the program in the RMRA, which SB1 created in the State Transportation Fund, including the following:
 Revenues attributable to a $0.12 per gallon increase in the motor vehicle fuel (gasoline) tax imposed by the bill with an inflation adjustment;  50% of a $0.20 per gallon increase in the diesel excise tax, with an inflation adjustment;
 A portion of a new transportation improvement fee imposed under the Vehicle License Fee Law with a varying fee between $25 and $175 based on vehicle value and with an inflation adjustment; and
 A new $100 annual vehicle registration fee applicable only to zero-emission vehicles model year 2020 and later, with an inflation adjustment.

The fuel excise tax increases took effect on November 1, 2017, the transportation improvement fee took effect on January 1, 2018, and the zero-emission vehicle registration fee took effect on July 1, 2020.

Similar to the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA), the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) is continuously appropriated, and apportioned on a

Approving Proposed Projects Anticipated to be Paid for by the State’s CONSENT CALENDAR Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funds for FY 2026-27 June 16,2026

monthly basis. There is not a set monthly amount, as it is use-based. The first apportionments to the City of Berkeley were received in February 2018.

According to the applicable California Streets and Highways Code, eligible projects “shall be prioritized for expenditure on basic road maintenance and road rehabilitation projects, and on critical safety projects”. There is no use-it-or-lose-it requirement in SB1, so multi-year projects are eligible. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to:
 Road maintenance and rehabilitation
 Safety projects
 Railroad grade separations
 Complete streets components, including active transportation, bike/pedestrian, transit facilities, and stormwater capture projects, in conjunction with an allowable project
 Traffic control devices
 Match for state/federal funds for eligible projects
SB1 requires cities and counties to provide basic project reporting to the CTC annually for projects to be funded through the RMRA. On August 16, 2017, the CTC adopted annual reporting guidelines for this funding. The guidelines require jurisdictions to submit documentation annually to show that RMRA funds were specifically adopted for allowed local streets and roads purposes and requires the submission of a list of projects proposed to be funded with RMRA during the fiscal year. The legislation also requires an annual expenditure report on work completed during the previous fiscal year to be submitted no later than October 31st.

Utilization of the RMRA funding will support the City’s Strategic Plan goal of creating a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city and providing state-of-the-art, well maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

The designation of the streets listed in this report are driven by State reporting requirements and were adopted by Council as a part of the Five-Year (2024-2028) Paving Plan on November 28, 2023 (Resolution No. 71,120–N.S). Subsequently, street or transportation projects in the City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that may be funded by City of Berkeley Measure FF or Alameda County Measure BB funds, are not included.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
RMRA funds will benefit all modes of transportation by improving road surfaces for bicyclists and transit riders as well as for auto riders, which could result in lessening greenhouse gas emissions.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
A project list is required to be adopted by City Council in order for the City to receive

Approving Proposed Projects Anticipated to be Paid for by the State’s CONSENT CALENDAR Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Funds for FY 2026-27 June 16,2026

RMRA disbursements from the State Controller's office. Staff proposes use of RMRA funds for maintenance or rehabilitation of local streets as part of the FY 2027 Street Rehabilitation (PWENST2701). It should be noted that the provided project list is a plan; in the end-of-year reporting on actual spending of RMRA funds, the CTC allows for the completion of projects not included in this list as long as they meet RMRA requirements.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No reasonable alternative exists as the City’s pavement condition is currently in the “at risk” category as defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and is in need of continued maintenance and rehabilitation.

CONTACT PERSON
Terrence Salonga, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works (510) 981-6447 Pejman Mehrfar, Manager of Engineering, Public Works (510) 981-6439 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROJECTS ANTICIPATED TO BE PAID FOR BY THE STATE’S ROAD AND MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (RMRA) FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF BERKELEY FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City must approve by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $3,601,256 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2026-27 from SB 1; and WHEREAS, this is the tenth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City has undergone a public process to ensure public input into the community’s street priorities and the project list; and WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost- effective projects that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will be used by the City for basic street maintenance and rehabilitation, critical safety projects on local roadways, and pedestrian safety and transportation projects throughout the City this year and for similar projects into the future; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in the low end of the fair condition category,

and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system, and improve their bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety; and WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide; and
WHEREAS, the following list of proposed projects is anticipated to be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2026-27 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Pavement maintenance or rehabilitation as part of the FY 2027 Street Rehabilitation Project. Selected segments include:
 Segment 1, 6th St from Camelia St to Cedar St (0.25 miles) – Heavy Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 2, 6th St from Cedar St to Virginia St (0.13 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 3, 6th St from Virginia St to University Ave (0.31 miles) – Light Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 13-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 4, 8th St from Gilman St to Page St (0.20 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.
 Segment 5, 8th St from Page St to University Ave (0.61 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.
 Segment 6, Bataan Ave from 7th St to 8th St (0.06 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.
 Segment 7, Belrose Ave from Derby St to Claremont Ave (0.12 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.

 Segment 8, Bowditch St from Bancroft Way to Haste St (0.19 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 9, Bowditch St from Haste St to Dwight Way (0.06 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 10, Camelia St from 6th St to 8th St (0.12 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.
 Segment 11, Channing Way from Shattuck Ave to Bowditch St (0.61 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 12, Channing Way from Bowditch St to Piedmont Ave (0.25 miles) – Heavy Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 13, Claremont Ave from East City Limit to Ashby Ave (0.19 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 14, Claremont Ave from Ashby Ave to South City Limit (0.57 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 15, Claremont Blvd from Belrose Ave to Claremont Ave (0.17 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 16, Delaware St from 6th St to San Pablo Ave (0.31 miles) – Heavy Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 17, Derby St from College Ave to Warring St (0.18 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 18, Derby St from Warring St to Belrose Ave (0.23 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.

 Segment 19, Dwight Way from Milvia St to Shattuck Ave (0.13 miles) – Heavy Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 20, Dwight Way from Shattuck Ave to Dana St (0.36 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 21, Dwight Way from Dana St to Telegraph Ave (0.13 miles) – Heavy Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 22, Dwight Way from Telegraph Ave to Piedmont Ave (0.41 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 23, Forest Ave from College Ave to Claremont Blvd (0.36 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 24, Francisco St from San Pablo Ave to Dead End (0.47 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 25, Grant St from North End to Rose St (0.06 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 26, Grant St from Rose St to Cedar St (0.25 miles) – Heavy Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 27, Grant St from Cedar St to Lincoln St (0.06 miles) – Light Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 13-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 28, Grant St from Lincoln St to Virginia St (0.06 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 29, Grant St from Virginia St to Francisco St (0.06 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.

 Segment 30, Grant St from Francisco St to Ohlone Park (0.10 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 31, Grant St from Hearst Ave to University Ave (0.11 miles) – Heavy Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 32, Grant St from University Ave to Addison St (0.06 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 33, Grant St from Addison St to Allston Way (0.13 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 34, Grant St from Allston Way to Bancroft Way (0.13 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 35, Grant St from Bancroft Way to Channing Way (0.13 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 36, Grant St from Channing Way to Dwight Way (0.13 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 37, Hearst Ave from Sacramento St to Martin Luther King Jr Way (0.50 miles) – Heavy Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.
 Segment 38, Piedmont Ave at End of Bancroft Way (0.14 miles) – Heavy Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 10-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 39, Piedmont Ave from Bancroft Way to Dwight Way (0.26 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 40, Piedmont Ave from Derby St to Stuart St (0.16 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.

 Segment 41, Piedmont Ave from Stuart St to Ashby Ave (0.15 miles) – Light Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a seven to 13-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 42, Piedmont Crescent from Dwight Way to Warring St (0.05 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven- year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 43, Virginia St from 2nd St to San Pablo Ave (0.56 miles) – Heavy Rehabilitation of the street pavement. The work will provide a 15-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 44, Warring St from Dwight Way to Derby St (0.29 miles) – Light Maintenance of the street pavement. The work will provide a five to seven-year useful life. Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.  Segment 45, Woolsey St from College Ave to Claremont Ave (0.24 miles) – Reconstruction of the street. The work will provide a 20-year useful life.

Construction is expected to be completed by December 2027.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to submit the list of proposed projects to the California Transportation Commission as required by Senate Bill 1, Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Declaration of Intent – Fiscal Year 2027 Street Lighting Assessments

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt two Resolutions granting the City Manager the authority to:

1. Approve the Engineer's Reports;

2. Set a public hearing to be held before the Council of the City of Berkeley at its July 14, 2026, meeting; and

3. Authorize the City Clerk to publish a Notice of the Public Hearing for Fiscal Year 2027 Levy of Assessments for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 and Street Lighting Assessment District 2018.

SUMMARY
The attached Resolutions declare the City's intent to levy FY 2027 assessments for the two Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment Districts — District No. 1982-1 and Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 — which together fund operations and maintenance of the City's street lighting program. The 1982 District rates are unchanged. The 2018 District is subject to a voter-approved CPI adjustment of up to 3% applied to the combined assessment base of both districts, resulting in an effective increase of approximately 7.49% to the 2018 District rates. Both adjustments are exempt from Proposition 218 protest procedures. Adoption approves the Engineer's Reports, sets a public hearing for July 14, 2026, and authorizes publication of the required notice.

Projected FY 2027 net assessment revenue of $2,484,760 against program expenditures of $2,640,223 leaves a $155,463 shortfall, to be covered from reserves.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Resolutions would conditionally approve, pending the public hearing and final Council authorization thereafter, the continued levying of assessments in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 and Street Lighting Assessment District 2018, collectively referred to herein as the Districts.

The assessments are to be filed with the Alameda County Auditor and included on the County's assessment roll. After collection by the County, the total amount of the

23

Declaration of Intent - FY 2027 Street Lighting Assessment Districts CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

assessment minus a County collection fee is paid to the City. The Street Light Assessment District Fund (Fund 142) posts the revenue.

The projected net shortfall of $155,463 will be backfilled by reserves. A summary of forecasted FY 2027 revenue and expenditures for the Districts is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: FY 2027 Street Light Assessment Revenue & Expenditures Forecast
Street Lighting Program Expenditures $ 2,640,223
Projected Assessments
Street Light Assessment District 1982-1 $ 1,445,789
Street Light Assessment District 2018 $ 979,145
Misc. Revenue $ 59,827
Projected Net Assessments $ 2,484,760
From Reserves $ (155,463)
Allowable annual adjustments of the 2018 District assessment rates are expected to raise revenues over the coming years. The amount funded from reserves reflects past years' work and funding fluctuations. Reserves are the accumulated balance in the street lighting assessment fund (Fund 142), which can only be used for street lighting maintenance or improvements. The California Energy Commission loan for the citywide LED retrofit was fully repaid in FY 2026, eliminating approximately $370,000 in annual debt service beginning in FY 2027.

Staff anticipate the fund will have a reserve balance of approximately $2.3 million at the end of FY 2026, which is adequate to support the projected FY 2027 deficit of approximately $79,000. Capital expenditures in FY 2027 include $200,000 for design and construction of the Streetlight Pole Replacement and Painting project, which addresses streetlight poles identified for replacement or repair. While the fund remains structurally stable, annual operating cost growth is expected to outpace assessment revenue growth in the near term, and staff will continue to monitor the fund balance and adjust capital project timing as needed.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The proposed FY 2027 rates for Assessment District 1982-1 (1982 District) are incorporated into the Engineer's Report (Attachment 3) and reflect no changes to assessment rates in FY 2027. Accordingly, this action is exempt from the notice, protest, and hearing requirements of State Proposition 218 as set forth in Government Code Section 53753.5 (Article XIII D, Sec. 5). Any increase or change in the formula for the assessments would make the annual assessment subject to procedures and approval process of Proposition 218 (Government Code Section 53750-53754): Table 2 (next page) details this District's prior year and proposed FY 2027 assessment rates.

Declaration of Intent - FY 2027 Street Lighting Assessment Districts CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

Table 2: Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 Rate Schedule
Rate Category
Assessment
FY 2026
Proposed
Assessment
FY 2027
Unit
Residential and
Institutional
$ 0.0108 $ 0.0108 BSF1
Industrial and Utility $ 0.0216 $ 0.0216 BSF
Commercial $ 0.0432 $ 0.0432 BSF
The assessment for Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 (2018 District) is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index-U for the San Francisco Bay Area as of December of each succeeding year (the "CPI"), with a maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. For the period beginning in December 2024 and ending in December 2025, the CPI increased by 3.04% 2, therefore, the assessment CPI adjustment for Fiscal Year 2027 may not exceed 3%. As approved by voters, the total annual adjustment may be calculated by taking the sum of the 1982-1 District and 2018 District assessments and multiplying the sum by the allowable CPI increase. Calculating the adjustment in this manner allows for including a 1982-1 District adjustment as part of the 2018 District adjustment. The CPI adjustment of 3% is applied to the combined total of the 1982-1 and 2018 District assessments, resulting in a total effective rate increase of approximately 7.49% for the 2018 District.

These rate increases and the methodology used in their calculation are in accordance with the voter-approved measure; therefore, the proposed adjustments are exempt from the notice, protest, and hearing requirements of State Proposition 218 as set forth in Government Code Section 53753.5 (Article XII D, Sec. 5).

Table 3 (next page) details FY 2026 and proposed FY 2027 assessment rates for this district. A detailed calculation of the annual adjustment and the corresponding rate increases are included in the 2018 District Engineer's Report (Attachment 4). 1 Building Square Footage (BSF)
2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Data Series CUUSS49BSA0

Declaration of Intent - FY 2027 Street Lighting Assessment Districts CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

Table 3: Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 Rate Schedule Rate Category
Assessment
FY 2026
Proposed
Assessment
FY 2027
Unit
Residential
Single Family $ 19.08 $ 20.51 parcel
Multi-Family<5 units $ 15.26 $ 16.41 unit
Multi-Family 5 or more units $ 11.45 $ 12.31 unit
Condominium $ 15.26 $ 16.41 parcel
Mobile Home $ 9.54 $ 10.26 unit
Multiple SFR on parcel $ 19.08 $ 20.51 unit
Non-Residential
General Commercial $ 286.20 $ 307.65 acre
Industrial / Warehouse $ 28.62 $ 30.77 acre
Auto Repair $ 190.80 $ 205.10 acre
Hotel / Motel / Boarding $ 190.80 $ 205.10 acre
Hospital $ 119.25 $ 128.19 acre
Retirement Home $ 23.85 $ 25.64 acre
School / Day Care $ 42.93 $ 46.15 acre
Medical / Dental / Vet $ 238.50 $ 256.38 acre
Church $ 14.31 $ 15.38 acre
Mortuary $ 4.77 $ 5.13 acre
Recreational $ 47.70 $ 51.28 acre
Parking / Transportation $ 95.40 $ 102.55 acre
Mini Storage $ 14.31 $ 15.38 acre
Office $ 71.55 $ 76.91 acre
Bank $ 238.50 $ 256.38 acre
Park / Open Space / Agriculture $ 0.95 $ 1.03 acre
Vacant Not assessed

Revenue from the assessments will provide funding for installing, maintaining, and servicing public lighting facilities, including but not limited to street lights, traffic signals, and related electrical facilities. The improvements and services support the Strategic Plan goals of creating a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city and providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
The Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 was established under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highway Code Section 22620- 22631) on July 27, 1982 (Resolution No. 51,449-N.S.)3. The Street Lighting Assessment 3 State of California legislation (Streets & Highways §22500) allows local governmental agencies to form

Declaration of Intent - FY 2027 Street Lighting Assessment Districts CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

District 2018 was established under the same Act on June 12, 2018 (Resolution No. 68,482-N.S.). Even if there is no proposed rate increase, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 still requires the Council to annually adopt the Engineer’s Report and set a public hearing.

In accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Council sets a date for a public hearing and authorizes the publication of a notice at least ten days prior to the date of that hearing to allow owners of assessed properties within each district to make an oral or written protest against the annual levy. During the course of, or upon conclusion of the public hearing, the Council may order changes in any of the matters provided in the respective Engineer's Report, including changes in improvements; zones within the assessment district; and the proposed district diagram, or the proposed assessment, as long as any proposed changes are less than the proposed annual levy.

Copies of the Engineer's Reports with FY 2027 assessments are to be filed with the City Clerk and at the reference desk of the main branch of the Berkeley Public Library.

Electronic copies of the reports and finalized assessment rolls will also be available to the public upon request.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The City exclusively uses LED (light emitting diode) street lighting. LED lights achieve the City’s illumination standards and last longer than high-pressure sodium lamps, reducing maintenance costs, and providing environmental benefits by reducing the level of greenhouse gases emitted, reducing the level of toxic materials disposed, and maximizing energy efficiency.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, under which the Districts were formed, requires a public hearing to be held each year during a regular City Council Meeting to consider adopting an annual budget and changes to the Engineer's Report.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternatives were considered. Failing to meet these requirements would prevent the City from collecting assessments for the Districts in FY 2027.

CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6396 Terrence Salonga, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works, (510) 981-6447 Landscape & Lighting Maintenance Districts. A 1972 Act Landscaping and Lighting District is a flexible tool used by local government agencies to pay for landscaping, lighting and other improvements and services in public areas. It is based on the concept of assessing only those properties that benefit from improvements financed, either directly, or indirectly through increased property values. http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/1972LLact.pdf

Declaration of Intent - FY 2027 Street Lighting Assessment Districts CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

Attachments:
1: Resolution – Declaration of Intent – Street Lighting Assessment District 1982-1 2: Resolution – Declaration of Intent – Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 3: Engineer's Report - Street Lighting Assessment District 1982-1 Fiscal Year 2027 4: Engineer's Report - Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 Fiscal Year 2027

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

DECLARATION OF INTENT – ASSESSMENTS FOR FY 2027 STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1982-1
WHEREAS, on July 27, 1982, the Council Adopted Resolution No. 51,449–N.S. that completed proceedings to form the Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter III of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Street and Highway Code Section 22620-22631, the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, Engineer of Work for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1, prepared and filed an annual report for levy of annual assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 with the City Clerk.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council of the City of Berkeley approves the Engineer’s Report, dated May 2026, on levy of FY 2027 for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 1982-1 assessments. The area of land to be assessed is located in the City of Berkeley, Alameda County.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley declares its intention to levy and collect assessments within the Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 1982-1 for FY 2027.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall publish a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing listing the date, hour, and place of the public hearing for annual levy and collection of assessments in accordance with Streets and Highway Code Sections 22625, 22626, 22552, and 22553 and Section 6061 of the Government Code.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that improvements to be made in this assessment district are generally described as maintenance or servicing of existing and future public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to street lights, traffic signals, and related electrical facilities; and the installation and construction of public lighting including but not limited to grading, clearing, removal of debris, installation and construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalk, paving, irrigation, and drainage as needed for the installation of public lighting or related electrical facilities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the annual report for Fiscal Year 2027 for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements described in the report prepared by the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 is filed with the Office of City Clerk. All interested persons are referred to that report for a full and detailed

description of improvements, boundaries of the assessment district, and proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the assessment district.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, July 14, 2026 the City Council will conduct a public hearing. The hearing may be held in the School District Board Room at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA 94702. The Council will consider all objections or protests, if any, to the proposed assessment. Any interested person may present written or oral testimony at the public hearing.

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

DECLARATION OF INTENT – ASSESSMENTS FOR FY 2027 STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2018
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018, the Council Adopted Resolution No. 68,482–N.S. that completed proceedings to form the Street Lighting Assessment District 2018; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter III of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Street and Highway Code Section 22620-22631, the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, Engineer of Work for Street Lighting Assessment District 2018, prepared and filed an annual report for levy of annual assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 with the City Clerk.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley approves the Engineer’s Report, dated May 2026, on the levy of assessments for FY 2027 for Street Lighting Assessment District 2018. The area of land to be assessed is located in the City of Berkeley, Alameda County.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed annual adjustments of assessments are in compliance with the provisions of Proposition 218 because adjustments are in accordance with adjustment formulas established when the assessment district was formed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley declares its intention to levy and collect assessments within the Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 for FY 2027.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall publish a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing listing the date, hour, and place of the public hearing for annual levy and collection of assessments in accordance with Streets and Highway Code Sections 22625, 22626, 22552, and 22553 and Section 6061 of the Government Code.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that improvements to be made in this assessment district are generally described as maintenance or servicing of existing and future public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to street lights, traffic signals, and related electrical facilities; and the installation and construction of public lighting, including but not limited to grading, clearing, removal of debris, installation and construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalk, paving, irrigation, and drainage as needed for the installation of public lighting or related electrical facilities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the annual report for Fiscal Year 2027 for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements

described in the report prepared by the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 is filed with the Office of City Clerk. All interested persons are referred to that report for a full and detailed description of improvements, boundaries of the assessment district, and proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the assessment district.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a public hearing will be held at 6:00 PM on Tuesday, July 14, 2026. The hearing may be held in the School District Board Room at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA, 94702. The City Council will consider all objections or protests, if any, to the proposed assessment. Any interested person may present written or oral testimony at the public hearing.

ATTACHMENT 3
1 CITY OF BERKELEY

STREET LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 1982-1
ENGINEER’S REPORT
on the
Levy of an Assessment
for
Fiscal Year 2027
May 2026
Prepared by

TERRENCE SALONGA, PE

CITY OF BERKELEY

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

ENGINEERING DIVISION

STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 1982-1 ATTACHMENT 3 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 3 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 3 ESTIMATE OF COSTS ....................................................................................................................................... 3 DIAGRAM ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 5 APPENDIX A: FY 2027 ASSESSMENT ROLL ................................................................................................ 7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- FY 2027 Street Light Fund Forecast ............................................................................................... 4

STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 1982-1 ATTACHMENT 3

3 BACKGROUND
By its Resolution 51,230 N.S., adopted April 6, 1982, the Berkeley City Council initiated proceedings under the provisions of Division 15, Part 2, of the California Streets and Highways Code, entitled “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972”. The required public hearing was held on July 20, 1982, at which time the Council ordered the improvements and the formation of the assessment district, and confirmed the diagram and assessment. The district so formed was designated the “City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 1982-1”. Assessments have been levied for the 1983 through 2026 fiscal years.

This report was prepared and filed pursuant to Division 15, Part 2, of the California Streets and Highway Code Section 2250, and is exempt from Government Code Section 53753 since the proposed assessment for FY 2027 will not be increased.

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The plans and specifications for this assessment district were prepared and filed with the Engineer’s Report for the 1983 fiscal year, which plans and specifications are incorporated herein by this reference thereto.

METHODOLOGY
The benefit to individual parcels within the Assessment District was established in 1982 based on the median light intensity a parcel receives. Parcel’s Land Use Code (LUC) is used to categorize the parcels. The assessment is calculated by multiplying the building square footage on the parcel times the rate of its category. The rate structure has three categories: 1) Residential and Institutional, 2) Industrial, 3) Commercial. An industrial area has twice the median light intensity of a residential area and a commercial area has four times the median light intensity; therefore, the rates are two and four times higher, respectively, than the residential rate. The rates are:

Residential and Institutional $0.0108/Building Square Footage Industrial and Utility $0.0216/Building Square Footage
Commercial $0.0432/Building Square Footage

ESTIMATE OF COSTS
The improvements to be made in this assessment district are generally described as the maintenance or servicing of existing and future public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to street lights, traffic signals, and related electrical facilities; and the installation and construction of public lighting including grading, clearing, removal of debris, installation and construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, paving, irrigation, and drainage as needed for the installation of public lighting or related electrical facilities.

STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 1982-1 ATTACHMENT 3

4 An estimate of costs for the maintenance of the improvements is provided in the fiscal year (FY) 2027 Street Light Assessment Fund (Fund 142) forecast provided below.

Table 1- FY 2027 Street Light Fund Forecast

Expenses

Personnel Expenses $ 733,653
Other Operating Expenses $ 1,342,181
Capital Expenses $ 564,389

Total Expenses $ 2,640,223

Assessments & Other Revenue

Street Light Assessment District 1982-1 $ 1,445,790
Street Light Assessment District 2018 $ 979,145
Misc. Revenue $ 59,827

Total Revenue $ 2,484,760

Deficit – From Reserves $ (155,463)

DIAGRAM
The diagram for this assessment district was prepared and filed with the Engineer’s Report for the 1983 fiscal year.

STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 1982-1 ATTACHMENT 3 5 ASSESSMENT
Except as described below, the assessments to be made against the assessable lots and parcels of land within this assessment district are contained in the “2025 Assessment Roll” for this district, which roll is filed herewith and incorporated herein by this reference thereto.

Said assessment roll filed herewith is based on data contained in the City’s 2026 Library Tax tape and the County Assessor’s 2026 maps. In the event that data contained in the 2026 Library Tax tape and 2026 maps, when issued, conflict therewith, assessments to be made against the affected parcels for this 2027 Fiscal Year shall be based upon the revised data contained in said 2027 tape and 2027 maps.

Dated: ______________ ___________________________
Terrence Salonga, RCE 82615
Engineer of Work
May 7, 2026

STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1982-1 ATTACHMENT 3 7 APPENDIX A: FY 2027 ASSESSMENT ROLL
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels assessed within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 1982-1 and the amount of the assessment) has been filed with the City Engineer, and is, by reference, made part of this report and will be available for public inspection during normal office hours.

Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference, made part of this report.

These records shall govern all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.

FY 2027

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
June 2026

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027
Page i

CITY OF BERKELEY
City Council
Adena Ishii, Mayor
Rashi Kesarwani, District 1
Terry Taplin, District 2
Ben Bartlett, District 3
Igor Tregub, District 4
Shoshana O’Keefe, District 5
Brent Blackaby, District 6
Cecilia Lunaparra, District 7
Mark Humbert, District 8

City Manager
Paul Buddenhagen

Public Works Department
Wahid Amiri, Interim Public Works Director
Ricardo Salcedo, Associate Civil Engineer

City Attorney
Farimah Brown

Engineer of Work
John Bliss, P.E., SCI Consulting Group

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027
Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 Assessment Formation Process .................................................................................... 2 Legal Requirements ...................................................................................................... 2 Proposition 218 2
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority 3

Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property 4
Bonander v. Town of Tiburon 4
Beutz v. County of Riverside 5
Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego 5 Compliance with Current Law 5
Plans and Specifications .................................................................................... 6 Fiscal Year 2027 Budget .................................................................................... 8 Method of Assessment ................................................................................... 10 Discussion of Benefit .................................................................................................. 10 Special Benefit ............................................................................................................ 11 Improved Visibility and Safety 11
Improved Access, Navigation and Traffic Safety 11
Improved Community Character and Vitality 11
General Versus Special Benefit .................................................................................. 12 Quantification of General Benefit .............................................................................. 12 Calculation of General Benefit 13
Calculation of the Current General Benefit Contribution from the City 15 General Benefit is More than Offset by City Contribution 15 Method of Assessment ............................................................................................... 15 Residential Traffic 16
Non-Residential Traffic 16
Darkness 17
Single-Family Equivalents 17
Annual Assessment Increase ...................................................................................... 18 Duration of Assessment ............................................................................................. 19 Appeals and Interpretation ........................................................................................ 19

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027
Page iii

Assessment Statement ................................................................................... 20 Assessment Diagram ....................................................................................... 22 Appendix A – SANDAG Trip Generation Tables ............................................... 23 Appendix B – Assessment Roll ........................................................................ 25

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027
Page iv

List of Tables
Table 1 – FY 2027 Budget Summary ................................................................................... 8 Table 2 – General Benefit for Arterial Streets .................................................................. 14 Table 3 – Calculation of General Benefit .......................................................................... 14 Table 4 – Single-Family Equivalent Rates .......................................................................... 18 Table 5 – Maximum Single-Family Equivalent Rate Calculation ....................................... 19

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027
Page v

List of Figures
Figure 1 – Assessment Diagram ........................................................................................ 22

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Introduction
Overview
The City of Berkeley (“City”) provides maintenance and servicing of certain publicly- owned street lights throughout the City. In order to fund the installation, maintenance and operation (the “Services”) of these improvements (“Improvements”), the City formed a city-wide street light assessment district in 1982. The rates for the 1982 assessment district have never been increased. Revenues from these assessments are placed into the streetlight fund (Fund 142).

In time, the financial outlook of the Streetlight fund began to cause concern as the costs increased for energy, labor and materials, while the revenue remained relatively static.

Accordingly, the Streetlight fund no longer had enough funds to fund the Street light program. As a result, beginning in Fiscal Year 2006
1 the Streetlight fund began to receive
a subsidy from the City’s General Fund in order to balance revenues with expenditures.

However, because of other demands on the General Fund, that subsidy ended beginning Fiscal Year 2018. The modest fund balance was sufficient for Fiscal Year 2018 to cover that year’s anticipated expenses, but under those conditions it was expected to be depleted during Fiscal Year 2019. To establish financial sustainability for the Streetlight fund and avoid significant reductions in service levels, in 2018 the City conducted a funding measure to increase the assessment revenue for street light services.

With the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, any increase in assessments must be approved by the affected property owners through a specified ballot proceeding. In addition, Proposition 218 and related subsequent court decisions create strict criteria for how assessments can be apportioned to the various properties, and the existing 1982 assessment structure may not be adequately consistent with these newer criteria.

While the 1982 assessment structure may continue as a “grandfathered” assessment, any increase must be implemented in accordance with Proposition 218 and court decisions. For this reason, a new district, Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 (“District”), was formed separately, leaving the 1982 assessment structure in place, as is.

The District was formed and the assessments levied pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, commonly known as the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Act”), and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (“Article”).

1 Fiscal years are referenced in this Report by the year that fiscal period ends. For example, Fiscal Year 2006 would cover the period from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Assessment Formation Process
This Engineer’s Report (“Report”) describes the Street Ligh ting Assessment District 2018 (“District”), along with the boundaries, a description of the facilities and public improvements to be improved, serviced and maintained by the assessments (the "Improvements”), and the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2027 (“Assessments”).

At its meeting on April 3, 2018, the City Council passed a resolution directing that a notice of assessment and assessment ballot be mailed to property owners within the District whose property receives special benefit from the Improvements. The notice included a description of the Improvements to be funded by the Assessments, the proposed assessment amount for each parcel owned, and an explanation of the method of completing and submitting the ballot. Ballots were mailed on or about April 11, 2018.

On May 29, 2018, a public hearing was be held for the purpose of allowing public testimony regarding the proposed Assessments. At the Public Hearing, the public had the opportunity to speak on the issue, voice an y concerns or protests, and obtain further information about the proposed Assessments.

The returned ballots were then tabulated, a nd the ballot results were announced at the City Council meeting on June 12, 2018. It was determined that the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the proposed Assessments did not exceed the assessment ballots submitted in favor of the Assessments (each ballot was weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the prop erty for which the ballot was submitted), so the Council was able to take action to approve the levying of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2019. The Assessments were confirmed and approved, and the Assessment information was submitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The County Auditor/Controller included the Assessments on the property tax roll beginning in Fiscal Year 2019. Assessments may now be continued by the City Council from year to year.

Legal Requirements
Proposition 218
This Assessment District was formed consiste nt with Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996 and is now codified as Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services, improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which benefits the assessed property.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Proposition 218 describes a number of impor tant requirements, including property- owner balloting for the imposition, increase and extension of assessments, and these requirements are satisfied by the process used to establish this Assessment District.

Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority
In July 2008, the California Supreme Court decided Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA”), the most significant court case clarifying the substantive assessment require ments of Proposition 218. Several of the most important elements of the decision included further emphasis that:
 Benefit assessments are for special benefits to property, not general benefits.  The services and/or improvements funded by assessments must be clearly defined.
 Assessment districts must be drawn to contain all parcels that receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement.
 Assessments paid in each assessment district must be proportional to the special benefit received by each such parcel from the improvements and services funded by the assessment.

This Engineer’s Report and the process used to establish the Assessments are consistent with the SVTA decision and with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution based on the following factors:

1. The District is narrowly drawn to include only the properties that receive special benefit from the specific Improvements. Thus, zones of benefit are not required, and the assessment revenue derived from real property in the District is extended only on the Improvements in the District.

2. The Improvements which will be constructed and maintained with Assessment proceeds in the District are located in close proximity to the real property subject to the Assessment. The Improvements provide illumination to streets and sidewalks enabling improved access to the residents of such assessed property.

The proximity of the Improvements to the assessed parcels and the improved access and increased safety provided to the residents of the assessed parcels by the Improvements provides a special benefit to the parcel being assessed pursuant to the factors outlined by the Supreme Court in that decision.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

3. Due to their proximity to the assessed parcels, the Improvements financed with Assessment revenues in the District benefit the properties in that District in a manner different in kind from the benefit that other parcels of real property in the area derive from such Improvements, and the benefits conferred on such property in the District are more extensive than a general increase in property values.

4. The assessments paid in the District are proportional to the special benefit that each parcel within the District receives from the Improvements because:
a) The costs of the specific lighting Improvements and maintenance and utility costs in the District are specified in this Report; and

b) Such Improvement and maintenance costs in the District are allocated among different types of property located within the District and equally among those properties which have similar characteristics, such as single- family residential parcels, multi-family residential parcels, commercial parcels, industrial parcels, etc.

Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property
On June 8, 2009, the Court of Appeal amende d its original opinion upholding a benefit assessment for property in the downtown ar e a o f t h e C i t y o f P o m o n a i n D a h m s v .

Downtown Pomona Property (“Dahms”). On July 22, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied review. In Dahms the Court upheld an assessmen t that was 100% special benefit (i.e. 0% general benefit) on the rationale that the services and improvements funded by the assessments were directly provided to property in the assessment district. The Court also upheld discounts and exemptions from the assessment for certain properties.

Bonander v. Town of Tiburon
On December 31, 2009, in Bonander v. Town of Tiburon (“Bonander”), the Court of Appeal overturned a benefit assessment approved by property owners to pay for placing overhead utility lines underground in an area of the Town of Tiburon. The Court invalidated the assessments primarily on the grounds that the assessments had been apportioned to assessed property based in part on relative costs within sub-areas of the assessment district instead of the overall cost of the improvements and the overall proportional special benefits.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Beutz v. County of Riverside
On May 26, 2010 the Court of Appeals issued a decision in Steven Beutz v. County of Riverside (“ Beutz”). This decision overturned an assessment for park maintenance in Wildomar, California, primarily because the general benefits associated with improvements and services was not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits.

Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego On September 22, 2011, the Court of Appeal issued a decision in Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego appeal. This decision overturned an assessment for street and landscaping maintenance in the Greater Golden Hill neighborhood of San Diego, California. The Court described two primary reasons for its decision. First, like in Beutz, the Court found the general benefits associated with services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits. Second, the Court found that the City failed to record the basis for the assessment on its own parcels.

Compliance with Current Law
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with th e requirements of Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution and with the SVTA decision because the Improvements to be funded are clearly defined; the Improvements are directly available to and will directly benefit property in the District; and the Improvements provide a direct advantage to property in the District that would not be received in absence of the Assessments.

This Engineer’s Report is consistent with Beutz, Dahms and Greater Golden Hill because the Improvements will directly benefit property in the District and the general benefits have been explicitly calculated and quantified and excluded from the Assessments. The Engineer’s Report is consistent with Bonander because the Assessments have been apportioned based on the overall cost of the Improvements and Services and proportional special benefit to each property.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Plans and Specifications
The work and Improvements to be undertaken by the City and the cost paid from the levy of the annual assessment provide special benefi t to assessor parcels within the District defined in the Method of Assessment herein. Consistent with the Act, the Improvements are generally described as follows:

The installation, maintenance, and servicing of local street lights in close proximity to certain lots and parcels which provide a direct special benefit to such lots or parcels.

The installation, maintenance, and servicing of peripheral street light structures which provide a special benefit to all the assessable parcels within the District whether or not such parcels are in close proximity to such lighting.

The installation or construction of public lighting facilities, or the acquisition of any new improvements.

Plans and Specifications for the Improvements for the District are voluminous and are not bound in this Report but by this reference are incorporated and made a part of this Report. The Plans and Specifications are on f ile in the Public Works Engineering Office where they can be made available for public inspection.

Article XIII D of the California Constitution defines "maintenance and servicing expenses" as, "the cost of rent, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current, care and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement.” The Improvement funding includes, but is not limited to, the removal, repair, replacement or relocation of light standards, poles, bulbs, fixtures and appurtenances, electrical energy, supplies, engineering and incidental costs relating to the maintenance and servicing of the local lighting improvements benefiting the parcels within the District.

The Improvements to be maintained and serviced within the District are to be part of the local street light system of the City of Berkeley that confers special benefit to the District's parcels. The specific location of local street light Improvements within the City can be found in the Streetlight Condition Assessment by Tanko Lighting, which is on file in the office of the Director of Public Works, where it is available for public inspection.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

The Improvements to be maintained and serviced within the District include City-owned street lights within the right of way of the local public streets located within the boundaries of the District. These lights are all within close proximity to the parcels within the District identified as receiving local lighting benefit in the Method of Assessment, and, as such, provide special benefit to these parcels.

All street light maintenance will be performed by the City of Berkeley or its contractors.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Fiscal Year 2027 Budget
A summary budget for fiscal year 2027 for th e maintenance of the Improvements is provided below. The full Itemized budget for the Assessment District is voluminous and is not bound in this report but by reference is incorporated and made a part of this report.

The Itemized budget is on file in the Department of Public Works where it is available for public inspection.

Table 1 – FY 2027 Budget Summary
FY 2027
Revenue
1982 Assessment Dist 1,445,789$
SLAD 2018 Assessments 1 979,145
Misc. Revenue 59,827
TOTAL REVENUE 2,484,760$
Expenses
Personnel Expenses
Personnel 733,653
Other Operating Expenses
Non-Personnel 1,304,814
County Collection Fee 37,367
Other Operating Subtotal 1,342,181$
Capital Expenses
Capital Expenses 564,389
Capital Subtotal 564,389$
TOTAL EXPENSES 2,640,223$
To (from) General Fund and/or Reserves (155,463)$
Budget Allocation to Parcels
Total Street Light 2018 Assessments 1 979,145$
Total Street Light 2018 SFEs 47,741.757
Assessment per SFE 2 20.51$

Notes on the Budget:

1. The Act requires that proceeds from the Assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Moreover, funds raised by the Assessment shall be used only for the purposes stated within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, must be carried over to the next Fiscal Year. The City may also establish a reserve fund for contingencies and special projects, as well as a capital improvement fund for accumulating funds for

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

larger capital improvement projects or capital renovation needs. Any remaining balance would either be placed in the reserve fund, the capital improvement fund, or would be used to reduce future years' assessments.

2. The rate shown here is for a Single-Family Equivalent (“SFE”), which is a single-family home or its equivalent. For the definition of the term SFE and rates for other types of property, see the section titled, “Method of Assessment” and the sections following it in this report.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Method of Assessment
This section of the Engineer’s Report includes an explanation of the benefits derived from the installation, maintenance and servicing of the Improvements throughout the District and the Assessment methodology used to apportion the total Assessment to properties within the District.

The District consists of all assessor parcel s within the boundaries as defined by the Assessment Diagram and the parcels identifi ed by the Assessor Parcel Numbers listed with the levy roll included with this Report. The parcel list includes all assessable privately and publicly owned parcels within the boundaries. The method used for apportioning the Assessment is based on the proportional special benefits to be derived by the properties in the District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The apportionment of special benefit is a two-step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefit arising from the Improvements and the second step is to allocate the Assessments to property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property.

Discussion of Benefit
In summary, the Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to property.

This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. Moreover, such benefit is not based on any one property owner’s use of the Improvements or a property owner’s specific demographic status. With reference to the requirements for Assessments, Section 22573 of the Act states:

The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in prop ortion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.

Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, has confirmed that Assessments must be based on the special benefit to property:

No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Special Benefit
Street lighting is an optional improvement, not required by state or federal law, that is an enhancement over and above requisite infrastr ucture, and thus is a special benefit. The majority of the benefits of the street lights are received by the benefited property, with a small portion of the benefits received by the general public on major streets only. This portion received by the general public is captured and quantified in the following section.

The factors that determine special benefit conferred on parcels are detailed below:

Improved Visibility and Safety
Well maintained, effective street lighting provides special benefit to proximate parcels, within range of the light, because it allows fo r safer and improved use of the property in the evenings, early morning, and at night. Street lighting provides special benefit because it increases neighborhood safety and, at least indirectly, reduces the likelihood of crime on the proximate parcels. Over time, the Impr ovements continue to confer a particular and distinct special benefit upon parcels within the District because of the nature of the Improvements. The proper maintenance of th e street lights and appurtenant facilities increases visibility and local human presence and, in many situations, helps reduce property-related crimes, especially vandalism, against assessed properties in the District.

Improved Access, Navigation and Traffic Safety
Well maintained, effective street lighting enha nces ingress, egress and accessibility of all forms to the assessed parcels in the evening, early morning, and at night by increasing visibility. Improved visibility also helps prev ent local automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic accidents related to the assessed parcels. This benefit includes a reduction in accidents during non-daylight hours.

Improved Community Character and Vitality
Well maintained, effective street lighting promotes evening and nighttime social interaction of residents and customers of businesses and industry. This creates a positive atmosphere and enhanced community image in the evening and at night for the assessed parcels.

All of the above-mentioned items also contribute to a specific enhancement to each of the parcels within the District. The proximate street lights ma ke each parcel safer, more visible, more accessible, more useful, more valuable and more desirable; and this further strengthens the basis of these Assessments.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

General Versus Special Benefit
The proceeds from the Assessments are used to fund the described Improvements and increased levels of maintenance to the other City facilities that serve and benefit the properties in the District. In absence of the Street Lighting Assessment District 2018, such Improvements would not be properly maintained . Therefore, the District’s purpose is to ensure that the necessary and beneficial public facilities for property in the District are properly maintained, operated and repaired over time. The Assessments will ensure that street lighting and associated improvements within and adjacent to the District are functional, well maintained and effective. These public resources directly benefit the property in the District and will confer distinct and special benefits to the properties within the District.

The Improvements and Services are specifically designed, located and created to provide additional and improved resources for property inside the District and not the public at large although the Improvemen ts maintained by the Services may be available to the general public. Other properties that are outside the District do not enjoy the unique proximity and other special benefit factors described previously. These Improvements and Services are of special benefit to properti es located within the District because they provide a direct advantage to properties in the District that would not be provided in the absence of the Assessments. Any general benefits to surrounding properties outside of the Assessment District, if any, are collateral and conferred concomitantly.

Quantification of General Benefit
Although the analysis used to support these assessments concludes that the benefits are solely special, as described above, consideration is made for the suggestion that a portion of the benefits are general. General benefits cannot be funded by these assessments. The funding for general benefits must come from other sources.

The maintenance and servicing of these Improv ements is also partially funded, directly and indirectly, from other sources, including the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, and the State of California. This funding comes in the form of grants, development fees, special programs, and general funds, as well as direct maintenance and servicing of facilities (e.g. curbs, gutters, streets, draina ge systems, etc.). This funding from other sources more than compensates for general bene fits, if any, received by the properties within the Assessment District.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

In the 2009 Dahms case, the Court upheld an assessm ent that was 100% special benefit on the rationale that the services funded by the assessments were directly provided within the assessment district. It is also important to note that the improvements and services funded by the assessments in Pomona are similar to the improvements and services funded by the Assessments described in this Engineer’s Report and the Court found these improvements and services to be 100% special benefit. Also similar to the assessments in Pomona, the Assessments desc ribed in this Engineer’s Report fund Improvements and Services directly provided within the District and every benefiting property in the District enjoys proximity and access to the Improvements. Therefore, Dahms establishes a basis for minimal or zero general benefits from the Assessments.

Nonetheless, possible general benefits have been liberally calculated below and then shown to be more than offset by resources from non-assessment sources.

Calculation of General Benefit
The Illumination Engineering Society of North America provides a widely-used standard for street lighting which has become the de-facto industry standard. This standard specifies footcandle requirements as a measurement of illumination at the roadway level, which are different for local, collector , and major streets using three levels (low/medium/high) of pedestrian activity. The three street classifications and pedestrian activity levels are described below with a discussion of their general benefit contribution from the street light system.

Local Streets – a street that is used to gain access to the property bordering it. The street lights on local streets primarily serve the adjacent property owner. Therefore, per industry standard, the street lights on local streets have no general benefit component.

Collector Streets – low to moderate capacity roads which serve to move traffic from local streets to arterial roads. Similar to local str eets, collector streets are primarily used by local residents and per industry standard are also deemed to have no general benefit component. This street classification will be used as the baseline for this analysis.

Arterials – high capacity streets that serve as the principal network for through traffic flow. These routes connect areas of principal traffic generation and important regional roadways traversing the City. As such, this traffic includes a significant number of drivers from outside the District and the street lig ht Improvements may confer some general benefit on those drivers.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

On average, arterial streets require a 45% increase in lighting levels from the baseline collector streets.2 This increase in lighting reinforces the special benefits to the abutting properties as defined above: increased visibility and safety; improved access, navigation and traffic safety; and improved community ch aracter and vitality. In addition to these benefits, the through traffic flow, which includes drivers from outside the District, receives the additional benefit of reduction in nighttime accidents due to enhanced lighting. The degree to which each of these benefits can be considered general benefit is shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – General Benefit for Arterial Streets

The general benefit from arterial streets must be combined with the general benefit from all other streets in the District. Each cate gory of street has its unique general benefit weight, prorated by center line miles of streets. This calculation is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – Calculation of General Benefit

2 Based on values from the Illumination Engineering Society of North America, “American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting.”
Benefit Factor
Relative
Weight
General
Benefit
Contribution
Relative
General
Benefit
Improved Nighttime Visibility and Safety 25 0% 0.0%
Improved Access, Navigation and Traffic
Safety 25 50% 12.5%
Improved Community Character and Vitality 25 0% 0.0%
Reduction in Nighttime Accidents 25 75% 18.8%
General Benefit on Arterial Streets from Improved Lighting 31.3% Street Classification
General
Benefit
Weight
General
Benefit
Local 158 73.1% 0% 0.0%
Collector 37 17.1% 0% 0.0%
Arterial 21 9.7% 31.3% 3.0%
TOTAL 216 100% 3.0%
Centerline Miles

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

As a result, the City of Berkeley will contribute at least 3.0% of the total budget from sources other than the Assessm ent. This contribution offsets any general benefits from the Assessment Services.

Calculation of the Current General Be nefit Contribution from the City This general benefit contribution is the sum of the following components:

The City of Berkeley owns, maintains, rehabilitates and replaces curb and gutter along the border of the Assessment District improvements. This curb and gutter serves to support, contain, retain, manage irrigation flow and growth, and provide a boundary for the Improvements. The contribution from the City of Berkeley toward general benefit from the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the curb and gutter is conservatively estimated to be 1%.

The City of Berkeley owns and maintains a storm drainage system along the border of the District’s Improvements. This system serves to prevent flooding and associated damage to the Improvements and to manage urban runoff including local pollutants loading from the Improvements. The contribution from the City of Berkeley toward general benefit from the maintenance and operation of the local storm drainage system is conservatively estimated to be 1%.

The City of Berkeley owns and maintains lo cal public streets throughout the District.

These public streets provide access to the Improvements for its enjoyment as well as efficient maintenance. The contribution from the City of Berkeley toward general benefit from the maintenance of local public streets is conservatively estimated to be 1%.

The value of the construction of the existing street light Improvements can be quantified and monetized as an annuity. Since this construction was performed and paid for by funds other than these Assessments, this “annuity” ca n be used to offset general benefit costs and is conservatively estimated to contribute 25%.

General Benefit is More than Offset by City Contribution Therefore, the total general benefit is liberally quantified at 3.0%, which is more than offset by the total non-assessment contribution toward general benefit of 28%.

Method of Assessment
As previously discussed, the proposed Assessments will provide comprehensive Improvements that will clearly confer specia l benefits to properties in the proposed District. The allocation of special benefits to property is partially based on the type of property and the size of property.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

The development of an Assessment methodology requires apportioning to determine the relative special benefit for each property. To determine the special benefit received by individual parcels, the use of that parcel must be considered. Each category of property can benefit from street lights in a unique way, and those characteristics must be quantified. As noted above, the special benefit factors are as follows:
 Improved visibility and safety
 Improved access, navigation and traffic safety
 Improved community character and vitality
The basis for apportioning Assessments is tr affic generated to and from a particular parcel. This is used because the amount of traffic generated by a parcel is directly proportional to, and effectively models, the relative quantity of the three special benefit factors. For instance, the more people that come and go from a site, the more the site benefits from the improved visibility and safety. The same reasoning applies to the other special benefit factors.

Residential Traffic
The typical single-family residence (“SFR”) generates approximately ten vehicular trips per day. Condominium units generate approx imately eight trips per day and apartment units generate approximately six trips per day per unit. The trip generation rates that are used for each land use are based on the trip generation rates published by the San Diego Association of Governments and the Encinitas Ranch Austin Foust Traffic Study. The trip generation rates are included in Appendix A of this report.

Non-Residential Traffic
Trip generation for non-residential parcels vary depending on their designated land use as well as size of parcel. The trip generation data for non-residential land uses are based on trips per acre. For instance, a commercial parcel on two acres typically will have twice the traffic of a commercial parcel on one acre. It follows that the two-acre parcel will then receive twice the benefit from the street lighting as the one-acre parcel. Various land uses were grouped into categories with similar traffic characteristics, resulting in the fee categories shown later in this report.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Darkness
Non-residential parcels typically do not operate all night long. The average period of darkness is 12 hours, but non-residential uses will only operate for approximately three hours of that time. For that reason, a non-resi dential darkness factor of (3 ÷ 12 =) 25% is applied to those parcels. For two non-resi dential categories, the darkness factor is different, as shown below:
 Offices and banks typically close earlier than other non-residential uses so they are assigned a darkness factor of 12.5%.
 Hotels, motels and boarding houses typically have activity further into the night than other non-residential uses, so they are assigned a darkness factor of 50%.

Non-residential trip generation is then adjusted for the darkness factor for each rate category.

Single-Family Equivalents
The SFR category is used as the baseline for calculating the special benefit for all other land uses and sizes. Each rate category is a ssigned a single-family equivalent (“SFE”) rate using the following formula:

ADT x Darkness Factor
ADT for SFR
SFE Rate=

Where:
 ADT = Average Daily Trips for each category
 ADT for SFR = ADT for single-family residential, which is used as a baseline figure for SFE rate
 SFE Rate = SFEs per unit shown (parcel, [living] unit, or acre) The results of these calculations for each rate category are shown in Table 4 below.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Table 4 – Single-Family Equivalent Rates
.

Landuse Category ADT
Darkness
Factor
Adj
ADT SFE Rate Unit
Residential
Single Family 10 1 10 1.000 parcel
Multi-Family < 5 units 8 1 8 0.800 unit
Multi-Family 5 or more units 6 1 6 0.600 unit
Condominium 8 1 8 0.800 parcel
Mobile Home 5 1 5 0.500 unit
Multiple SFR on parcel 10 1 10 1.000 unit
Non-Residential
General Commercial 600 0.25 150 15.000 acre
Industrial / Warehouse 60 0.25 15 1.500 acre
Auto Repair 400 0.25 100 10.000 acre
Hotel / Motel / Boarding 200 0.5 100 10.000 acre
Hospital 250 0.25 62.5 6.250 acre
Retirement Home 50 0.25 12.5 1.250 acre
School / Day Care 90 0.25 22.5 2.250 acre
Medical / Dental / Vet 500 0.25 125 12.500 acre
Church 30 0.25 7.5 0.750 acre
Mortuary 10 0.25 2.5 0.250 acre
Recreational 100 0.25 25 2.500 acre
Parking / Transportation 200 0.25 50 5.000 acre
Mini Storage 30 0.25 7.5 0.750 acre
Office 300 0.125 37.5 3.750 acre
Bank 1000 0.125 125 12.500 acre
Park / Open Space / Agriculture 2 0.25 0.5 0.050 acre
Vacant 0 na

Annual Assessment Increase
The Assessment is subject to an annual adju stment tied to the San Francisco-Oakland- Hayward Consumer Price Index-U as of December of each succeeding year (“CPI”), with a maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. In order for the City’s dedicated Streetlight fund revenue sources to satisfy cost requirements into the future, the maximum rate per SFE is calculated based upon the sum of the 1982 assessment and the Street Light Assessment District 2018 Assessment.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Table 5 – Maximum Single-Family Equivalent Rate Calculation FY 2026 FY 2027
2018 District Maximum for FY 25 908,515.40$ 908,515.40$ 1982 District Maximum for FY 25 1,445,788.78$
Total for FY 25 2,354,304.18$
Maximum Increase of 3.00% of Total for FY 27 70,629.13$ FY 26 Maximum Assessment 979,144.53$
Total SFEs 47,741.757
FY 27 Maximum Rate per SFE 20.51$

Duration of Assessment
The Assessments may be continued every year after their formation, so long as the public Improvements need to be maintained and improved and the City requires funding from the Assessments for these Improvements in the District. As noted previously, the Assessment can continue to be levied annually after the City Council approves an annually updated Engineer’s Report, budget for the Assessment, Improvements to be provided and other specifics of the Assessment. In addition, the City Council must hold an annual public hearing to continue the Assessment.

Appeals and Interpretation
Any property owner who feels that the Assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information be ing used to apply the foregoing method of assessment, may file a written appeal with the City of Berkeley Public Works department.

Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current or, if before July 1, the upcoming fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the City of Berkeley City Engineer or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City Engineer or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified , the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the City Engineer or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the City Engineer or her or his designee shall be referred to the Public Works Director and the decision of the Public Works Director shall be final.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Assessment Statement
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2026, the City Council of the City of Berkeley, County of Alameda, California, adopted a Resolution initiating proceedings for the levy of Assessments for fiscal year 2027 within the Street Light Assessment District 2018, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Ar ticle XIIID of the California Constitution (collectively “the Act”);
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District and an assessment of the estimated costs of the Improvements upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District, to which the description of the proposed Improvements therein contained, reference is hereby made for further particulars; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act and the order of the City Council of the City of Berkeley, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.

The amount to be paid for the Improvements and the expense incidental thereto to be paid by the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 for the fiscal year 2027 are generally as listed in Table 1.

As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of the City of Berkeley Street light Assessment District 2018. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the City of Berkeley Street light Assessment District 2018 is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

And I do hereby assess and apportion the net amount of the cost and expenses of the Improvements, including the costs and expens es incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the Improvements, and more particularly set fo rth in the cost estimate and method of assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

The Assessments are made upon the parcels or lots of land within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land from the Improvements.

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Alameda for the fiscal year 2027. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of the County.

I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2027 for each parcel or lot of land within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018.

Dated: May 5, 2026

E n g i n e e r o f W o r k

By ______________________________
John Bliss, License No. C52091

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Assessment Diagram
The boundaries of the City of Berkeley Street light Maintenance Assessment Districts and Annexations are displayed on the Assessment Diagram below.

Figure 1 – Assessment Diagram

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Appendix A – SANDAG Trip Generation Tables

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

City of Berkeley
Street Lighting Assessment District 2018
FY 2027

Appendix B – Assessment Roll
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels a ssessed within the City of Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 and the amount of the assessment) has been filed with the City Engineer, and is, by reference, made pa rt of this report and will be available for public inspection during normal office hours.

Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Ro ll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference made part of this report.

These records shall govern all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works Subject: Contract: Odyssey Power for On-Call Generator Maintenance

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Odyssey Power for On-Call Generator Maintenance in an amount not to exceed $125,000 for a full three-year contract term, with an option for the City Manager to extend for two additional one-year terms.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funds are currently allocated in the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Public Works Budget (Fund 673) for on-call generator services and are subject to approval by City Council. Funding for future years is subject to appropriation in the Fiscal Years 2028 and 2029 Budget based on the department’s need for generator services.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City’s generators provide City facilities with needed electricity whenever regular power is disrupted. This is essential for the City’s Public Safety Departments to maintain operations during disruptions and to support the operational needs of other City Facilities. Public Works has an existing contract for on-call generator maintenance services with another vendor. To avoid disruption in maintenance and repairs for the City’s generator systems, it is necessary to execute a second contract which is recommended based on results of the recent competitive solicitation.

The City conducted Invitation to Bid Specification No. 25-11715-C, released on October 7, 2025, with proposals due no later than November 18, 2025, and received four proposals. The selection committee, composed of subject matter experts from Public Works, evaluated all proposals.

The evaluation criteria used to rate the proposals were as follows: Management and Operational Plan (30%), Technical Competence and Experience (15%), Financial Proposal and Cost Considerations (25%), and Specific Service Requirements (30%).

Odyssey Power, along with Got Power, Inc. DBA: California Diesel & Power, were selected as the most responsive bidders to the solicitation.

24

Contract: Odyssey Power for On-Call Generator Maintenance CONSENT CALENDAR June 16, 2026

This contract will support the City’s facilities and is in alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan, advancing our goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

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

BACKGROUND
The City owns and operates several generators that are used to supply City facilities with power when regular power is disrupted, whether it be planned or unplanned.

Beyond these systems needing regular inspection, repair and maintenance, the City also needs the capability to rent generators on an interim basis if a City generator is inoperable or a facility does not have its own generator. Odyssey Power responded to the bid invitation and was selected as a responsive bidder with the staff and equipment necessary to service the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Regular maintenance and repair of generator systems optimizes system performance, prolongs equipment lifespan and minimizes the environmental impact. Well-maintained generators are more efficient, use less energy and reduce carbon emissions.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City requires generator maintenance services for the generators used by facilities including, but not limited to, the Public Safety Building, Civic Center Building, and the Corporation Yard. This contract provides ongoing service, prevents potential disruption to operations and addresses the City’s needs while stabilizing costs and fees.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
If the department does not contract for generator services, there may be delays and increased costs associated with maintaining and repairing City generators.

CONTACT PERSON
Joy Brown, Operations Manager, (510) 981-6629
Aaron Baker, Facilities Maintenance Superintendent, (510) 981-6452 Tucker Brofft, Senior Management Analyst, (510) 981-5375 Erika Barros, Associate Management Analyst, (510) 981-6462 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Bid Abstract

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

CONTRACT: ODYSSEY POWER FOR ON-CALL GENERATOR MAINTENANCE WHEREAS, the City conducted RFP Solicitation No. 25-11715-C with bids due no later than November 18, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City received four proposals and a selection committee, composed of subject matter experts from the department of Public Works, evaluated the bids; and WHEREAS, Odyssey Power was selected as one of the most responsive and highest- scoring vendors; and
WHEREAS, funding in the amount of $125,000 is available in the proposed FY2027 budget pending Council approval, Building Maintenance Fund 673; and WHEREAS, this contract is exempt from the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 3504.1.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract with Odyssey Power for On-Call Generator Services in an amount not to exceed $125,000 for a total contract period of three years, with an option to extend for two additional one-year terms.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works Subject: Contract No. 32500082 Amendment: Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution amending the current contract with the Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation, commonly known as the Telegraph Business Improvement District, for the janitorial maintenance of the 24-hour, seven days a week, public restroom increasing the not-to-exceed amount by $150,000 for a new not-to- exceed amount of $300,000 and extend the contract through June 30, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are funds available in the proposed FY2027 Public Works Budget (Fund 011- General Fund) for janitorial services, pending approval from Council.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Public Works has contracted with the Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation (commonly known as the Telegraph Business Improvement District (TBID)) for the janitorial services for the public restroom on Channing Way near the intersection with Telegraph Avenue. They perform regular, daily cleaning work for this facility throughout the year to ensure it is operational and sanitary for users. They also restock bathroom toiletries and other supplies during these cleanings.

Amending the contract with the servicing of the public restroom is in alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan, advancing our goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

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

BACKGROUND
TBID was selected through a sole source agreement in January of 2023 in advance of the completion of the restroom which was anticipated in April 2023. The original contract

25

Contract No. 32500082 Amendment: CONSENT CALENDAR
Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation June 16, 2026

has an initial start date of July 1, 2024, but construction delays prevented the implementation of this contract until January 2025 as the contractor prepared for the opening of the restroom to the public.

TBID is currently best suited to oversee this work as they have Ambassadors that will assist in monitoring the status of the restrooms. The cleaning will be handled by their subcontractor which is currently maintaining the restroom inside the Telegraph Channing Garage. The cleaning subcontractor will be responsible for cleaning and inspecting the restroom three times a day, seven days a week, and will have easy access to their supplies within the Telegraph Channing Garage. Additionally, coordinating with TBID was a recommendation of the Citywide Restroom Study as TBID has Ambassadors that are readily able to report issues to the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Providing ongoing janitorial service for the 24-hours a day, seven days a week, public restroom will keep the restroom open and usable by the community. Public restrooms may help reduce open defecation which impacts stormwater and public health. There are no identifiable climate impacts.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Amending the existing contract is the most efficient and effective use of City resources.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Without extending the contract, the City will have to close this restroom as there are no available City janitorial staff to perform the same work.

CONTACT PERSON
Joy Brown, Operations Manager, Public Works, 510-981-6629 Aaron Baker, Superintendent, Public Works, 510-981-6452 Tucker Brofft, Senior Management Analyst, Public Works, 510-981-5375

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

CONTRACT NO. 32500082 AMENDMENT: TELEGRAPH PROPERTY AND

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
WHEREAS, Public Works has contracted with the Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation (commonly known as the Telegraph Business Improvement District (TBID)) for the janitorial services for the public restroom on Channing Way near the intersection with Telegraph Avenue; and

WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Contract Amendment to increase the Contract’s spending authority by $100,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $150,000 and to extend the Contract through June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, funding is available for maintenance and janitorial services in the proposed FY2027 budget pending Council approval; and
WHEREAS, the TBID is well positioned to manage the janitorial services and provide additional support of notification of issues through their Ambassador Program; and WHEREAS, the City requires the services of TBID to provide janitorial maintenance of the public restroom on Channing Way at Telegraph Avenue.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Amending the contract with the Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation, commonly known as the Telegraph Business Improvement District, for the janitorial maintenance of the new 24/7 public restroom with a new not to exceed amount of $300,000 and extend the contract through June 30, 2027.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract: Radius Earthwork, Inc. for FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution:

1. Approving plans and specifications for the FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project, Specification No. 26-11763-C;

2. Accepting the bid of Radius Earthwork, Inc., as the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder; and

3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed $11,789,219.45.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is available as listed below. No other funding is required, and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure. This project is funded through the existing Five-Year Paving Plan, as adopted by Council in 2023.

Low bid by Radius Earthwork, Inc. $9,824,349.54
20% Contingency $1,964,869.91
Total construction cost $11,789,219.45
FY 2026 Street Capital Improvement Program Funding
Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account/SB1 (127) .......................$1,500,000 Measure F Vehicle Registration Fee (133) ...............................................$112,960 Measure BB Sales Tax (134)....................................................................$784,029 Capital Improvement Fund (501) ...........................................................$8,392,231 Zero Waste Fund (601)..........................................................................$1,000,000 Total construction funding $11,789,220

26

Contract: Radius Earthwork, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR
FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project June 16, 2026

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project (Specification No. 26-11763-C) was released for bids on March 5, 2026, and bids were opened on April 2, 2026. Five non- local bids were received, from a low of $9,824,349.54, to a high of $11,056,648.75 (see Attachment 3, Abstract of Bids).

The low bidder was Radius Earthwork, Inc., with a bid of $9,824,349.54, which is below the Engineer’s estimate of $13.2 million. Following the bid opening, Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc., the second-lowest bidder, filed a bid protest alleging that Radius Earthwork's bid was nonresponsive due to the inclusion of two versions of a bid page containing different unit prices for Bid Item No. 2 (Traffic Control). After reviewing the protest, Radius Earthwork's response, and the bid documents, the City determined that the discrepancy constitutes a minor, non-material irregularity. The total bid amount submitted by Radius Earthwork is internally consistent and can only be derived using the lower of the two figures. The correct amount is objectively ascertainable from the face of the bid without reliance on post-bid explanations, and the discrepancy does not affect price, confer a competitive advantage, or impair the City's ability to compare bids. Accordingly, the City denied the initial protest.

Following the denial of the initial protest, Bay Cities, through counsel, submitted supplemental arguments on April 20, 2026. The letter argued that the duplicate Traffic Control entries create a material ambiguity requiring City discretion to resolve, and that the discrepancy gave Radius a competitive advantage through the potential to seek bid withdrawal under Public Contract Code Section 5103.

Staff reviewed the supplemental arguments and continues to recommend award to Radius Earthwork as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The new arguments do not change the underlying facts previously considered. The bid specifications provide that an “obviously incorrect entry” may be disregarded; staff determined the inconsistent duplicate entry qualifies because it does not align with the submitted total bid amount. Staff further concluded that the discrepancy did not create a realistic basis for withdrawal under Section 5103, as the intended bid amount is objectively determinable from the face of the bid and remains enforceable as submitted. Accordingly, staff recommends the City reject the supplemental protest and proceed with award to Radius Earthwork, Inc.

Staff has verified that Radius Earthwork, Inc. is the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder.

Staff recommends a 20% contingency of $1,964,869.91, which is higher than the standard 10% to account for current volatility in oil prices affecting asphalt costs, as well as other unforeseen conditions that may arise during construction. Staff recommends that a contract for this project be awarded to Radius Earthwork, Inc.

The FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project is in alignment with the Strategic Plan, advancing our goal of providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

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

Contract: Radius Earthwork, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR
FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project June 16, 2026

BACKGROUND
Several streets throughout Berkeley are scheduled for rehabilitation as part of the City’s Five- year Street Rehabilitation Plan (Five-Year Plan). The City maintains a rolling Five-Year Plan for resurfacing and repaving City streets. Staff develops the plan using a Pavement Management System supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The Five-Year Plan was updated for Fiscal Years 2024 through 2028 by Resolution 71,120-N.S. adopted by Council on November 28, 2023. The Five-Year Plan aims to complete 46.73 miles of street rehabilitation with nearly $90 million in funding over five years. Funding sources primarily include the State Transportation Tax, Road Repair, Accountability Act, and Measure BB. Additionally, an annual allocation of $1 million from the Zero Waste Fund for FY 2024 to FY 2026, increasing to $2 million for FY 2027 and FY 2028, and is intended to offset the impact of Zero Waste collection vehicles on the City’s pavement.

The Street Rehabilitation and Repair Policy created by Resolution 55,384-N.S. and most recently updated by 70,204-N.S. to include Equity Zone considerations, contains the essential criteria for developing the plan and consists of the following:
 To the extent financially practical, implementing the paving plan shall advance California Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413) and City plans, e.g., the Complete Streets Policy, Vision Zero Policy and Action Plan, Pedestrian Plan, and Bicycle Plan.  Where feasible, rehabilitation of contiguous roadway sections, rather than one block at a time shall be preferred.
 Strive to maintain all roads within the primary transportation network (arterials, collectors, bus routes, existing and proposed low-stress bikeway network, and equity zone) at a target Pavement Conditions Index (PCI) 70.
 The benefits of good infrastructure shall be distributed equitably throughout the entire community regardless of the income, political influence, or demographic characteristics of the residents of each area. The established Equity Zone shall be prioritized to meet an average PCI of 70 sooner than the remainder of the City.  Coordinating sewer, water, electrical, telecom, undergrounding, and other activities.

This contract is for the paving of approximately 9.9 miles of City streets. It consists of rehabilitation and surface sealing of selected streets, as shown in Attachment 2: Location Map & List of Streets (taken from the City’s Five-Year Plan adopted by Council in November 2023).

In addition to street pavement, the project incorporates other improvements to selected streets in compliance with the Berkeley Complete Streets Policy (Resolution No. 65,978- N.S.), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and stormwater best management practices.

Among the improvements included are the following:
 Construction of traffic circles at intersections along Addison Street at Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth streets pursuant to the Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan;  Speed cushions on the entire segment, from Bolivar Drive to Curtis Street; and  Traffic calming quick-builds at intersections of MLK Jr. Way/Virginia St and Solano Ave/Ensenada Ave.

Additional infrastructure repairs are also included in this project. All non-paving related costs represent approximately 35% of the construction costs.

Contract: Radius Earthwork, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR
FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project June 16, 2026

The project plans and specifications underwent planning coordination with outside utility companies, preliminary cost estimates, field investigations, surveys, and extensive design before being released for bid.

The plans and specifications are on file in the Public Works Department. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt because it consists of maintenance of existing streets and does not expand their use beyond existing conditions.

The Living Wage Ordinance does not apply to this project since Public Works construction contracts are, pursuant to City policy, subject to State prevailing wage laws. Radius Earthwork, Inc. has submitted a Certification of Compliance with the Equal Benefits Ordinance. The Community Workforce Agreement applies to this project because its value exceeds $500,000. As a result, the contractor and all subcontractors will be required to sign an agreement to be bound by the terms of the Agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The project includes using rubberized hot mix asphalt treatments, which help divert tire waste from landfills, thus promoting recycling and reducing environmental waste. Additionally, the project includes the use of slurry seal and micro surfacing treatment, which lessens carbon footprint associated with pavement maintenance by enhancing the longevity of road surfaces, thereby decreasing the frequency of future repairs and the associated emissions from construction activities.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This street repair project is part of the City’s annual program to rehabilitate deteriorated streets. The work requires contracted services, as the City does not possess the in-house labor or equipment resources necessary to complete it.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered for this pavement rehabilitation project. The City could choose not to proceed with it. However, the street pavement would then continue to deteriorate, requiring more substantial and costly treatments in the future. In turn, more substantial treatments increases the likelihood of disturbing the roadway subgrade, thereby triggering Municipal Regional Permit Provision C3 requirements and adding significant cost to the project. Additionally, drainage improvements would not be made, and Complete Streets, Vision Zero and bicycle and pedestrian elements would not be installed, affecting the community's and others' use of the street.

CONTACT PERSON
Terrence Salonga, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works (510) 981-6447 Randy (Wai) Kong, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works (510) 981-6412 Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works (510) 981-6396 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Location Map & List of Streets for Project

Contract: Radius Earthwork, Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR
FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project June 16, 2026

3: Abstract of Bids

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

CONTRACT: RADIUS EARTHWORK, INC. FOR
FY 2026 STREET MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, The FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project is part of the City’s ongoing Street Capital Improvement Program to rehabilitate deteriorated streets located throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, an invitation for bids was duly advertised, and Radius Earthwork Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, funding is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Street Capital Improvement Program Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account (127-SB1), Measure F Vehicle Registration Fee (Fund 133), Measure BB Sales Tax (Fund 134), Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 501) and Zero Waste Fund (Fund 601).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Plans and Specification No. 26-11763-C for the FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project are approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions, or change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications with Radius Earthwork, Inc. for the FY 2026 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project, in an amount not to exceed $11,789,220, which includes a 20% contingency for unforeseen circumstances. A record signature copy of said agreement and any amendments will be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

FY 2026 Street Maintenance & Rehabilitation Project
Attachment No. 2: Location Map & List of Streets

FY 2026 Street Maintenance & Rehabilitation Project
Attachment No. 2: Location Map & List of Streets
Street From To

ACTON ST ASHBY AVE WARD ST

DOHR ST ASHBY AVE WARD ST

RUSSELL ST PARK ST

SACRAMENTO
ST

OREGON ST PARK ST

SACRAMENTO
ST

HARMON ST SACRAMENTO ST ADELINE ST

ALCATRAZ AVE SACRAMENTO ST

CITY LIMIT
(DOVER ST)

ADDISON ST BOLIVAR DR CURTIS ST

SOLANO AVE TULARE AVE DEL NORTE ST

COLUSA AVE SOLANO AVE MARIN AVE

MARIN AVE TULARE AVE THE CIRCLE

MONTEREY AVE MARIN AVE THE ALAMEDA

THE ALAMEDA SOLANO AVE YOLO AVE

SACRAMENTO ST HOPKINS ST

UNIVERSITY
AVE

FRANCISCO ST SACRAMENTO ST MLK JR WAY

MLK JR WAY ADELINE ST YOLO AVE

THOUSAND OAKS

BLVD COLUSA AVE

ARLINGTON
AVE

GRIZZLY PEAK

BLVD HILL ST GOLF COURSE RD

WILDCAT CANYON

RD GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD THE SPIRAL

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works Subject: Contract No. 31900085 Amendment: Syn-Tech Systems Inc. for Fleet Fueling System and Software

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution amending the contract with Syn-Tech Systems Inc. for Fleet Fueling System and Software, increasing the contract amount by $68,528 for a new not-to- exceed amount of $300,000 and extend the contract through June 30, 2029.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are funds available in the proposed FY27 budget in the Department’s Equipment Maintenance Fund (Fund 672). Funding is subject to Council appropriation for Fiscal Years 2027, 2028 and 2029.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Public Works Department maintains two fueling pumps to fuel the City’s fleet. Fuel transactions are collected using Syn-Tech’s software and imported directly into the Assetworks Fleet Management Information System to be billed to each department monthly, based on fuel usage. The contract amendment with Syn-Tech Systems Inc. will provide the City’s fleet with an ongoing fueling system and software for the two fuel dispensing locations that are located at:
 Corporation Yard, 1326 Allston Way, Berkeley
 Transfer Station, 1201 Second Street, Berkeley (a new above ground tank installation anticipated to be completed by December 2026) Effective January 1, 2026, local agencies are required to satisfy noticing requirements for certain contracts for services that meet the criteria outlined in Government Code Section 3204.1 as amended by AB 339. This project does not meet the criteria in Government Code Section 3504.1 and is exempt from the noticing requirement.

This contract is in alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan priorities, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

27

Contract Amendment: Syn-Tech Systems Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Fleet Fueling System and Software June 16, 2026

BACKGROUND
In 2018, the City released a request for proposal (RFP) Specification No. 16-11039 for a Fueling System and Software Upgrade solution. From that solicitation, three responses were received. Public Works’ staff with subject matter expertise evaluated the three responses for cost, experience, qualifications, responsiveness, and references.

Responsive vendors were asked to provide onsite demonstrations of their products along with detailed information about software capabilities and any additional associated costs. Syn-tech was selected as the most responsive and best qualified vendor to meet the City's Fleet fueling and reporting needs. The City executed a contract with Syn-Tech in January 2019 and received Council approval to amend the contract in September 2022.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Syn-Tech system provides accurate fuel usage data at the Corporation Yard and the Transfer Station which assists with Climate Action Plan reporting. Additionally, the Syn-Tech system provides an evaluation of Fleet fuel efficiency and overall fuel costs which is key information for future budgeting.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Syn-Tech software captures vehicle odometer data and a record of all transactions automatically, and with manual input. The software’s automation reduces human error, improves asset management, driver accountability, and prevents any potential theft.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Implementing Syn-Tech’s hardware and software system required a significant investment of resources and moving away from this system could lead to large-scale procurement and implementation costs for a new system that could take more than a year to fully implement. Currently, the hardware and software are working as expected, and Syn-Tech continues to provide excellent support services as needed. A new RFP will be conducted during this extension period.

CONTACT PERSON
Joy Brown, Operations Manager, Public Works, 510-981-6629 Don Colbert, Acting Equipment Maintenance Superintendent, 510-981-6467 Tucker Brofft, Senior Management Analyst, Public Works, 510-981-5375

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

CONTRACT NO. 31900085 AMENDMENT: SYN-TECH SYSTEMS INC. FOR FLEET

FUELING SYSTEM AND SOFTWARE
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates vehicles and equipment which must be re-fueled at one of the City's two fueling islands; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a request for proposals from qualified firms to provide a viable fuel dispensing system and fuel reporting software (Specification No. 16-11039); and WHEREAS, the City received three qualifying vendor responses and determined that Syn-Tech Systems, Inc. was the most responsive and best-qualified vendor to meet current and future Fleet fueling and reporting needs; and WHEREAS, the Equipment Maintenance Division of Public Works has a continuous need for these services to manage fuel levels, prevent fuel theft, and support internal department billing for fuel usage; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2022, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Contract Amendment to increase the Contract’s spending authority by $45,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $231,472 and to extend the Contract through June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, funding is available in the proposed FY27 budget in the Department’s Equipment Maintenance Fund (Fund 672) and funding for future years is subject to Council approval of funds for Fiscal Years 2028 and 2029.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract amendment with Syn-Tech Systems Inc. for Fleet Fueling System and Software increasing the contract amount by $68,528 for a new not-to-exceed of $300,000 and extend the contract through June 30, 2029

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works Subject: Contract No. 32400141 Amendment: Mercury Associates, Inc. for Fleet Consulting Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment to the contract with Mercury Associates, Inc. to continue working with the City on a fleet right-sizing study, fleet electrification analysis and other consulting services to comply with state mandates. This amendment increases the contract amount by $100,000, for a new total amount not to exceed $325,000 and extends through December 30, 2027.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for the consultant contract is available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 adopted budget of the Equipment Replacement Fund (671) in the amount of $50,000 and Equipment Maintenance Fund (672) in the amount of $50,000. Funding for FY 2027 is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budgets, based on the department’s ongoing need for fleet consulting services.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Mercury Associates has been providing fleet consulting services to Public Works, including conducting a comprehensive fleet analysis, reviewing vehicle replacement policies, evaluating fleet size optimization, and supporting the City’s implementation and ongoing use of AssetWorks, the City’s work order and equipment asset management system.

As the City continues to mature its fleet management systems, Mercury Associates is providing technical guidance related to system configuration, data integrity, reporting to support improved fleet data accuracy, operational oversight, and compliance reporting.

In addition, Mercury Associates is supporting the City with California Air Resources Board (CARB) state-mandated fleet reporting requirements, including compliance- related data analysis, reporting workflows, and implementation guidance. These regulatory obligations are ongoing, and require continued consulting support to ensure accuracy, consistency, and compliance.

28

Contract No. 32400141 Amendment: Mercury Associates, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Fleet Consulting Services June 16, 2026

Mercury Associates provides specialized expertise and institutional knowledge transfer to existing staff, supporting continuity of operations and will be assisting the Department with the onboarding of an Equipment Maintenance Superintendent.

Per Assembly Bill 339, notice was sent to Local One on January 23, 2026 regarding this contract amendment. It was received and no additional information was requested by the bargaining unit.

Amending this contract is in alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan Priorities, advancing the City’s goal to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
The Department collaborated with General Services to release a Request for Proposals (RFP), Specification No. 22-11496 on May 3, 2022, for an Equipment Maintenance/Fleet Study in response to the Fleet Audit. Two vendors responded, and Mercury Associates, Inc., was selected as the most responsive and responsible vendor.

Public Works requires ongoing consulting support to improve its overall management of staff, fleet assets, and to respond effectively to the Fleet Audit’s recommendations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Mercury Associates’ fleet consulting services support the City’s environmental sustainability and climate goals through fleet right-sizing, vehicle replacement planning, and compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, including the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) requirements. These efforts may reduce overall fleet size and fuel consumption over time, contributing to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The consulting services also support the City’s ongoing transition away from fossil fuels toward zero-emission vehicles.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City conducted a competitive procurement process, and Mercury Associates was selected as the most responsive and responsible vendor to provide fleet consulting services. Public Works continues to have a critical operational need for these services due to ongoing system integrations, regulatory reporting requirements, and implementation of fleet management improvements.

Amending and extending the contract with Mercury Associates will allow the City to maintain continuity of expertise, avoid disruption to active initiatives, and efficiently support ongoing fleet planning, compliance, and system optimization efforts. This approach is the most effective and cost-efficient means of meeting the City’s fleet management and sustainability objectives.

Contract No. 32400141 Amendment: Mercury Associates, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Fleet Consulting Services June 16, 2026

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council could choose not to adopt this contract amendment, which would require the City to either complete ongoing fleet consulting, system integration, and regulatory reporting work in-house or initiate a new procurement for these services. Due to the specialized expertise required, these alternatives would likely result in delays, loss of institutional knowledge, and increased costs. Amending and extending the contract with Mercury Associates allows the City to efficiently continue current initiatives and meet ongoing fleet management and regulatory compliance needs.

CONTACT PERSON
Joy Brown, Operations Manager, Public Works, 510-981-6629 Don Colbert, Acting Equipment Maintenance Superintendent, Public Works, 510-981- 6467
Attachment:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT 32400141 AMENDMENT: MERCURY ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR FLEET

CONSULTING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City released Specification No. 22-11496 on May 3, 2022 for an Equipment Maintenance /Fleet Study; and
WHEREAS, two vendors responded, and Mercury Associates, Inc. was found to be the most responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Equipment Maintenance Division requires consulting services to perform a comprehensive analysis of its fleet, policies and procedures related to vehicle replacement, usage, size, and vehicle standardization.

WHEREAS, Mercury Associates, Inc. will also provide as-needed fleet consulting services related to AssetWorks; and
WHEREAS, Mercury Associates, Inc. will also provide as needed fleet consulting services for compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, including the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) requirements; and WHEREAS, funding for FY2026 is available in Equipment Maintenance Fund (672) and Equipment Replacement Fund (671).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and amendments with Mercury Associates, Inc. to increase the contract amount by $100,000 to provide fleet consulting services in an amount not to exceed $325,000 and to extend the contract through December 30, 2027.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works Subject: 2026 Bicycle Plan Update

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the 2026 Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update and directing the City Manager to pursue implementation of the Plan as funding and staffing permit.

SUMMARY
The 2026 Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update (2026 Plan Update) was initiated in 2022 but suspended later that year due to staffing shortages in the Public Works department. In 2024 Berkeley Public Works restarted the planning process, leveraging data collection and outreach efforts from 2022 and continuing those efforts in 2025. Public engagement highlighted the need to continue delivering a bikeway network for people of all ages and abilities, including families, school-aged children, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The 2026 Plan Update is funded almost entirely by a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 program. The total cost of the 2026 Plan Update is $367,451. As of December 2025, the Department of Public Works expended approximately $352,049 on developing the 2026 Plan Update. MTC TDA Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Project Fund 339 provided $351,951 and Measure BB Fund 134 (Local Streets and Roads) provided the remaining $15,500 needed to complete the 2026 Plan Update. To fully implement the vision in the Bike Plan Update requires additional planning, engineering, and construction funding, estimated in Table 1 below. Expenses are broken down by capital construction costs and staffing and consultant costs.

29

2026 Bicycle Plan Update CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026

Table 1: Estimated 2026 Bicycle Plan Update Implementation Costs
Estimated Construction Costs
Tier 1 Capital Cost $14,276,500
Tier 2 Capital Cost $15,784,100
Tier 3 Capital Cost $6,616,600
Mobilization/Demobilization, Bidding, and Contingency (41% of Construction Capital Costs) $15,037,800
Total Estimated Project Construction Costs: $51,715,000 Estimated Staffing and Consultant Costs
Planning $12,928,800
Preliminary Engineering $12,928,800
Construction Management $7,757,200
Total Estimated Staffing and Consultant Costs: $33,614,800 Total Estimated 2026 Bicycle Plan Update Implementation Costs: $85,329,800

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The 2026 Bicycle Plan Update is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city. Berkeley is required to have an updated Bicycle Plan to remain eligible for several county, regional, and statewide transportation grants and funding programs. Adopting the 2026 Plan Update now will help the City maintain a current Local Roadway Safety Plan with MTC, which requires bicycle plans to be updated and validated at least every five years. The existing Bicycle Plan, adopted by Council in 2017 (Resolution no. 67,945-N.S.), is over eight years old.

One purpose of this update is to bring the 2026 Plan Update into alignment with subsequent local, county, and regional planning efforts and technical reports. In March 2020, the Council approved the Vision Zero Action Plan (Resolution number 69,324- N.S.), which identified High Injury Streets where nearly all severe injury and fatal traffic crashes occur in the City. The 2026 Bicycle Plan Update is an implementation strategy of the Vision Zero Action Plan, using Vision Zero traffic safety data and analysis as the updated safety prioritization criteria for the plan. This approach prioritizes facilities along, crossing, or parallel to Vision Zero High Injury Streets, particularly in Equity Priority Community areas, as identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

BACKGROUND
The 2017 Bicycle Plan (Resolution no. 67,945-N.S.) was a comprehensive update to the proposed bicycle network, bike policies, and programs. The 2026 Plan Update is a limited update focusing primarily on reporting on progress implementing the previous

2026 Bicycle Plan Update CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026

Plan, updating the proposed bicycle network, updating bicycle boulevard design guidelines, highlighting five key projects for implementation, and compiling estimated costs for the implementation of the network.

There are several sections of the 2017 Bicycle Plan that remain unaffected by this update. The sections of the 2017 Plan and the 2026 Plan are listed in the table below, indicating which sections will be superseded by the 2026 Plan Update once this resolution is adopted. The sections of the 2017 Bicycle Plan that are preserved will remain in force per Resolution no. 67,945-N.S.

Chapter 2026 Bicycle Plan Update
Sections updated
2017 Bicycle Plan
Sections preserved
Chapter 1:

Introduction
 All content updated
Chapter 2: Goals &
Polices
 No updates – entire chapter
preserved
Chapter 3: Existing
Conditions
 Bikeway Classifications
 Low-Stress Intersection Crossing
Classifications
 Bicycle Boulevards
 Notable Projects Built Since 2017
 Land Use/Transportation Context
 Existing Bicycle Support
Facilities
 UC Berkeley Connections
 Existing Programs
Chapter 4: Needs
Analysis/Public
Outreach
 Census Data
 Plans Adopted Since 2017
 Public Outreach
 Informing the Recommendations
 Collision Analysis (incorporates
Vision Zero High Injury Streets)
 Bicycle Counts
 Bicycle Demand
 Bicycle Preference Survey
 Level of Traffic Stress
Chapter 5:

Proposed Bikeway
Network
 All content updated
Chapter 6:

Implementation
 All content updated
Appendix A:

Policies
 No updates – Appendix
content preserved
Appendix B:

Analysis
 No updates – Appendix
content preserved
Appendix C: Level
of Traffic Stress
 No updates – Appendix
content preserved
Appendix D:

Proposed
Programs
 No updates – Appendix
content preserved

2026 Bicycle Plan Update CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026

Appendix E:

Project
Recommendations
and Priorities Table
 All content updated
Appendix F:

Facility Design
Toolbox
 Bicycle Boulevard Design
Guidelines
 Bicycle Boulevard Crossing
Treatment Recommendations

 Class I Bikeways
 Class II Bikeways
 Class IV Bikeways
 Intersection Treatments
 Bikeway Signing & Amenities
 Bike Parking
Appendix G:

Bicycle Market
Study
 No updates – Appendix
content preserved
Appendix H:

Complete Streets
Corridors
 No updates – Appendix
content preserved
Public Outreach and Public Comment
Outreach undertaken in 2022, focused on the City’s Equity Priority Areas (EPAs), predominantly South and West Berkeley. The City held 14 outreach events in 2022, reaching over 900 participants in activities such as interactive online mapping, in person pop-up workshops, listening sessions, bike tours, and online workshops. The City gathered over 1,300 comments from these activities and emails to the project team.

Some of the key issues mentioned during outreach included the need for improvements at bike boulevard intersections with arterial and collector streets, roadway safety concerns, and the view that 2017 facility recommendations were insufficient for certain corridors. This outreach phase informed the recommendations shown in the 2026 Plan Update and is summarized in Appendix B of the Plan.

In 2025, City staff and consultants focused on validating and sharing recommendations developed from the 2022 outreach phase. The consultants held 12 outreach events in 2025. These outreach efforts engaged over 652 individuals and gathered over 1,085 comments from activities such as listening sessions, pop-up events, Commission meetings, and an online workshop, as well as emails to the consultant project team.

This phase of outreach influenced the details of bikeway network recommendations and helped select the five “key projects” from the larger group of recommendations. Details on the key projects can be found in chapter 5.3 of the 2026 Plan Update. The public draft of the 2026 Update was released on August 8, 2026, starting an approximately seven-week public comment period. Between August 8, and September 26, 2025, City staff received over 300 public emails on the Draft Plan. The Transportation and Infrastructure Commission and six other organizations and groups submitted letters to the City during the comment period. The other groups included Berkeleyans for Accessible Rights of Way, the Berkeley FireSafe Council, North Berkeley Design Team, Save Hopkins, Sylvia Mendez Elementary school parents, and Walk Bike Berkeley.

2026 Bicycle Plan Update CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026

Public engagement during the public draft comment period echoed the input from the previous phases, highlighting the need to continue to deliver a bikeway network for people of all ages and abilities, including families, school-aged children, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Additionally, internal City stakeholders and some members of the public identified concerns with the negative impact of protected bikeways and traffic calming on disabled accessibility and emergency response and evacuation times, while other public comments during this phase argued against the prominence of these issues in the public draft 2026 Update. 2025 outreach is summarized in Appendix C.

Transportation and Infrastructure Commission Recommendation The Project was first introduced to the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission (TIC) on January 16, 2025, by City staff and a consultant who presented the project goals, community engagement plan, and a summary of the 2022 outreach efforts. On August 21, 2025, City staff and the consultant again presented to the Commission, sharing the public draft plan and discussing items to highlight for revision in the final draft.

On April 13, 2026, City staff met with the ad hoc subcommittee of the TIC for the Bicycle Plan update in advance of the Bike Plan update presentation at the TIC on April 16, 2026. After the meeting on April 13, 2026, the subcommittee submitted requests to City staff for changes to the 2026 Bike Plan final draft. As a result, staff agreed to make revisions in response to the requests from the subcommittee. The three revisions that staff have accepted are detailed below and reflected in the final draft presented to Council for consideration as Exhibit A to this report. These are the only revisions that have been made to the final draft Plan since publication on the project website.

1. Text on page 37 previously stated “Bicycle boulevards should ideally have a posted target speed of 20 mph, as recommended by AB 43.” It has been revised to read “Bicycle boulevards should ideally have a posted speed limit of 20 mph, as allowed by AB 43.”

2. Text on page A8 in Appendix A, Bicycle Boulevard Design Guide, previously stated, “City should study feasibility of implementing a posted target speed of 20 mph.” It has been revised to read, “City should study feasibility of implementing a posted target speed limit of 20 mph, as allowed by AB 43.”

3. The footnote associated with both Table 9 on page 91, and subsequent text on page 92, as well as the footnote associated with Table 1 on page A21 in Appendix A, Bicycle Boulevard Design Guide, previously stated, “The intersection must meet a CA MUTCD STOP warrant before being considered for this treatment.” It has been revised to read, “Requires completing a CA MUTCD STOP warrant analysis before implementation.” In the Plan, “CA MUTCD,” refers to, “California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.”

2026 Bicycle Plan Update CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026

The final draft of the 2026 Update was presented to the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission on April 16, 2026. The Commission passed a motion as follows:

April 16, 2026 Agenda item 2 – Bike Plan Update Final Draft – Action requested It was Moved / Seconded (Leung / Walton) that the Transportation and Infrastructure recommends the Final Draft of the Bike Plan Update for approval by the Berkeley City Council at the May 19, 2026 Council meeting with the following comments:

1. The Commission expresses its great appreciation for staff and consultants' hard work;

2. It requests that the City Council develop a transportation modes hierarchy that prioritizes sustainable and active modes of transportation and deemphasizes maintaining on-street car parking; and,

3. Requests that any plan emphasize the safety and accessibility needs of people with disabilities.

Ayes: Budimir, Gattu, Hothi, Leung, Lutzker, Scheider, Walton; Nays: None; Abstentions: None; Absent: Fike, Zaro
Subsequently, a noticed Public Hearing was held on May 21, 2026:

May 21, 2026, Agenda Item 3, Public Hearing on the Bike Plan Update Final Draft-Public Works' Transportation Manager Helmbrecht introduced the Public Hearing on the Bike Plan Update Final Draft
Transportation and Infrastructure Commission Chair Zaro formally declared the Public Hearing open.

Public comments; two speakers; Commissioner questions; Commissioner comments
Action: It was moved / seconded (Hothi / Fike) to close the Public Hearing on the Bike Plan Update Final Draft.

Vote: Ayes: Budimir, Fike, Hothi, Gattu, Leung, Lutzker, Walton, Zaro; Noes:

None; Abstain: None; Absent: None; Excused: Scheider; Recused: None Action: It was moved / seconded (Hothi / Lutzker) to reaffirm the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission's motion from the April 16, 2026, meeting regarding the Bike Plan Update Final Draft to recommend City Council approval of the Bike Plan Update at their June 16, 2026, meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Increasing cycling in Berkeley will help the City achieve the Berkeley Climate Action Plan greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of 80% below year 2000 levels by 2050. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code section 21080.20, which exempts active transportation plans, pedestrian plans, and bicycle transportation plans from the Act. To qualify for this

2026 Bicycle Plan Update CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026

exemption, CEQA requires a lead agency hold a noticed public hearing prior to the determination of exemption. City staff held a public hearing for the Bicycle Plan final draft at the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission on May 21, 2026. The meeting was publicly noticed in the Berkeley Voice on May 15, 2026.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
If this Resolution is not adopted as submitted by Staff, the City risks losing access to multiple transportation funding sources for prioritized projects. The City also risks delaying the development and implementation of projects in the “low-stress” network vision identified in the 2026 Plan Update.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council may opt not to approve the 2026 Plan Update, which would result in the City forgoing transportation funding from county, regional, and state sources that require an approved Bicycle Plan. This would also defer approval of conceptual network improvements and project development for future grant applications, which would be limited to funding sources that do not require an approved Bicycle Plan.

CONTACT PERSON
Mark Helmbrecht, Transportation Manager, Public Works, 510-981-6403 Eric Anderson, Principal Planner, Public Works, 510-981-7062 Dani Dynes, Associate Planner, Public Works, 510-981-7053 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: 2026 Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update

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

CITY OF BERKELEY 2026 BICYCLE PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, the Berkeley General Plan Transportation Element directs the City to "Create a model bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly city where bicycling and walking are safe, attractive, easy, and convenient forms of transportation and recreation for people of all age
WHEREAS, promoting bicycling as a form of transportation will help the City meet certain goals of the Berkeley Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 2026 Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update provides a Citywide “low-stress” bikeways network vision and staffing and capital cost estimates and guidance to implement the network on a five-to-ten year timeline; and WHEREAS, public outreach in 2022 and 2025 highlighted public interest in roadway safety and new projects to deliver a Citywide "low-stress" bikeway network for all ages and abilities of people riding bicycles; and
WHEREAS, the Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan, adopted March 10, 2020 (Resolution number 69,324-N.S.), establishes the Berkeley Bicycle Plan as a Vision Zero implementation strategy; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Public Works has developed the 2026 Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update in pursuit of these policy goals and as an implementation measure of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Department of Public Works has received and responded to comments from the public and revised the 2026 Bicycle Plan Update where appropriate.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley approves the 2026 Berkeley Bicycle Update, as recommended by the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission, and directs the City Manager to pursue implementation of the 2026 Plan as funding and staffing permit.

Exhibits
Exhibit A: 2026 Berkeley Bicycle Plan Update

| 1

CITY OF BERKELEY

BICYCLE
PLAN
JANUARY 2026
Produced
for:

Produced
by:

2 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY 4
City of Berkeley Statement 5
Pl
an Update Purpose 6
Commitment to
All Ages & Abilities 7
Commitment to Disability Access 7
Existing Bikeways & Progress 8
Public Outreach 11
Project Recommendations 12
Implementation 18
1 INTRODUCTION 20

1.1 City of Berkeley Statement 21

1. 2 Plan Organization 23

1.3 How to Use This Plan Update 23

1.4 What Does “All Ages &
Abilities” Mean? 25

1.5 Bicycling & Rolling:

Who Can Use the Bike Lane? 27

1.6 Accessibility under the
Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the Publi
Rights-of-Way 28
c

1.7 Accessibility Interviews 29
2 EXISTING

CONDITIONS & PLAN
PROGRESS 32

2.1 Bikeway Classification 33

2.2 Existing Bikeway Network 38

2.3 Low-Stress Network
Intersection Controls 40

2.4 Existing Low-Stress Intersection
Controls 44

2.5 Bicycle Boulevards 46

2.6 Notable Projects Built
Since 2017 50

2.7 Transportation & Land Use
Patterns 59

| 3
3 NEEDS

ASSESSMENT/PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT 64

3.1 Data Analysis 65

3.2 City Plans, Policies, and
Stu
dies Since 2017 67

3.3 Public Outreach 70
4 PROPOSED BIKEWAY
NETWORK 76

4.1 Project Recommendation
Ca
tegories 79

4.2 Planned/Funded Projects 80

4. 3 Project Recommendations 88

5 IMPLEMENTATION 98

5.1 Evaluation Criteria Update:
20 17 to 2024 99

5.2 Project Delivery Process 105

5. 3 Key Projects 109

5.4 Cost Estimates 120

5.5 Transit Integration 123

5.6 Complete Streets Corridor
Study Recommendations 124

APPENDIX A

BICYCLE BOULEVARD
DESIGN GUIDE A-1

APPENDIX B
202
2 OUTREACH
SUMMARY B-1

APPENDIX C
2025 OUTREACH
SUMMARY C-1

APPENDIX D
UPDATED NETWORK D-1

APPENDIX E

PRIORITIZATION
METHODOLOGY E-1

4 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
ES

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Executive Summary | 5
City of Berkeley Statement
According to the US Census 2023
American Community Survey, one out of
ten Berkeley residents who commute to
work are using bikes, scooters, or other
personal mobility devices . As nearly any
Berkeleyan can tell you, getting to work is
not the only reason people bike, scoot, or
roll in this city. In Berkeley, people ride for
a myriad of purposes—including shopping
at a store or farmers’ market; dropping
off or picking up kids from school or day
care; visiting the UC Berkeley campus;
going to concerts, restaurants, and social
events; and exercising. When considering
non-commute trips like going to school
or shopping, more than one in five
Berkeleyans are bicycling or rolling every
day.
1 Bicycling and rolling in Berkeley are not
only efficient, environmentally friendly,
and utilitarian modes of transport, they are
also a source of health and enjoyment. A
central focus of this 2025 City of Berkeley
Bicycle Plan Update is improving the
comfort, convenience, and enjoyment of
bicycling and rolling as a viable strategy for
achieving many of the City’s public health
and wellness goals.

For nearly six decades, Berkeley has been
a leader in the effort to promote the use of
the bicycle for pleasant transportation and
recreation. The first Ci
ty of Berkeley Bicycle
Plan—created in 1971—laid out a citywide
network of bikeways that are still in use
today.

PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN
The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide
planning document that recommends
improvements to bicycle safety, comfort,
and connectivity at a network level. These
recommendations may require further
project-specific budgeting, planning, data
collection, analysis, and engineering before
implementation.

Depending on the scope of the proposed
pr
oject, the City will determine the level
of public engagement, environmental
clearance, inter-departmental/inter-agency
coordination, and approvals needed before
implementing projects.

Simpler projects such as new or upgraded
Bicycle Boulevards along residential streets
may have fewer impacts and broader
community support. These may involve
less public process and may be able to be
implemented more quickly once budgeted.

More complex projects along or crossing
busy streets typically require additional
technical and engineering studies and
engagement with affected stakeholders,
are more costly to construct, and have
longer timelines. For further information,
see Se
ction 5.2 Project Delivery Process
and Section 5.6 Complete Streets Corridor
Study Recommendations .
1 ACS 2023 Table S0801, 1-year estimate

6 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Land
Acknowledgment
On behalf of the City of Berkeley,
we acknowledge that we are on the
unceded ancestral homeland of the
xučyun (Huichin) Ohlone (Uh-lone-
knee), who are the original inhabitants
of the East Bay. As the indigenous
stewards of this land and in accordance
with their traditions, the xučyun Ohlone
have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten
their responsibilities as the caretakers
of this place, as well as for all peoples
who reside in their traditional territory.

As guests, we recognize that we
benefit from living and working on their
traditional homeland, and we affirm their
sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Plan Update Purpose
The most recent City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
was completed in 2017. Cities in California
are required to update their citywide bicycle
plans every five years to retain eligbility
from the Transportation Development Act
Article 3 (TDA 3) fund, a state-level funding
source for bicycle- and pedestrian-related
projects. Many other competitive funding
sources (such as the Active Transportation
Program, OBAG 4, and others) will penalize
applications if a bike plan is too out-of-
date. The purpose of this plan update is
to make Berkeley a model bicycle-friendly
city where bicycling is a safe, comfortable,
and convenient form of transportation and
recreation for people of all ages and abilities.

Because the Public Works Department is
producing this plan update, the focus is on
physical infrastructure changes that support
bicycling to achieve the City’s safety, health,
and environmental goals. Refer to Table
3 (page 24) for detail on how this plan is
updated from the 2017 Bicycle Plan.

Executive Summary | 7
Commitment to
All Ages & Abilities
A bikeway network works best when
it is accessible, safe, comfortable, and
welcoming to people of all ages and abilities.

The “All Ages and Abilities” approach in
transportation planning prioritizes creating
accessible, safe, and comfortable active
transportation options for everyone,
including children, older adults, people with
disabilities, and those with varying levels of
confidence and experience.

In Berkeley, this translates to a commitment
to building out the Low-Stress Network of
separated bikeways and bicycle boulevards
(see page 14 and Fi
gure 2), and connecting
residents, workers, students, and visitors to
the local destinations they need to reach.

This commitment also extends to all the
types of devices, including but not limited
to: bicycles, e-bikes, electric scooters,
skateboards, mobility scooters, and
powerchairs.

Commitment to
Disability Access
Berkeley is the heart of the disability
rights movement in the United States.

Organizations such as the Center for
Independent Living, Bay Area Outreach
and Recreation (BORP) Adaptive Sports
and Recreation, Berkeley’s Accessible
Right-of-Way (BAROW), and the Berkeley
Commission on Disability advocate for a
community fully accessible to all users. As
some of our most vulnerable road users,
people with disabilities are often the most
impacted by changes and challenges in the
transportation system.

Berkeley is committed to seeking input
from community members to inform
universally accessible design and utilizing
resources such as the Public Right-of-
Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG),
formally adopted by the Federal Highway
Administration in 2024.

8 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Existing Bikeways & Progress
Since the adoption of the 2017 Bicycle
Plan, the City of Berkeley has implemented
over 10 miles of new or upgraded bikeway
network facilities and constructed over 20
Low-Stress Network intersection crossing
improvements. The City of Berkeley works
with neighboring cities Albany, Emeryville,
and Oakland to coordinate the continuation
of bikeway networks and the timing of
project construction. These changes are
detailed in Table 1 and Figure 1.

The bicycle network is made up of
se
veral different types of on- and off-
street facilities. These facilities carry a
classification number as defined by the
California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Highway Design Manual and are
described below:

Shared use paths (Class I bike paths
or m
ulti-use trails) provide completely
separated, exclusive right-of-way for
bicycling, walking, and using mobility
devices and other forms of active
transportation.

Bicycle lanes (C
lass II) are striped,
preferential lanes on roadways for one-way
bicycle travel.

Upgraded bicycle lanes (C lass II) include
striped buffers that add a few feet of
separation between the bicycle lane and
traffic lane or parking aisle or use green
thermoplastic striping to increase visibility
in areas of conflict.

Bicycle routes (C
lass III) are signed bicycle
facilities where people riding bicycles
share a travel lane with people driving
motor vehicles. Bicycle routes may include
shared lane markings (sharrows) or other
pavement stenciling. Because they are
mixed-flow facilities, Class III bicycle routes
are only appropriate for low-volume streets
with slow travel speeds.

Bicycle boulevards (C
lass III) are roadways
where people riding bicycles share a
travel lane with people driving motor
vehicles. However, traffic calming, diversion
infrastructure, and crossing enhancements
are intended to slow and minimize vehicle
traffic to prioritize bicycle travel for
people of all ages and abilities along these
roadways. Some facilities in the Bicycle
Boulevard Network may include separated
bikeways or bicycle lanes.

Separated bikeways (C
lass IV), also known
as a cycletrack or protected bicycle lanes,
are on-street bicycle lanes physically
separated from motor vehicle traffic by
a vertical element or barrier, such as a
curb, bollards, or parking aisle. Separated
bikeways can be one-way or two-way.

Executive Summary | 9
Table 1: . Bikeway Network Implementation, 2017–2025
FACILITY TYPE 2017 (MI) 2025 (MI)
Shared use path (Class I) 18.2 18.9
Bicycle lane (Class II) 12.1 10.9*
Upgraded bicycle lane (Class II) 0.3 1.8
Bicycle route (Class III) 8.1 12.6
Bicycle boulevard (Class III) 11.9 12.5
Separated bikeway (Class IV) 0.1 4.2
Total 50.8 60.9
Bicycle boulevard network ** 15.8 17.6
*Standard bicycle lane mileage decreased in 2025 due to standard bicycle lanes being improved to upgraded bicycle lanes or separated bikeways.
**The Bicycle Boulevard Network includes segments of Class I, II, III, and IV facilities.

10 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Figure 1: Existing 2025 Bikeway Network

SHATTUCK AVE

DELAWARE ST

HOPKINS ST

ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE

WOOLSEY ST
GRIZ

ZLY PEAK
BLVD

ARLINGTON
AVE

VIRGINIA ST

SACRAMENTO ST

RUSSELL ST

MLK JR WAY

DWIGHT WAY

CENTER ST

HEINZ AVE

THE ALAMEDA

GILMAN ST
6TH ST

ALCATRAZ AVE

HEARST AVE

CEDAR ST

BANCROFT WAY

ROSE ST

GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST

MILVIA ST

CALIFORNIA ST

TELEGRAPH AVE

MARIN AVE

ASHBY AVE

CHANNING WAY

BAY TRAIL

SPRUCE ST

UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST

OXFORD ST

WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST

WILDCAT
CAN
YON
RD
TUNNEL
RD

CLAREMONT AVE

HARMON ST

ADELINE ST

KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN

STTREMONT ST

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST

BOWDITCH ST

MABEL ST

GAYLEY RD

JOSEPHINE ST

EUCLID ST

COLUSA AVE

COLUSA AVEENS
ENA
DA
AVE

SOLANO AVE

MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST

OHLONE GREENWAY

ADDISON ST

HEARST AVE

FOLGER AVE

BUCHANAN ST

SAN PABLO AVE DERBY ST

SONOMA AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California,
BerkeleyCésar Chávez
Park
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore State
Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
El Cerrito
Emeryville
Oakland
Richmond

EXISTING BIKEWAY

NETWORK

CITY OF BERKELEY

BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Amtrak Station
BART Station
School
Railroad
Park

EXISTING FACILITIES
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II)
Bike Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)
New or Upgraded since
2017

BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK

Executive Summary | 11
Public Outreach
The plan update included two phases of
public outreach (April to June 2022 and
January to February 2025), engaging over
1,500 residents directly and collecting over
2,500 comments. Public engagement used
online and in-person outreach methods
to account for public health concerns
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Events
included virtual listening sessions with
low-income residents, pop-up events
(including the Juneteenth Festival, the
Ashby Flea Market, and multiple farmers’
markets), community bike rides, interviews
with key community groups, and citywide
workshop presentations. The project effort
involved multiple presentations to the
Berkeley Transportation and Infrastructure
Commission and a presentation to the
Commission on Disability.

Public outreach was supported by a
regularly updated project website, and
interactive webmap commenting tool,
regular communication through the project
email list, and postcard mailers to over
15,000 Berkeley households—with a focus
on input from Berkeley’s Equity Priority
Areas in the city’s west and southwest.

For a detailed summary of outreach, refer
to Ap
pendix B and Appendix C.

MAIN THEMES OF THE
PUBLIC INPUT INCLUDED:
• A desire for more robust intersection
cr
ossing treatments where the Low-
Stress Network (bicycle boulevards and
separated bikeways) crosses a major
roadway
• Support for continued implementation
of t
he Low-Stress Network, including
bicycle boulevards and separated
bikeways
• Facility design that is inclusive of all
de
vices that may legally use the bikeway
network, including powerchairs, mobility
scooters, electric scooters, skateboards,
and more
• Improved pavement quality along the
en
tire bikeway network
• Ensuring bikeway design is compatible
wi
th the mobility needs of people with a
disability

12 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Project Recommendations
This plan update’s recommended bikeway
network supports a vision for Berkeley
where bicycling is safe, comfortable, and
convenient for people of all ages and
abilities. These recommendations were
guided by the plan update’s goals and
policies, as well as extensive community
input. Recommendations were modified
and adjusted from those in the 2017 Bicycle
Pl
an, seeking to reprioritize projects
based on Berkeley’s diverse input, needs,
and values. Recommendations prioritize
extending newly completed projects,
connecting the Low-Stress Network,
connecting to Low-Stress Networks in
surrounding cities, and addressing key
intersection crossings with major roadways.

Table 2: Summary of Project Recommendations and Cost Estimates.

RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY MILEAGE/COUNT COS T ESTIMATE Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1.3 Miles $7, 048,400
Bike Lane (Class II) 0.6 Miles $86,000
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class III) 2.1 Miles $583,600
Bike Route (Class III) 8.8 Miles $118,500
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 14.3 Miles $1,071,300
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 15.6 Miles $11,667,400
Two-way Cycletrack Crossing 6 Ct $552,000
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) 13 Ct $5,148,000
Protected Intersection 5 Ct $4,950,000
Raised Intersection 3 Ct $600,000
Median Crossing 2 Ct $187,000
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 6 Ct $582,000 RRFB + Median 13 Ct $1,859,000
Traffic Circle 40 Ct $2,000,000
Traffic Diverter 7 Ct $224,000.00
Total Cost Estimate 42.7 Miles/95 Ct $ 36,677,200

Executive Summary | 13

VISION FOR A LOW-STRESS

BIKEWAY NETWORK
Figure 2 illustrates the vision of a Low-
Stress Network in Berkeley, including
bicycle boulevards and separated
bikeways. This envisioned network is
safe and comfortable for people of all
ages and abilities, with inclusive design
to accommodate the broadest possible
range of network users. Safe bikeway
connections are especially important for
parents riding with their children, older
children riding independently, seniors using
low-speed electric devices, and people
with a mobility disability using an assistive
device.

The City of Berkeley envisions a layered
network of bicycle boulevards and corridor
studies for separated bikeways on major
streets. Bicycle boulevards on minor
streets connect neighborhoods across
Berkeley, while separated bikeways on
major streets allow individuals to safely and
conveniently access key destinations.

The Berkeley Unified School District,
by policy, does not provide school bus
service to middle or high school students
and does not provide school bus service
to households within 1.5 miles of their
assigned elementary school.

In terms of the potential for reducing traffic
congestion and helping to achieve the
City’s climate action goals, school trips
account for a significant portion of morning
auto traffic, and yet are often less than a
mile in length. Therefore, it is important
that the Low-Stress Network connects to
as many schools in Berkeley as possible to
provide parents and children the option of
a completely low-stress bicycle trip from
their residence to school.

Figure 3 sh
ows the updated network
recommendations for the City of Berkeley
bikeway network. More details can be
found in Chapter 5.

14 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Figure 2: Low-Stress Bikeway Network Vision

SHATTUCK AVE

DELAWARE ST

HOPKINS ST

ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE

WOOLSEY ST

VIRGINIA ST

SACRAMENTO ST

RUSSELL ST

MLK JR WAY

DWIGHT WAY

CENTER ST

HEINZ AVE

THE ALAMEDA

GILMAN ST
6TH ST

ALCATRAZ AVE

HEARST AVE

CEDAR ST

BANCROFT WAY

ROSE ST

GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST

MILVIA ST

CALIFORNIA ST

TELEGRAPH AVE

MARIN AVE

ASHBY AVE

CHANNING WAY

BAY TRAIL

SPRUCE ST

UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST

OXFORD ST

WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST

CLAREMONT AVE

HARMON ST

ADELINE ST

KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN

STTREMONT ST

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST

BOWDITCH ST

MABEL ST

GAYLEY RD

JOSEPHINE ST

EUCLID ST

COLUSA AVESOLANO AVE

MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST

ADDISON ST

HEARST AVE

FOLGER AVE

BUCHANAN ST

SAN PABLO AVE DERBY ST

SONOMA AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland

LOW-STRESS

BIKEWAY

NETWORK VISION

CITY OF BERKELEY

BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Low-Stress Bikeway
Network Vision
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Boulevard Network
Cycletrack (Class IV)
Complete Street Corridor Studies* -
Low Stress Bikeway
Recommendation
Study Cycletrack*
Primary Transit Route - Study Cycletrack*
Amtrak Station
BART Station
School
Railroad
Park
City Boundary
*Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects.

The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide planning document that recommends improvements to bicycle safety, comfort, and connectivity at a network level. See Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process and Section 5.6 Complete Streets Corridor Study Recommendations for more information.

Executive Summary | 15
Figure 3: Recommended Network Improvements

SHATTUCK AVE

DELAWARE ST

HOPKINS ST

ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE

WOOLSEY ST
GRIZ

ZLY PEAK
BLVD

VIRGINIA ST

SACRAMENTO ST

RUSSELL ST

MLK JR WAY

DWIGHT WAY

CENTER ST

HEINZ AVE

THE ALAMEDA

GILMAN ST
6TH ST

ALCATRAZ AVE

HEARST AVE

CEDAR ST

BANCROFT WAY

ROSE ST

GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST

MILVIA ST

CALIFORNIA ST

TELEGRAPH AVE

ASHBY AVE

CHANNING WAY

BAY TRAIL

SPRUCE ST

UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST

OXFORD ST

WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST

WILDCAT
CAN
YON
RD
TUNNEL
RD

CLAREMONT AVE

HARMON ST

ADELINE ST

KING ST
65TH ST

DEAKIN ST

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST

BOWDITCH ST

MABEL ST

GAYLEY RD

JOSEPHINE ST

EUCLID ST

COLUSA AVE

SOLANO AVE

MARIN AVE
MON
TER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST

ADDISON ST

HEARST AVE

FOLGER AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

SONOMA AVE

DERBY ST
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California,
BerkeleyCésar Chávez
Park
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore State
Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
El Cerrito
Emeryville
Oakland
Richmond
2025 EXISTING/RECOMMENDED FACILITIES

RECOMMENDED

NETWORK

IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF BERKELEY

BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Complete Street Corridor Study -
Primary Transit Route*
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II)
Bike Route (Class III)
Bike Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)

BIKE BOULEVARD NETWORK
School Amtrak
Station
BART
Station
Railroad Park
Complete Street Corridor Study*
*Complete Street Corridor Studies are
proposed multimodal transportation studies,
not planned projects. The Berkeley Bicycle
Plan is a citywide planning document that
recommends improvements to bicycle safety,
comfort, and connectivity at a network level.

See Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process and
Section 5.6 Complete Streets Corridor Study
Recommendations for more information.

16 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan

COMPLETE STREETS

CORRIDOR STUDIES
As defined by the Berkeley Complete
Streets Policy, “Complete Streets”
describes a comprehensive, integrated
transportation network with infrastructure
and design that allows safe and convenient
travel along and across streets for all users,
including:
• Pedestrians
• Bicycles (standard, cargo, electric)
• Scooters and skateboards
• Wheelchairs/powerchairs
• Private vehicles
• Transit
• Delivery trucks
• Postal trucks
• Fire trucks and ambulances
• Police cars
• Zero waste vehicles
Pr
oviding a complete network does
not require dedicated facilities for all
transportation modes on every street.

Instead, it means creating convenient,
safe, and connected routes for all modes
throughout the city. For bikeway planning,
Berkeley considers both arterial and
collector roads and parallel streets as part
of a Complete Streets Corridor. Arterial
roads are designed primarily for private
vehicle and bus transit movement and
carry higher volumes of traffic, while
collector roads are designed to gather
traffic from local streets and direct it to
arterials or highways. Potential bikeways
on either type should be evaluated within
a Complete Streets Corridor Study, along
with consideration of alternate parallel
routes, to serve all modes.

Major and collector streets with
recommendations for separated bikeways
(Class IV) require further study to evaluate
their suitability and impacts. These
streets are labeled “Complete Streets
Corridor Studies” within this plan update.

For further information, see Se
ction 5.2
Project Delivery Process and Section

5.6 Complete Street Corridor Study
Recommendations .

Executive Summary | 17

18 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Implementation

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
This plan update rescored all old and
new projects for prioritization against
new criteria, ensuring that the workplan
prioritizes projects that advance cyclist
safety, equity, and access to the bikeway
network, and contribute to climate goals.

Project recommendations are grouped into
co
rridors, inclusive of both street segments
and intersections, and are divided into
priority (1-highest, 3-lowest) tiers. Scoring
was based on evaluation criteria that
included cyclist safety, community support,
and equity factors (see Appendix D).

Figure 4 shows the recommended project
ne
twork by tier.

Tables showing projects and corridors by
ti
er can be found in Chapter 6.

PROJECT DELIVERY
The City of Berkeley typically relies on two
mechanisms to deliver bike projects:
• Integrating project elements into streets
sc
heduled for repaving through the City’s
five-year paving plan.
• Securing federal, state, and regional
gra
nts to advance the implementation of
bikeway network projects.

With the passage of Berkeley’s
in
frastructure bond (Measure FF) in the fall
of 2024, the City has a new funding source
for project delivery.

Executive Summary | 19
Figure 4: Proposed Project Tiers

SHATTUCK AVE

DELAWARE ST

HOPKINS ST

ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE

WOOLSEY ST
GRIZ

ZLY PEAK
BLVD

VIRGINIA ST

SACRAMENTO ST

RUSSELL ST

MLK JR WAY

DWIGHT WAY

CENTER ST

HEINZ AVE

THE ALAMEDA

GILMAN ST
6TH ST

ALCATRAZ AVE

HEARST AVE

CEDAR ST

BANCROFT WAY

ROSE ST

GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST

MILVIA ST

CALIFORNIA ST

TELEGRAPH AVE

ASHBY AVE

CHANNING WAY

BAY TRAIL

SPRUCE ST

UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST

OXFORD ST

WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST

WILDCAT
CAN
YON
RD
TUNNEL
RD

CLAREMONT AVE

HARMON ST

ADELINE ST

KING ST
65TH ST

DEAKIN ST

PIEDMONT AVE

HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST

BOWDITCH ST

MABEL ST

GAYLEY RD

JOSEPHINE ST

EUCLID ST

COLUSA AVE

SOLANO AVE

MARIN AVE
MOTERE
Y AVE
SUTT
ER
ST

ADDISON ST

HEARST AVE

FOLGER AVE

SAN PABLO AVE

DERBY ST

SONOMA AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California,
Berkeley
César Chávez
Park
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon

PROJECT

PRIORITIZATION

CORRIDORS

CITY OF BERKELEY

BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE

PROJECT PRIORITY TIER
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3

COMPLETE STREETS STUDY

CORRIDOR
Complete Street Corridor Study -
Primary Transit Route*
Complete Street Corridor Study*
School
BART Station
Amtrak Station
Railroad
Parks
City Boundary
*Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects. The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide planning document that recommends improvements to bicycle safety, comfort, and connectivity at a network level.

See Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process and Section 5.6 Complete Streets Corridor Study Recommendations for more information.

20 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
01 INTRODUCTION

introduction | 21

1.1 City of Berkeley Statement
According to the US Census 2023
American Community Survey, 9% of
Berkeley residents who commute to work
do so by bicycle. Another 3.6% of Berkeley
residents commute using “other” devices,
which include electric scooters, mobility
scooters, and powerchairs, meaning that
more than 10% of Berkeleyans traveling for
work do so using devices permissible for
the bikeway network. In 2023, over 30%
of Berkeleyans reported working from
home, which may increase their flexibility
to use alternative transportation options
like bicycle, scooter, and mobility devices
for short trips to local destinations and
business districts. Lastly, more than one
in four Berkeley households do not own
a private vehicle, with a significant share
of zero-car households among students,
low-income residents, and residents with a
disability. It is critical to improve mobility
for these residents with the fewest options.

As nearly any Berkeleyan can tell you,
ge
tting to work is not the only reason
people bike or roll in this city. In Berkeley,
people bike and roll for shopping at a store
or farmers’ market; dropping off or picking
up kids from school or day care; visiting the
UC Berkeley campus; going to concerts,
restaurants, and social events; and
exercising. Bicycling and rolling in Berkeley
are efficient, environmentally friendly, and
utilitarian modes of transport, and they are
also a source of health and enjoyment. A
central focus of this 2025 City of Berkeley
Bicycle Plan Update is improving the
comfort, convenience, and enjoyment of
bicycling and rolling as a viable strategy for
achieving many of the City’s public health
and wellness goals.

Berkeley has seen the introduction and
rapid adoption of other mobility devices
that can legally use the bicycle lane,
including electric bikes, electric scooters,
and other devices like skateboards, e-trikes,
mobility scooters, and powerchairs. The
expansion of unique devices on the market
has broadened the range of users of the
bikeway network, with people choosing
the device that works best for them. As
a result, the bikeway network is more
democratic and equitable, with Berkeleyans
now using the bikeway network even
if they would never ride a bicycle. But
this new opportunity also comes with
drawbacks: with more devices traveling at
different speeds, there is more opportunity
for conflict in the bikeway network. This
plan update provides guidance for facility
design that is inclusive and welcoming for
all legal users of the bikeway network.

For nearly six decades, Berkeley has been
a leader in promoting bicycle use for
pleasant transportation and recreation. The
first Ci
ty of Berkeley Bicycle Plan—created
in 1971—laid out a citywide network of
bikeways that are still in use today.

This 2025 Bicycle Plan Update builds off
the strengths and successes of the 2017
Bicycle Plan. It is not a new plan but a
focused update of the 2017 plan.

22 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
During the era of the “Bicycle Boom,” in
1970, the City of Berkeley conducted a
survey of existing bicycle use patterns,
asking respondents to draw their most
common bike trip route on a map to help
the City understand where cyclists were
riding at that time. This survey was the
basis for the first City of Berkeley Bicycle
Plan of 1971. One goal of this plan update
effort was to replicate this broad-based
outreach strategy. With engagement
starting in 2022, outreach strategies
included an interactive webmap that
collected over 1,000 comments, curated
listening sessions on Zoom with low-
income residents, and presentations with
key stakeholder groups (in-person, hybrid,
and virtual)—all to ensure the feedback
represented the depth and breadth of
the Berkeley community, especially those
hardest to reach and those most vulnerable
to transportation challenges.

This plan update continues the 2017
Bi
cycle Plan recommendations of a core
network of low-stress bikeways providing a
continuous and connected system of safe
and comfortable bikeways that serve all
types of people riding bicycles in Berkeley.

The 2025 update recommendations focus
on consolidating and connecting the
segments of the Low-Stress Network built
out by the City of Berkeley between 2017
and 2025. The core Low-Stress Network is
part of a more extensive overall bikeway
system in Berkeley that is supported by
wayfinding signage, bike parking, a high
maintenance standard, and an outreach
program providing education and
encouragement.

The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide
planning document that recommends
improvements to bicycle safety, comfort,
and connectivity at a network level. For
further information, see Se
ction 5.2
Project Delivery Process and Section

5.6 Complete Streets Corridor Study
Recommendations .

introduction | 23

1.2 Plan Organization
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions: An
inventory of present-day bicycling in
Berkeley, including physical conditions like
bikeways.

Chapter 3: Needs Assessment/Public
Eng
agement: Who did we talk to,
and how was that input used to shape
plan recommendations? This chapter
summarizes our strategy for engagement,
the events held, and the key feedback
received.

Chapter 4: Proposed Bikeway Network:

Pr
oposals to support Berkeley residents
who already ride a bicycle, eliminate
barriers to bicycling more frequently, and
encourage others to try bicycling for the
first time.

Chapter 5: Implementation: A pra
ctical
roadmap for implementing the proposals
in this plan, including project details, cost
estimates, and project bundles grouped
for the purpose of successful grant funding
applications, evaluation and staffing needs
for a measurable and successful bicycle
program.

Appendices: Res
ources critical to the
implementation of the proposed projects
which includes:
• Detailed Bicycle Boulevard Design
Gu
idelines based on the latest federal
and state guidelines and national best
practices from organizations such
as the National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO)
• 2022 Outreach Summary
• 2025 Outreach Summary
• Network Update Memo
• Prioritization Memo

1.3 How to Use This
Plan Update
This plan update serves as a workplan for
City of Berkeley staff for the next 5 to 10
years. It provides relevant guidance for the
design process of future bikeway projects
and recommendations for continued
engagement practices with the full range
of community stakeholders in Berkeley.

Table 3 indicates sections in this plan that
have been updated from the 2017 plan.

Sections of the 2017 Plan that have not
been updated should still be considered
in-place once the 2026 Bike Plan Update is
adopted.

24 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Table 3: . Plan Updates, 2017-2025
CHAPTER (2017 PLAN) 2025 BICYCLE PLAN
UP

DATE (UPDATED/

NEW CONTENT)
2017 BICYCLE PLAN
(ORIGINAL CONTENT

PRESERVED)
Chapter 1: Introduction All content updated –
Ch
apter 2: Goals & Polices – No updates mad e
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions • Bikeway Classifications • L
ow-Stress Intersection
Crossing Classifications
• Bicycle Boulevards
• Notable Projects Built
Since 2017
• Land Use/
Transportation Context
• Existing Bicycle
Support Facilities
• UC Berkeley
Connections
• Existing Programs
Chapter 4: Needs Analysis/Public
Outreach
• Census Data
• Plans Adopted Since
2017
• Public Outreach
• Informing the
Recommendations
• Bicycle Counts
• Bicycle Demand
• Collision Analysis
• Bicycle Preference
Survey
• Level of Traffic Stress
Chapter 5: Proposed Bikeway Network All content updated – Chapter 6: Implementation All content updated –
Appendix A: Policies – No updates made
Appendix B: Analysis – No updates made
Appendix C: Level of Traffic Stress – No updates made
Appendix D: Proposed Programs – No updates made
Appendix E: Project Recommendations
an
d Priorities Table
All content updated
Ap
pendix F: Facility Design Toolbox • Bicycle Boulevard
Design Guidelines
• Bicycle Boulevard
Crossing Treatment
Recommendations
• Class I Bikeways
• Class II Bikeways
• Class IV Bikeways
Intersection Treatments
• Bikeway Signing &
Amenities
• Bike Parking
Appendix G: Bicycle Market Study – No updates made
Appendix H: Complete Streets Corridors – No updates made

introduction | 25

1.4 What Does “All Ages & Abilities” Mean?
All Ages & Abilities” (AAA) refers to
the intentional design of bike network
infrastructure to be safe, usable,
comfortable, and accessible to the widest
range of people, regardless of age or
physical capability.

As part of public outreach for the 2017
Bi
cycle Plan Update, City staff and
consultants conducted a statistically-
significant, door-to-door, tablet-based
survey of Berkeley residents. A key survey
finding was that 71% of Berkeley residents
fall into the “Interested but Concerned”
category of individuals; i.e., they are
interested in cycling or cycling more
often, but are sensitive to traffic speeds
and volumes. Building on the bicycling
preference survey, a Level of Traffic Stress
(LTS) analysis was conducted for Berkeley’s
roadway network. Traffic stress is the
perceived sense of danger associated
with riding in or adjacent to vehicle traffic;
studies have shown that traffic stress is
one of the greatest deterrents to bicycling.

A bicycle network will attract a larger
portion of the population if it is designed
to reduce stress associated with potential
motor vehicle conflicts. Bikeways on low-
traffic, low-speed neighborhood streets
are considered low stress, as are separated
bikeways or “cycletracks” on a major street
with higher traffic volumes and speeds if
physical separation is placed between the
bikeway and traffic lane on roadways.

When selecting a bikeway design, it is
important to identify the fullest range
of potential users, all of whom have
different needs and considerations.

Below is a summary of the types of users
encompassing “all ages & abilities” Users
may have overlapping identifies and lived
experiences.

Youth: School-age children are an essential
b
icycling demographic but face unique
risks because they are smaller and thus less
visible from the driver’s seat than adults,
and often have less ability to detect risks
or negotiate conflicts. Bikeway design
needs to consider that youth ride to school
unaccompanied by adults, alongside
adults, and on cargo bikes with adults.

What Does Low-
Stress Mean?
To serve all types of people riding
bicycles, a bikeway network must
provide continuous low stress (LTS 1 and
LTS 2) segments and intersections, from
end to end. A single high stress gap
on an otherwise low stress facility can
deter use. By pinpointing and prioritizing
the exact high-stress locations that
likely dissuade people riding bicycles,
this Plan can focus on identifying the
improvements that will bring the high-
stress LTS 3 and LTS 4 gaps down to low
stress LTS 1 and LTS 2 levels, thereby
removing the barriers to bicycling for a
larger proportion of Berkeley residents.

26 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Seniors: People aged 65 and over are the
fastest growing population group in the US,
and the only group with a growing number
of car-free households. Seniors can make
more trips and have increased mobility if
safe riding networks are available. Bikeways
need to serve people with lower visual
acuity and slower riding speeds.

People with disabilities : Pe
ople with
disabilities may use traditional bikes,
e-bikes, adaptive bicycles, tricycles and
recumbent handcycles (which often operate
at lower speeds, are lower to the ground,
or have a wider envelope than other
bicycles). High-comfort bicycling conditions
provide mobility, health, and independence,
often with a higher standard for bike
infrastructure needed.

Women: Women are consistently
underrepresented as a share of total
bicyclists, but the share of women riding
increases as better riding facilities are
available. Research shows that women have
a stronger preference for facilities with
greater separation, when compared to men.
1 Concerns about personal safety beyond
traffic stress are often also relevant. Safety
in numbers has additional significance for
female bicyclists.
1 Aldred, R., Elliott, B., Woodcock, J., & Goodman,
A. (2016). Cycling provision separated from motor
traffic: a systematic review exploring whether stated
preferences vary by gender and age. Tr
ansport
Reviews, 37(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/014416

47.2016.1200156 .

People using shared bikes and scooters:

Bike share systems have greatly expanded
the number and diversity of urban bicycle
trips. Since its launch in 2017, the Bay
Wheels bikeshare system serving San
Francisco, the East Bay, and San Jose has
logged over 11 million trips across a fleet
of 6,000 bikes and 500+ stations. People
can also take short trips using shared
e-scooters, and operate them on bicycle
facilities. Riders often use bike and scooter
sharing to link to other transit or make
spontaneous or one-way trips, placing
a premium on comfortable and easily
understandable bike infrastructure. Bike and
scooter share users range widely in stress
tolerance, but creating low-stress bikeways
will accommodate the preferences of all
riders, ensuring a better experience for
everyone. All Ages and Abilities networks
are essential to bike and scooter share
system viability.

People of color: Wh
ile cyclists of color
make up a rapidly growing segment of the
riding population, a recent study found
that fewer than 20% of adult Black and
Latinx bicyclists and non-bicyclists feel
comfortable in conventional bikeways;
fear of exposure to theft or assault and
being a target for enforcement were cited
as barriers to bicycling. Long-standing
disinvestment in street infrastructure and
inequitable decision making have resulted
in these riders being disproportionately
burdened by pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities and serious injuries.
2 2 USDOT FHA. (2024). Exploring Risk Factors to
Disparities in Pedestrian and Bicyclist Fatalities and
Serious Injuries. ht
tps://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.
dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-25-035.pdf .

introduction | 27
Low-income riders: Low-income riders
make up half of all Census-reported
commuter bicyclists, relying extensively
on bicycles for basic transportation
needs such as getting to work. Lack
of basic infrastructure in low-income
neighborhoods exacerbates safety
concerns. An All Ages and Abilities bikeway
is often needed to bring greater safety and
comfort to the corridors these bicyclists
use every day.

People moving goods or cargo : Bi
cycles
and tricycles outfitted to carry multiple
passengers or cargo, or bicycles pulling
trailers, increase the types of trips that
can be made by bike but are not well
accommodated by bicycle facilities
designed to minimal standards.

Confident cyclists: Wh
ile a small
percentage of experienced cyclists may
feel comfortable riding in mixed motor
vehicle traffic and may still choose to
do so, they are also well accommodated
by All Ages and Abilities facilities, which
provide a more inclusive option for riders
of all comfort levels. The California Vehicle
Code doesn’t require that bicyclists use
protected bike lanes when present and
confident cyclists may choose to ride in the
motor vehicle lanes (CVC 21208(a) states
bikes must use bike lane if present, and
SHC 890.4 defines a bike lane as a Class II
bikeway).

1.5 Bicycling &
Rolling: Who Can Use
the Bike Lane?
Since the adoption of the 2017 Bicycle
Plan, the emergence of micromobility has
introduced a broad array of new personal
mobility devices. Each of these devices has
different speeds, considerations, and users.

Designing a Low-Stress Network for all ages
and abilities means the needs of different
users are taken into account for facility
selection and design. Legal uses of the
bikeway network include:

Bicycles: Bi
cycles can legally be used on
the bikeway network. This includes modified
bicycles such as unicycles, cargo bikes,
bikes with trailers, or longtail bikes.

E-bikes & e-trikes: Ca
lifornia regulates three
classes of e-bikes. E-bikes that are pedal-
assist or limit throttle top speeds to 20
mph or under may use the entire bikeway
network. E-bikes with a pedal-assisted
top speed of 28 mph are not permitted on
shared use paths (Class I) but may be used
on the rest of the bikeway network. E-bikes
with a top speed over 28 mph are classified
as mopeds and are not permitted on the
bikeway network. (CVC 312.5)
Skateboards & scooters: Human-powered
sk
ateboards and scooters are legal users
of the bikeway network. Given their lower
travel speeds, human-powered skateboard
and scooter users should exercise due care
on the bikeway network.

E-skateboards & e-scooters: E-
skateboards
and e-scooters (including those with seats)
with a top speed of 20 mph may be used
on the bikeway network. E-skateboards and

28 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
e-scooters with a top speed over 20 mph
are not permitted on the bikeway network.
(CVC 313.5)
Hoverboards & similar devices:

Hoverboards, one-wheels, E-unicycles, and
ot
her types of electric mobility devices
with a top speed of 20 mph may be used
on the bikeway network. Devices with a top
speed over 20 mph are not permitted on
the bikeway network. (CVC 313.5)
Mobility scooters & powerchairs: When

sidewalks or adequate pedestrian facilities
are not available, California Vehicle Code
allows any pedestrian or person using a
motorized mobility device to use a bicycle
lane. Given their lower travel speeds,
mobility scooter users should exercise due
care on the bikeway network.

1.6 Accessibility under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Public
Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG)
Accessibility is a fundamental requirement
of all street design projects. While
separated bikeways (Class IV facilities) can
sometimes introduce new and different
design challenges for accessibility, ADA
requirements can still be met when
designed with features such as accessible
pedestrian crossings, compliant curb
ramps, passenger loading zones, path-of-
travel, detectable warnings, and upgraded
boarding areas for transit. These features
are now standard practice in Complete
Streets projects throughout California and
nationally.
1 1 Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT)
Protected Bicycle Lane Design Guide (2020);
Se
attleDepartment of Transportation (SDOT)
Illustrated Streets Design Manual (2022);
Ma
ssachusetts Departmentof Transportation (MDOT)
Separated Bike Lane Design Guide (2020); WalkSF
Getting to the Curb (2019); San Francisco Municipal
Tr
ansportation Agency (SFMTA) Guidelines for
Acc
essible Building Blocks forBicycle Facilities
(20
18).

The City will continue to ensure that
all multimodal transportation projects
undergo thorough accessibility review
during design. This will include early
engagement with Berkeley community
disability advocates and the City’s
Commission on Disability during corridor-
level planning and engineering design
processes to identify and address
accessibility needs before implementation.

The Bicycle Plan recommendations for
Complete Streets corridor studies will
help ensure that separated bikeways,
transit operations, parking and loading,
emergency response needs, and other
operational, safety, and maintenance
considerations are fully evaluated in an
integrated manner. Accessibility will be a
key consideration in those studies.

introduction | 29

1.7 Accessibility Interviews
Berkeley is the heart of the disability
rights movement in the US. Organizations
such as the Center for Independent
Living, Bay Area Outreach and Recreation
(BORP) Adaptive Sports and Recreation,
Berkeleyans for Accessible Rights-of-Way
(BAROW), and the Berkeley Commission
on Disability continue to advocate for
a community fully accessible to all. As
some of our most vulnerable road users,
people with disabilities are often the most
impacted by changes and challenges in the
transportation system.

Berkeley is committed to accessible
de
sign for the bikeway network, using
resources such as the Public Right-of-
Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG),
formally adopted by the Federal Highway
Administration in 2024. Equally important
is leveraging the expertise and lived
experience of Berkeley residents with
a disability. During the public outreach
process, the project team held a workshop
with the Center for Independent Living,
ga
ve a presentation to the Commission
on D
isability

, and held interviews with five
le
aders in the Berkeley disability movement
to get specific input on project approaches
and design challenges. Key takeaways from
this input are listed below.

The recommendations below are not
legally required guidelines. They should be
considered within the context of PROWAG,
the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Dev
ices (CA MUTCD), the Caltrans Highway
Des
ign Manual, and the various Design
In
formation Bulletins issued by Caltrans.

Michaela Tsztoo (left) and Eric Knaresboro (right)
with their service animals; they rely on road noise
to help them cross the street, making bicycles and
scooters a challenge.

Rena Fischer in her powerchair beside the Milvia
Street bikeway.

30 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Accessibility Recommendations

ENGAGEMENT
» Work proactively with the Commission on Disability, the Center for Independent Liv
ing, and other disability advocacy groups to engage members of the disability co
mmunity in the early stages of project design.
» Make all presentation materials compliant with current Web Content Accessibility Gu
idelines (WCAG), always provide verbal descriptions of images and maps during pr
esentations for blind and low-vision participants, and offer American Sign Language interpretation on request.

FACILITY DESIGN
» Consider the needs of slow and wide-based devices, such as e-trikes, mobility sc
ooters, and powerchairs, during separated bikeway design. Limit cross slopes, design for width that accommodates safe and comfortable passing, and design breaks in vertical elements wide enough for a wide-based device to leave the bikeway. » Consider the needs of low-vision users when designing separated bikeways. Apply re
flective paint and reflectors to vertical elements and use consistent hatch-striping in buffers for users to pick up in their peripheral vision. At intersections, utilize visual, tactile, and audible cues to distinguish between bicycle and pedestrian facilities. » Consider the needs of low-vision users when designing pedestrian refuge islands.

Cr
eate separation between pedestrian and bicycle facilities with visual, tactile, and audible cues for safe navigation.

INTERSECTIONS
» Consider the needs of low-vision users crossing at separated bikeways. Consider a se
cond row of truncated domes in the crosswalk to delineate between the bikeway and the vehicle portion of the roadway. Ensure curb ramps point directly at each other on either side of a crosswalk. Consider braille messages or audible messages for pedestrian push buttons alerting users to the presence of a separated bikeway. » Consider transit boarding island accessibility as part of separated bikeway design.

Wh
ere possible, integrate transit boarding island ramp access into a preexisting crosswalk, using truncated domes to demarcate the extent of the transit boarding island. Where transit boarding island access is not at a crosswalk, consider a raised crossing of the separated bikeway at sidewalk level, with corresponding yield signage and markings for bikeway users. At intersections, utilize visual, tactile, and audible cues to distinguish between bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

introduction | 31

PARKING & LOADING
» Provide a minimum 3-foot buffer/path of travel adjacent to parking-protected se
parated bikeways and a 5-foot or wider buffer whenever possible. When placing bollards within a buffer space, place them at the edge of the buffer space to maximize path of travel width.
» Consider opportunities to establish blue-zone parking stalls adjacent to intersections wi
th preexisting curb ramps and on side streets, especially on longer blocks, blocks without midblock curb ramps, or blocks where driveway slopes exceed minimum requirements for use by a wheelchair.

CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION
» Increase enforcement of construction Traffic Control Plans (TCP). Have TCPs focus on ac
cessible crosswalks, audible warning devices announcing crosswalk closures, and sufficiently wide path of travel for temporary walkways or bikeways.

Helen Walsh with her electric tricycle on Milvia
Street; narrow separated bikeways are a challenge
for her wider bike.

32 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
02 EXISTING

CONDITIONS
& PLAN

PROGRESS

Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 33
10’ ver
clearance
2 rizon
clearan e c
tal ho ’
tical
SHARED

USE PATH
NO
MOTOR

VEHICLES
OR

MOTORIZED

BICYCLES
10’ ver
clearance
2 rizon
clearan e c
tal ho ’
tical
SHARED

USE PATH
NO
MOTOR

VEHICLES
OR

MOTORIZED

BICYCLES
This chapter details the existing state of bicycle infrastructure in Berkeley, the implementation status of network recommendations from the 2017 Bicycle Plan, notable projects completed since the 2017 plan, and transportation and land use patterns in Berkeley.

2.1 Bikeway Classification
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) designates four classes of bicycle facilities: Classes I, II, III, and IV. Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 94 (DIB-94) provides additional supplemental guidance for bikeway design, as does the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Comprehensive Bike Guide.

CLASS I MULTI-USE PATHS
Shared use paths (Class I bike paths
or multi-use trails) provide completely
separated, exclusive right-of-way for
bicycling, walking, and other nonmotorized
uses.

In 2017, there were 18.2 miles of shared use
paths; as of 2025, this number has increased
to 18.9

34 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan

BIKE LANE

CLASS II
Bike Lane

BIKE LANE
Parking and bike lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike lane Solid Solid
white stripewhite stripe
sign
Bike lane
sign
Bike laneProvides a striped lane for
one-way bike travel on a
street or highway.

BIKE LANE

CLASS II
Bike Lane

BIKE LANE
Parking and bike lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike lane Solid Solid
white stripewhite stripe
sign
Bike lane
sign
Bike laneProvides a striped lane for
one-way bike travel on a
street or highway.

CLASS II BICYCLE LANES/UPGRADED BICYCLE LANES
Bicycle lanes (Class II) are striped,
preferential lanes on roadways for one-way
bicycle travel.*
In 2017 there were 12.1 miles of bicycle
lanes; as of 2025, this number has
decreased to 10.9. This is because many
bicycle lanes were upgraded.

Upgraded bicycle lanes (Class II) include
striped buffers that add a few feet of
separation between the bicycle lane and
traffic lane or parking aisle, or use green
thermoplastic striping to increase visibility
at areas of conflict.

In 2017 there were 0.3 miles of upgraded
bicycle lanes; as of 2025, this number has
increased to 1.8.
*Some bicyclists have safety concerns with traveling in bicycle lanes adjacent to parking lanes or have limited separation between vehicles in the travel lane.

Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 35

CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTES/BICYCLE BOULEVARDS
Bicycle routes (Class III) are signed
roadways where people riding bicycles
share a travel lane with people driving
motor vehicles. They may include shared
lane markings (sharrows) or other
pavement stenciling. The purpose of
signage and stencils on Bicycle Routes are
to increase driver awareness of the likely
presence of people on bicycles.

In 2017 there were 8.1 miles of bicycle
routes; as of 2025, this number has
increased to 12.6.

BIKE ROUTE

BIKE ROUTE
Sidewalk
Bike Route
sign
Bike Route
sign
Shared use travel lane Shared use travel lane

BIKE ROUTE

BIKE ROUTE
Sidewalk
Bike Route
sign
Bike Route
sign
Shared use travel lane Shared use travel lane
Bicycle boulevards (Class III) are roadways
where people riding bicycles share a travel
lane with people driving motor vehicles.

However, traffic calming and diversion
infrastructure and crossing enhancements
are intended to prioritize bicycle travel of
people of all ages and abilities along these
roadways. Some bicycle boulevards may
include separated facilities and bicycle
lanes. Class III bicycle boulevards are only
appropriate for low-volume streets with
slow travel speeds.

In 2017 there were 11.9 miles of bicycle
boulevards; as of 2025, this number has
increased to 12.5.

36 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan

CLASS IV SEPARATED BIKEWA YS
Separated bikeways (Class IV), also known
as cycletracks, are on-street bicycle lanes
that are physically separated from motor
vehicle traffic by a vertical element or
barrier, such as a curb, bollards, or parking
aisle. Bicyclists are not required to use
the separated bike lane and may ride with
motor vehicle traffic (CVC 21208(a) states
bikes must use bike lane if present, and
SHC 890.4 defines a bike lane as a Class II
bikeway).

In 2017 there were 0.1 miles of separated
bikeways; as of 2025, that number has
increased to 4.2.

Cycletrack
5-7’ typical
width
Cycletrack
Bollards or
other barrierBollards or other barrier
3’ buffer
SidewalkSidewalk Travel laneTravel lane Travel lane Travel lane

CLASS IV
Cycletrack
Provides a separated path for one-way
bicycle travel adjacent to a street or
highway. Bicycles are separated from
motor vehicle traffic by a raised curb,
bollards, parking with a painted buffer,
or other vertical physical barrier.

Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 37

UPDATES IN BEST
PRACTICES SINCE 2017
Since 2017, several notable best practices
have emerged in active transportation
infrastructure that further enhance safety,
accessibility, and inclusivity. Here are some
key updates:

Micromobility: The use of micromobility
devices has surged, and governments
have responded by developing regulatory
frameworks and adapting infrastructure
to enhance user safety. E-scooter and
e-bike systems have also been integrated
with public transportation systems, with
docking stations located near stops and
stations. This allows users to seamlessly
use different modes of transportation to
get to their destinations.

Data-driven planning & equity
considerations: The use of data analytics
and technology has improved how cities
plan and implement active transportation
infrastructure. Equity has also been
integrated into transportation data
analytics to prioritize investments in
historically underserved communities.

Green infrastructure: There is a
growing emphasis on integrating green
infrastructure with active transportation.

This includes incorporating green spaces,
permeable pavements, and rain gardens
adjacent to bicycle lanes and pedestrian
paths to enhance the environment and
improve urban aesthetics.

Design guidelines: There has been a shift
toward design guidelines that allow cities
to adapt infrastructure to meet the needs
of all road users. The Pu
blic Right-of-
Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG),
formalized in 2024, ensures facilities are
accessible to pedestrians with disabilities.

These updates have led to tangible
improvements in sidewalks, curb ramps,
pedestrian signals, on-street parking, and
shared use paths. The National Association
of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
Urban Street Design Guide ha
s helped cities
lead the movement in redesigning and
reinvesting in streets to make them safer,
more livable, and more economically vibrant.

Safety focus: Th
e City and partner agencies
such as Alameda County Transportation
Commission, Caltrans, and Alameda-Contra
Costa Transit Authority are implementing
several safety improvements for people
walking and bicycling:

1. Traffic signals that can detect people
walking and bicycling

2. Better wayfinding and signage

3. Safe Routes to School programs

4. Education campaigns about sharing the
road

5. Bicycle boulevards should ideally have a
posted speed limit
of 20 mph, as allowed
by AB 43.

These changes aim to make active
transportation safer for everyone.

Vision Zero: More cities have adopted
Vision Zero programs aimed at eliminating
traffic fatalities by reducing vehicle speeds,
redesigning intersections, and expanding
pedestrian safety infrastructure. Together,
these advancements reflect a broader
commitment to creating safer, more
inclusive, and multimodal transportation
networks for all users.