MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-1
To: Eric Anderson, City of Berkeley
Da
ni Dynes, City of Berkeley
From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: December 1, 2025
Re: Appendix E: Berkeley Bike Plan Update – Implementation Strategy Memo Introduction
This memo details activities undertaken to assist in the implementation of Plan recommendations detailed in Chapter 5:
Recommendations and Chapter 6: Implementation, breaking down into three sections:
1. 2025 Prioritization Methodology & Costs – t his section details the methodology applied to prioritization of identified projects, prioritization results, as well cost estimates by tier and by project type.
2. 2025 Project Tiers – thi s section details three tiers of projects for prioritization by Public Works staff in future project development and funding. Projects are organized by corridor, encompassing the full extent of project elements staff would develop in future work.
3. 2025 Project Prioritization C riteria – this section details the criteria used for project prioritization.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-2
2025 Prioritization Methodology & Costs
The bicycle and pedestrian project recommendations made in the 2025 Berkeley Bike Plan Update come in many shapes and sizes – some focus on improving the bikeway along an entire corridor, and others focus on a single pedestrian crossing.
Prioritizing these projects is a critical step before implementation because it allows the City of Berkeley to determine the order in which improvements should be made, as funding is available. This section outlines the project prioritization methodology for transparency and alignment with community priorities.
Project Prioritization Methodology
The project team scored each project using a rubric based on six key criteria. These criteria evaluate:
1. whether the project addresses locations with a history of col lisions,
2. how much the project wo uld improve safety and comfort for people walking and biking,
3. how well the project ad dresses locations that were identified through public input in 2022 and 2025,
4. whether the project serves equity priority communities,
5. h
ow close the project is to schools, and
6. how feasible the project is to implement
Many of the scoring criteria used in the 2017 Berkeley Bike Plan have become outdated or have been replaced by better, mor
e nuanced metrics. The following criteria have been adopted for the 2025 Berkeley Bike Plan Update.
Table E-1: Prioritization criteria for 2025 Berkeley Bike Plan Update Criteria Scoring Metric Sc oring Method Maximum Points
Safety – C ollisions 201 9 High Injury Streets Map Proximity 20 Safety – LTS 2024 Existing Network Map Severity 15
Community Support – project identification 2022 Community Input Density 10 Community Support – project prioritization 2025 Community Input Density 20 Equity 2024 Equity Priority Communities Map Proximity 20 Safe Routes to Schools BUSD campus proximity Proximity 10 Feasibility Engineering Judgment Complexity 5
Total Possible Score 100
The major changes in the scoring matrix compared to the 2017 Bike Plan are:
• Use the 2019 High Injury Streets Map for “Sa fety – Collisions” scoring. • Use the 2024 Existing Network map as the basis for “Sa fety – LTS” scoring. • Remove the “Sa fety – Demand” scoring criteria.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-3
• Split the “Community Support” criteria into two categories: one for 2022 engagement and one for 2025 engagement.
• Update “Equity” s coring to use new Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Community designations.
• Add a new criterion for “Saf e Routes to Schools”.
• Add a new criterion for “Fea sibility”.
Following comment from the Technical Advisory Committee in 2025, the following changes were made to criteria:
• Priva te schools qualified for Safe Routes to Schools proximity scoring. • Public input from 2025 was increased to 20 points.
• Public input from 2022 was decreased to 10 points.
Planning-Level Cost Estimates
The table below shows aggregated costs for all network project recommendations, summarizing miles and the number intersection improvements.
Table E-2: Summary of Project Recommendations and Cost Estimates
RECOMMENDED PROEJCT TYPE MILEAGE/COUNT COS T ESTIMATE
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1. 3 Mi les $7,048,400
Bike Lane (Class II) .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 Connector 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 Beacons (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
Total Cost Estimate 42.7 Miles/95 Ct $36,667,200
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-4
2025 Prioritization Results
Figure E-1: 2025 Bike Plan Update Corridor Prioritization
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-5
2025 Project Tiers
The sections below list each project falling under each prioritization corridor. Several projects are also considered for a Complete Streets Corridor Study. These are indicated in the notes below each table.
Tier 1 Projects
There are 13 Tier 1 corridors, based on evaluation criteria from Chapter 6: Implementation. Table E-3 lists all Tier 1 corridors, projects, and corresponding cost estimates.
Table E-3: Tier 1 Projects
Corridor Recommended
Pr
oject or
Study
Location Cross St A Cross St B Mileage Cost
Estimate
Russell Street
Corridor
PHB Russell St Sac ramento
St
$ 396,000
RRFB_Median Russell St Claremont
Ave
$ 143,000
Traffic Circle Russell St Hillegass Ave $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Russell St King St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Russell St Regent St $ 50,000
PHB Russell St Shattuck Ave $ 396,000
RRFB_Median Russell St Adeline St $ 143,000
Derby Corridor
Impr
ovements
Traffic Circle Derby St Reg ent St $ 50,000
2-Way Cycletrack
Crossing
Derby St College Ave $ 92,000
PHB Derby St Sacramento
St
$ 396,000
PHB Derby St Shattuck Ave $ 396,000
Traffic Diverter Derby St Grant St $ 32,000
Class III Bike
Route
Piedmont
Ave
Russell St
0.26 $ 3,600
Class III Bike
Bou
levard
Derby St Mabel St Warring St 1.92 $ 143,800
Channing
Cor
ridor
Improvements
RRFB_Median Channing
Way
6 th St $ 143,000
PHB Channing
Way
Sacramento
St
$ 396,000
Traffic Circle Channing
Way
7th St $ 50,000
Traffic Diverter Channing
Way
San Pablo
Ave
$ 32,000
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-6
Corridor Recommended
Project or
Study
Location Cross St A Cross St B Mileage Cost
Estimate
Traffic Circle Channing
Way
9th St $ 50,000
Traffic Diverter Channing
Way
Curtis St $ 32,000
Traffic Circle Channing
Way
Bonar St $ 50,000
PHB Channing
Way
San Pablo
Ave
$ 396,000
Class II Upgraded
Bike Lane
Channing
Way
Milvia St Piedmont
Ave
1.00 $ 275,000
Southwest
Berk
eley Bike
Boulevard
RRFB_Median Alcatraz
Av
e
King St $ 143,000
PHB Sacrament
o St
Harmon St $ 396,000
Traffic Circle Harmon St Baker St $ 50,000
RRFB_Median California
St
Alcatraz Ave $ 143,000
Traffic Circle Mabel St Carrison St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Harmon St Idaho St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Mabel St 67th St $ 50,000
RRFB Idaho St Alcatraz Ave $ 97,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
65th St Vallejo St Idaho St 0.38 $ 28,500
Class III Bike
Boulevard
63rd St -
Harmon St
- Idaho St -
6 6th St -
Mabel St -
Ward St
Sacramento
St
Mabel St 1.50 $ 112,500
Class III Bike
Boule
vard
Prince St -
MLK Jr Way
King St Adeline St 0.27 $ 20,400
Class II Upgraded
Bike L
ane
Alcatraz
Ave
King St Adeline St
0.12 $ 33,600
Addison
Cor
ridor
Improvements
Traffic Circle Addison St 5t h St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Addison St Seventh St $ 50,000
2-Way Cycletrack
Crossing
Addison St San Pablo
Ave
$ 92,000
Median Crosing Addison St 10th St $ 46,000
RRFB_Median Addison St 6th St $ 143,000
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-7
Corridor Recommended
Project or
Study
Location Cross St A Cross St B Mileage Cost
Estimate
PHB Addison St Sacramento
St
$ 396,000
Class I Bike Path Addison St Curtis St Browning St 0.06 $ 310,900 Class III Bike
Boule
vard
Addison St Oxford St Milvia St 0.26 $ 19,500
Class III Bike
Boule
vard
Addison St Sacramento
St
Browning St
0.36 $ 26,900
Class III Bike
Boule
vard
Addison St Curtis St San Pablo
Ave
0.13 $ 9,800
Class III Bike
Boule
vard
Addison St Bolivar Dr San Pablo
Ave
0.59 $ 43,900
San Pablo
Par
allel Routes
Traffic Circle Virginia St 8t h St $ 50,000
PHB San Pablo
Ave
Camelia St $ 396,000
Raised
Intersection
Emeryville
Greenway
Folger Ave $ 200,000
RRFB Gilman St Kains Ave $ 97,000
Traffic Circle Harrison St 8th St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Harrison St 9th St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Page St 9th St $ 50,000
Traffic Diverter Jones St 9th St $
32,000
Traffic Circle Camelia St Kains Ave $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Camelia St Stannage Ave $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Virginia St Stannage Ave $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Virginia St 9th St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Virginia St 10th St $ 50,000
RRFB Cedar St Stannage Ave $ 97,000
RRFB Stannage
Ave
Hopkins St $ 97,000
RRFB + Median Cedar St 9th St $ 143,000
Traffic Circle Grayson St 9th St $ 50,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Kains Ave Northern City
Limits
Camilia St
0.28 $ 21,300
Class III Bike
Boule
vard
Harrison St
- 10th St
8th St Northern
City Limits
0.20 $ 15,200
Class III Bike
Boule
vard
Stannage
Ave -
Harrison St Virginia St
0.86 $ 64,600
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-8
Corridor Recommended
Project or
Study
Location Cross St A Cross St B Mileage Cost
Estimate
Camelia St
- 9th St
Rose Street
Co
rridor
Improvements
RRFB + Median Rose St Milv ia St $ 143,000
Traffic Diverter Rose St Chestnut St $ 32,000
Traffic Circle Rose St California St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Rose St Walnut St $ 50,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Rose St Hopkins St Spruce St 1.46 $ 109,400
Class III Bike
Bou
levard
Walnut St Rose St Shattuck
Ave
0.37 $ 27,800
Adeline
Cor
ridor
Class IV
Cy
cletrack
Adeline St As hby Ave Southern
City Limits
0.61 $ 454,900
Heinz Ave
Co
rridor
Improvements
2-Way Cycletrack
C
rossing
Heinz
Av
e/Russell
St
San Pablo
Ave
$ 92,000
Traffic Circle Heinz Ave 9th St $ 50,000
Woolse
y -
Fulton Bike
Boulevard
RRFB + Median Woolsey St Ad eline St $ 143,000
Traffic Circle Oregon St Fulton St $
50,000
Traffic Circle Prince St Wheeler St $ 50,000
PHB Martin
Luther King
Jr Way
Prince St $ 396,000
RRFB Woolsey St Shattuck Ave $ 97,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Fulton St -
Prince St -
W
heeler St
- Woolsey
St
Stuart St Adeline St 0.83 $ 62,300
Grant Street
Corridor
Improvements
RRFB + Median Grant St Dw ight Way $ 143,000
Median Crossing Grant St Cedar St $ 141,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Grant St Rose St Russell St 1.75 $ 131,400
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Josephine
St
Rose St The
Alameda
0.35 $ 4,700
Telegraph
Cor
ridor
Protected
In
tersection
Channing
Way
T
elegraph
Ave
$ 990,000
Class IV
Cycletrack
Telegraph
Ave
Bancroft Way Woolsey St
1.09 $ 816,500
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-9
Corridor Recommended
Project or
Study
Location Cross St A Cross St B Mileage Cost
Estimate
Oxford Street
Corridor
Improvements
Class IV
Cy
cletrack
Oxford St Virg inia St Bancroft
Way
0.63 $ 472,000
Protected
Inter
section
Oxford St Hearst Ave $ 990,000
Protected
Intersection
Arch St/Le
Conte Ave
Hearst Ave $ 990,000
*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. These recommendations require further project-specific planning, data collection, analysis, and engineering before being approved for implementation. For further information, see Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-10
Tier 2 Projects
There are 11 Tier 2 corridors, based on evaluation criteria from Chapter 6: Implementation. Table E-4 lists all Tier 2 corridors, projects, and corresponding cost estimates.
Table E-4: Tier 2 Projects
Corridor Recommended
Pr
oject or Study
Location Cross St A Cross St B Mileage Cost
Estimate
Hopkins Street
Corridor
Improvements
Class IV Cycletrack Hopkins St -
Ce
dar St
Sutter St 9th St 1.67 $ 1,245,800
Sixth Street
Corridor
Class II Upgraded
Bike
Lane
6th St Gilman St Allston
Way
1.00 $ 275,000
University Ave
Corridor
Improvements
Class IV Cycletrack University
Av
e
Oxford St 4th St 1.86 $ 1,392,800
Mabel-Bonar
Corridor
2-Way Cycletrack
C
rossing
Bonar St Dw ight Way $ 92,000
Traffic Circle Parker St 9th St $ 50,000
Class I Bike Path Between
Bonar St &
West St
Addison St Bancroft
Way
0.25 $ 1,350,600
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Bonar St -
Mabel St
Addison St Ward St 0.82 $ 61,500
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Parker St Mabel St Ninth St 0.34 $ 25,800
San Pablo Ave
Corridor
Class IV Cycletrack San Pablo
Av
e
Northern
City Limits
Southern
City Limits
2.35 $ 1,752,600
Bowditch/Hilleg
as
2-Way Cycletrack
C
rossing
Hillegas
Av
e/Bowditc
h St
Dwight Way $ 92,000
Traffic Diverter Hillegass Ave Derby St $ 32,000
Traffic Circle Channing
Way
Bowditch St
$ 50,000
California Street
Improvements
Traffic Circle California St Blake
St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle California St Channing
Wy
$ 50,000
PHB California St Ashby Ave $ 396,000
RRFB + Median California St Dwight St $ 143,000
Traffic Circle California St Bancroft
Way
$ 50,000
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-11
Corridor Recommended
Project or Study
Location Cross St A Cross St B Mileage Cost
Estimate
Class III Bike
Boulevard
California St Southern
City Limits
Russell St
0.64 $ 48,000
Virginia
Corridor
Intersection
Improvements
PHB Virginia St Sh
attuck
Ave
$ 396,000
Traffic Circle Virginia St Chestnut
Wy
$ 50,000
Traffic Circle Virginia St Curtis St $ 50,000
PHB Virginia St MLK Jr Way $ 396,000
Gilman Corridor
Improvements
Class IV Cycletrack Gilman St 4t
h St Hopkins St 1.06 $ 793,200
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Camelia St 9th St 4th St
0.31 $ 22,900
Ohlone Corridor
Improvements
2-Way Cycletrack
C
rossing
Ohlone
Gr
eenway
Rose St $ 92,000
RRFB Ohlone
Greenway
Santa Fe
Ave
$ 97,000
RRFB + Median Ohlone
Greenway
Cedar St
$ 143,000
Raised Intersection Ohlone
Greenway
Paralta Ave
$ 200,000
Class I Bike Path Ohlone
Greenway
Hopkins St Virginia St
0.36 $ 1,944,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Acton St Virginia St Addison
St
0.38 $ 28,500
Class IV Cycletrack Hearst Ave California St Arch St/Le Conte Ave
0.50 $ 374,300
Class I Bike Path Ohlone
Greenway
Virginia
Gardens
Santa Fe
Ave
0.64 $ 3,442,900
Class IV Cycletrack Virginia St Sacramento
St
Acton St 0.13 $ 97,100
Class IV Cycletrack Peralta Ave Hopkins St Ohlone
Greenway
0.05 $ 37,400
Claremont
Corridor
Class IV Cycletrack Claremont
Av
e
Russel St Southern
City Limits
0.62 $ 462,700
*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. These recommendations require further project-specific planning, data collection, analysis, and engineering before being approved for implementation. For further information, see Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-12
Tier 3 Projects
There are 13 Tier 3 corridors, based on evaluation criteria from Chapter 6: Implementation. Table E-5 lists all Tier 3 corridors, projects, and corresponding cost estimates.
Table E-5: Tier 3 Projects
Corridor Recommended
Pr
oject or Study
Location Cross St A Cross St B Mileage Cost
Estimate
Milvia Corridor Traffic Circle Milvia St O regon St $ 50,000 Traffic Circle Milvia St Parker St $ 50,000
RRFB + Median Milvia St Hopkins St $ 143,000
Traffic Circle Derby St Milvia St $ 50,000
Shattuck Corridor
Impr
ovements
Protected
In
tersection
Channing Way Sh attuck
Ave
$ 990,000
Protected
Intersection
Hearst Ave Shattuck
Ave
$ 990,000
Class IV
Cycletrack
Shattuck Ave -
Henry St -
S
utter St
Woolsey St El Dorado
Ave
2.57 $ 1,921,000
Piedmont Corridor
Impr
ovements
Class IV
Cy
cletrack
Piedmont Ave
- W
arring St -
Derby St -
Claremont
Russell St Bancroft
Way
1.02 $ 761,500
Santa Fe Corridor
Im
provements
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Santa Fe Ave -
T
albot Ave
Page St City Limits
- North
0.35 $ 4,800
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Santa Fe Ave Camelia St City Limits
- North
0.14 $ 1,900
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Peralta Ave Hopkins St City Limits
- North
0.29 $ 3,900
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Curtis St Gilman St City Limits
- North
0.12 $ 1,600
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Sonoma Ave City Limits Monterey
Ave
0.12 $ 1,700
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Fourth St Harrison St Gilman St 0.13 $ 1,700
Class II Bike Lane Pos en Ave Monterey
Ave
City Limits
0.03 $ 4,900
Woolsey Corridor
Impr
ovements
Traffic Circle Woolsey St Dan a St 0.13 $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Fu lton St Deakin St $ 50,000
Class III Bike
Route
Woolsey St,
The Uplands
Eton Ave El Camino
Real
0.69 $ 9,300
Class III Bike
Bou
levard
Woolsey Ave Wheeler St Hillegass
Ave
0.51 $ 38,300
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-13
Corridor Recommended
Project or Study
Location Cross St A Cross St B Mileage Cost
Estimate
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Prince St -
D
eakin St
Fulton St Woolsey
St
0.12 $ 9,000
Delaware Corridor
Impr
ovements
Raised
In
tersection
Delaware St Wes t St $ 200,000
Traffic Diverter Delaware St 9th St $ 32,000
Class II Bike Lane Delaware St 6th St 9th St 0.18 $ 25,200 Grizzly Peak
Cor
ridor
Improvements
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Grizzly Peak
Blvd
S
pruce St City Limits
- East
2.30 $ 31,000
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Wildcat
Canyon Rd
Spruce St City Limits
- East
1.81 $ 24,600
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Arlington Ave The Circle City Limits
- North
1.03 $ 13,900
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Del Norte St The Circle Sutter St 0.13 $ 1,700
Euclid Corridor
Impr
ovements
Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Euclid Ave Ba yview Pl Virginia St 0.48 $ 6,500
Class II Bike Lane Eu clid Ave Virginia St Hearst
Ave
0.19 $ 26,500
Northbrae
Cor
ridor
Improvements
Class IV
Cy
cletrack
Solano Ave Wes tern
City Limits
Northbrae
Tunnel
0.30 $ 223,500
Class IV
Cy
cletrack
The Alameda Hopkins St Solano
Ave
0.44 $ 328,500
Class IV
Cy
cletrack
Colusa Ave Solano Ave Tacoma
Ave
0.13 $ 97,100
Monterey Ave
Corr
idor
Class IV
Cy
cletrack
Monterey Ave Ho pkins St The
Alameda
0.58 $ 436,500
Fourth St Corridor
Im
provements
Class II Bike Lane 4th St Virg inia St Hearst St 0.21 $ 29,400 Gayley Rd Corridor Class III Bike
Ro
ute
Gayley Rd He arst Ave Piedmont
Ave
0.56 $ 7,600
*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. These recommendations require further project-specific planning, data collection, analysis, and engineering before being approved for implementation. For further information, see Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-14
2025 Prioritization Criteria Detail
This section explains how the scoring criteria were applied to each project. All scoring was done in GIS. Due to geospatial differences, slightly different methods were used to apply the criteria depending on whether a project was a point (an intersection improvement) or a line (a corridor improvement).
Safety – Collisions
Safety scoring was based on the High Injury Streets map from the 2019 Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan. This map represents the 16% of city streets where 91% of Berkeley’s severe and fatal injuries occur.
With a maximum of 20 points, the Alta team scored projects be for their proximity to High Injury Streets:
• Projects on High Injury Streets: 20 points
• Projects within 500 feet o f High Injury Streets: 10 points • Projects more than 500 feet f rom High Injury Streets: 0 points By applying a proximity scoring approach, bicycle boulevard projects (or other low -st ress projects) in close proximity will still receive a partial score—denoting their capacity to improve safety outcomes by offering alternative routes to people on bicycles.
Figure 2: High Injury Street map from 2019 Vision Zero Action Plan
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-15
Safety – LTS
The Safety – LTS criterion aims to capture how much a project would improve safety and comfort for people walking and biking. The scoring represents change in Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), associated with the perceived level of safety by most roadway users. Points were awarded at increments of 5 for the degree to which projects improve upon the 2025 Existing Conditions Network. The following points were given to corridor projects :
• A standard bike lane upgraded to a buffered bike lane: 5 points • A standard bike lane upgraded to a Class IV separated bik eway: 10 points • A bike route upgraded to a bicycle boulevard: 15 points Intersection scoring was in formed by the LTS designations for intersection crossing improvements, shown in Table 6:
Intersection Crossing treatments for the Low-Str
ess Network. Source: 2025 Bicycle Boulevard Design Guide Update. Points were awarded at increments of 5 for the degree to which projects improve upon the 2025 Existing Conditions Network. The following points were given to intersection projects:
• Traffic Circle: 5 points
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB): 5 points
• Traffic Diverter: 10 poi nts
• Cycletrack Crossing: 10 points
• Raised Intersection: 10 points
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) with median: 15 points • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) with raised crossing: 15 points • Protected Intersection: 15 points
• Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon: 15 points
Table 6: Intersection Crossing treatments for the Low-Stress Network. Source: 2025 Bicycle Boulevard Design Guide Update
a
CROSSING
TREATMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT) '
VERY
LOW
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
Cross Street Up to 3
lanes
Up to 3
lanes
4 or 5
lanes
Up to 3
lanes
4 or 5
lanes
Up to 3
lanes
4 or 5
lanes
Marked Crossing LT S 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
All-way STOP ' LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
Median Refuge
Island' LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
Median with
RRFB ' X LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (PHB) ' X X LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS l
Traffic Signal X X X LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS l
1: Very Low: 0-1,500; Low: 1,501-5,000; Medium: 5,001-12,500; High: >12,500 2: Req u ires meeting a CA MUTCD S T OP warrant before imp lementation 3: M inimum 6-foot-wide median to meet LTS bene fit
4: Subject to success ful warrant analysis
Definitions:
X: No additional benefit
Black: Not adv isable o r not applicable
LTS : Leve l of Traffic Stress, w ith LTS 1 or 2 idea l for low- stress cros sings.
See the "Low- Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity" study at https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/L ow -Stress -Bicyclinq -and -Network -Con nectivjty for detailed discussion of LT S.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-16
Community Support – project identification
A scale of up to 10 points was awarded for projects identified during outreach activities in 2022. Projects were scored according to the density of public comments on the project corridor or intersection. Specifically, the project team used the following equation to convert the comment density value of a project to points:
Scaled Sco re (of up to 10 points) = (
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 𝑤𝑤𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶ℎ 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶 ) ∗ 10 𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶 𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑
The figure below shows the density of comments during 2022 outreach.
Figure 3: 2022 outreach comment density map
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-17
Community Support – project prioritization
Applying a second criterion for community support will allow scoring not just where residents have identified areas of focus (2022 outreach), but also explicit support for proposed projects (2025 outreach). A scale of up to 20 points was awarded for projects that received community support during 2025 outreach activities. Points were scored based on the number of instances a project appeared on the comment matrix for 2025 outreach. Specifically, the project team used the following equation to convert the comment density value of a project to points:
Scaled Score (of up to 20 poi nts) = (
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶 𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑
) ∗ 20 𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶 𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 Equity
The Metropolitan Planning Commission Plan Bay Area 2050 identified areas that are or have been historically underserved, referred to as Equity Priority Communities(Error! Reference source not found.). 1 A scale of 20 points was awarded to
projects for their proximity to, or location within, an Equity Priority Community:
• 20 points to a project fully within an Equity Priority Community. (P rojects within 50ft of the boundary of an Equity Priority Community were considered fully within. Corridor projects received full points if more than 60% of the corridor’s extent was fully within.)
• 10 points to a project partially within an Equity Priority Community (i .e., corridor projects with less than 60% of the corridor extent located in an Equity Priority Community). • 5 points to a project within 1,000 feet o f an Equity Priority Community (about 2 blocks). • 0 points to projects outside of 1,000 feet f rom an Equity Priority Community. 1 Equity Priority Communities (2025) Metropolitan Planning Commission. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley E-18
Figure 4: MTC’s current Equity Priority Community designations in Berkeley
MEMORANDUM
E-19
Safe Routes to Schools
A scale of 10 points was awarded for student access to schools via low-stress routes. Community feedback included a request to prioritize middle school students, as they are the population most likely to bike alone to school without parents.
The following points were awarded to projects:
• 10 points – Pr oject located within 500 feet of a middle school campus • 5 points – Project l ocated within 500 feet of an elementary school or high school campus Feasibility
5 points were reserved for the engineering judgment of Berkeley City staff, determining which projects are likely to have significant engineering or political challenges. The point scale for the feasibility criterion was:
• 5 points – Low cost and minimal trade-offs required (projects achieved through lane narrowing, traffic calming, and other community-supported implementation means)
• 0 points – Class I, Class IV, and projects requiring a road diet • -5 points – P rojects requiring substantial parking removal (more than eight parking stalls per block)
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
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: Purchase Orders: Graybar Electric Company, Inc., W.W. Grainger, Inc. and WESCO Distribution, Inc. for electrical supplies and parts
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt three Resolutions authorizing the City Manager to execute multi-year purchase orders as outlined below:
1. Purchase Order with Graybar Electric Company, Inc. for electrical supplies and parts, utilizing pricing established by Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) for a total not to exceed amount of $450,000 from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2029.
2. Purchase Order with W.W. Grainger, Inc. for electrical supplies, utilizing pricing established by Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) for a total not to exceed amount of $450,000 from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2029.
3. Purchase Order with WESCO Distribution, Inc. for electrical supplies, utilizing pricing established by Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) for a total not to exceed amount of $450,000 from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2029.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is available in the proposed Fiscal Year 2027, subject to Council approval, in the Public Works Electrical Division’s Funds 673-Building Maintenance, 127-State Transportation Tax, 134-Measure BB-Local Streets and Roads, and 142-Street Lighting.
Funding for future years is subject to Council appropriation for Fiscal Years 2028 and 2029.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Public Works maintains and repairs the City’s electrical infrastructure. This includes 223 traffic signals and 8,000 streetlights, along with internal electrical systems within City facilities such as lights. The Public Works Electrical Division also works with additional contracted vendors to install new electrical assets and upgrade the City’s current electrical infrastructure. These systems are essential systems to provide needed traffic control, illumination and access to electricity for staff and citizens. To support this work, the Department must purchase electrical supplies annually. This includes supplies such
30
Purchase Orders: Graybar Electric Company, Inc., CONSENT CALENDAR W.W. Grainger Inc. and WESCO Distribution, Inc. June 16, 2026 for electrical supplies and parts
as traffic vehicle detection, Caltrans specified traffic signal & streetlight poles, signal Controllers, LED lighting, copper wire, ground boxes and other items. As such, Public Works needs vendors to purchase bulk supplies to help with the Division’s work.
Omnia Partners is one of the largest cooperative purchasing organizations in the United States for government agencies, which allows the City to access needed supplies at good pricing and expediates the procurement process, which saves time and funding for Public Work.
Public Works needs additional purchasing capacity with multiple electrical supply vendors, to minimize administrative time and effort sourcing critical supplies. These purchase orders will support the Department’s ability to purchase the lowest cost supplies with these new purchase orders. By using cooperative agreements through Omnia, Public Works can save resources and costs, while making it easier to procure the necessary electrical supplies for the City’s electrical infrastructure.
These purchase orders will support the City’s Strategic Plan, by providing state-of-the- art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.
BACKGROUND
The City is allowed to purchase goods without undergoing a competitive bid process if the City utilizes pricing obtained by another entity through a competitive process. On September 6, 2017, Omnia released Request for Proposal (RFP) No. EV2370 for Electrical, Lighting, Data Communications and Security Products and Related Products, Services and Solutions. The RFP was available for approximately 30 days and 3 proposals were submitted. Upon review of proposals, the Omnia selection committee selected Graybar Electric Company, Inc. as the most responsive and responsible proposer to meet the specifications, thereby awarding Contract No. EV2370.
On March 15, 2024, Omnia released Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 24-08 for Maintenance Repair and Operations (MRO) Supplies, Equipment, and Related Products and Services. The RFP was available for approximately 42 days and 13 proposals were submitted. Upon review of proposals, the Omnia selection committee selected nine proposals, including W.W. Grainger, Inc. and WESCO Distribution, Inc. as the most responsive and responsible proposers to meet the specifications, thereby awarding Contract No. R240809.
Throughout the year, Public Works purchases parts via cooperative contracts to ensure that City departments receive the best pricing. These parts are specialized and will be compatible with current City electrical systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Regular maintenance and repair of electrical systems optimizes system performance, prolongs equipment lifespan and minimizes environmental impact. Well-maintained
Purchase Orders: Graybar Electric Company, Inc., CONSENT CALENDAR W.W. Grainger Inc. and WESCO Distribution, Inc. June 16, 2026 for electrical supplies and parts
electrical systems operate more efficiently, consume less energy and reduce carbon emissions.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Purchasing from these vendors is the most cost-effective method of maintaining the City’s electrical system. This agreement ensures ongoing service and prevents potential disruption to City operations. Maintaining an adequate supply of electrical supplies also ensures that Public Works can complete upgrades, installations, maintenance and repair work in a timely manner, minimizing the risk of service interruptions to City operations.
Utilizing pricing obtained through Omnia Contracts No. EV2370 and No. R240809 satisfies the City’s competitive bidding requirements and ensures the most competitive pricing available.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Public Works can continue to procure electrical supplies as it does now, on an as- needed basis. However, that may increase costs and increase staff procurement time as vendors may not be part of a cooperative agreement.
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 Attachments:
1: Resolution: Graybar Electric Company, Inc.
2: Resolution: W.W. Grainger Inc.
3: Resolution: WESCO Distribution, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
PURCHASE ORDER: GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. FOR ELECTRICAL
SUPPLIES AND PARTS
WHEREAS, electrical supplies and parts are needed by Public Works Electrical Division to support their maintenance, repair and installation work; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2017, Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) released Request for Proposal (RFP) No. EV2370 for Electrical, Lighting, Data Communications and Security Products and Related Products, Services and Solutions; the RFP was available for approximately 30 days and 3 proposals were submitted; and WHEREAS, the Omnia selection committee selected Graybar Electric Company, Inc. as the most responsive and responsible proposer to meet the specifications, thereby awarding Contract No. EV2370; and
WHEREAS, Omnia bid procedures satisfy the procurement requirements of the City; and
WHEREAS, funding is available in the proposed Fiscal Year 2027, subject to Council approval, in the Public Works Electrical Division’s Funds 673,127, 134 and 142 and funding for future years is subject to Council approval 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 purchase order for Graybar Electric Company, Inc. for supplies and parts, utilizing pricing established by Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) for a total not to exceed amount of $450,000 from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2029.
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
PURCHASE ORDER: W.W. GRAINGER, INC. FOR ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES AND PARTS
WHEREAS, electrical supplies and parts are needed by Public Works Electrical Division to support their maintenance, repair and installation work; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2024, Omnia released Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 24-08 for Maintenance Repair and Operations (MRO) Supplies, Equipment, and Related Products and Services; the RFP was available for approximately 42 days and 13 proposals were submitted; and
WHEREAS, the Omnia selection committee selected nine proposals, including W.W.
Grainger, Inc., as the most responsive and responsible proposers to meet the specifications, thereby awarding Contract No. R240809; and WHEREAS, Omnia bid procedures satisfy the procurement requirements of the City; and
WHEREAS, funding is available in the proposed Fiscal Year 2027, subject to Council approval, in the Public Works Electrical Division’s Funds 673, 127, 134 and 142 and funding for future years is subject to Council approval 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 purchase order for W.W. Grainger, Inc. for supplies and parts, utilizing pricing established by Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) for a total not to exceed amount of $450,000 from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2029.
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
PURCHASE ORDER: WESCO DISTRIBUTION, INC. FOR ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
AND PARTS
WHEREAS, electrical supplies and parts are needed by Public Works Electrical Division to support their maintenance, repair and installation work; and WHEREAS, nn March 15, 2024, Omnia released Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 24-08 for Maintenance Repair and Operations (MRO) Supplies, Equipment, and Related Products and Services; the RFP was available for approximately 42 days and 13 proposals were submitted; and
WHEREAS, the Omnia selection committee selected nine proposals, including WESCO Distribution, Inc., as the most responsive and responsible proposers to meet the specifications, thereby awarding Contract No. R240809; and WHEREAS, Omnia bid procedures satisfy the procurement requirements of the City; and
WHEREAS, funding is available in the proposed Fiscal Year 2027, subject to Council approval, in the Public Works Electrical Division’s Funds 673, 127, 134 and 142 and funding for future years is subject to Council approval 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 purchase order for WESCO Distribution, Inc. for supplies and parts, utilizing pricing established by Omnia Partners (“Omnia”) for a total not to exceed amount of $450,000 from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2029.
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]
CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author)
Subject: Resorcery Org’s Mural reveal and Food Drive Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to the General Fund and Grant of Such Funds RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of funds, including $500 from the discretionary Council Office Budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett, to Resorcery Org.
The funds will be relinquished to the City’s General Fund from the Discretionary Council Office Budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett and the Discretionary Council Office Budgets of any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.
BACKGROUND:
Nearly one in four households in Alameda County are food insecure, and free fridges are popping up all over South Berkeley to address this need. Resorcery Org was formed to help resource the free fridges in South and West Berkeley, which all struggle to obtain donations that meet the current needs of the neighborhoods they serve. They want the community to know about these free food pantries because when people find out about them, they often ask, "How can I help?
This Oar That Pirate Pantry at 1820 Stuart St., Berkeley, just received a makeover by community muralist Kirie Ventura. They are inviting community members to a mural reveal and ribbon-cutting with live music, art activities, and community building.
Community members who bring something to donate to the pantry will receive a treat! The event will be held on Saturday, June 27, 2026, from 3-5 pm at This Oar That Pirate Pantry located at 1820 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA 94703 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:
No negative impact.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There is no impact on the General Fund; $500 is available from the discretionary budget of Councilmember Ben Bartlett's office.
31
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 2 CONTACT PERSON:
Councilmember Ben Bartlett [email protected]
James Chang [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Event Flyer
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 3 Attachment 1:
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE
EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR A DONATION TO RESORCERY ORGS’ MURAL REVEAL AND FOOD DRIVE WHEREAS, Councilmember Ben Bartlett has available funds within his office expenditure account; and
WHEREAS, an allocation of $500 from Councilmember Bartlett’s office expenditure account is designated for Resorcery Org’s Mural Reveal and Food Drive; and WHEREAS, Resorcery Org’s Mural Reveal and Food Drive is a community-driven initiative of Resorcery Org based in South Berkeley that helps build community support and awareness for a vital food security solution; and
WHEREAS, this initiative strengthens the community by fostering connection, encouraging mutual aid, and building a network of residents committed to feeding and caring for one another;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their respective office budgets, in amounts to be determined by each Councilmember, are hereby granted to Resorcery Org.
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 4 Attachment 2:
Igor Tregub, Councilmember District 4
Ben Bartlett, Councilmember District 3
Cecilia Lunaparra, Councilmember District 7
CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Igor Tregub (Author), Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Adopt a Position of Support for SB 954 (Blakespear): Addressing Non- Housing CEQA Exemptions for Industrial Manufacturing and Environmental Health Protections.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Position of support for California Senate Bill (SB) 954 (Blakespear), which amends non-housing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions enacted in SB 131 (2025), including clarifying and narrowing the “advanced manufacturing” exemption, establishing environmental and labor safeguards for exempt industrial projects, extending CEQA exemptions for daycare facilities in residential zones, and ensuring habitat for protected species remains subject to environmental review, and distribute copies to Governor Gavin Newsom, Senators Jesse Arreguín and Catherine Blakespear, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks to support its passage.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECT
In 2025, the California Legislature enacted SB 131, a broad CEQA reform measure that created numerous new and expanded exemptions from environmental review. While much of the public discussion surrounding SB 131 focused on streamlining housing production and climate-resilient infrastructure, the legislation also established significant new exemptions for non-housing industrial and manufacturing projects categorized as “advanced manufacturing.”1 The current statutory definition of “advanced manufacturing” is extremely broad and was adapted from an economic development tax 1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB131
32
credit framework rather than an environmental review context, potentially applying to industrial activities such as lithium extraction2, plastics processing, chemical manufacturing, fertilizer production, metal recycling, pesticide manufacturing, and medical waste incineration.
These exemptions allow qualifying industrial projects to bypass portions of CEQA review that would otherwise evaluate and mitigate impacts to air quality, water quality, tribal cultural resources, environmentally sensitive habitat, and nearby residential communities. Environmental justice advocates, labor organizations, tribal representatives, and legislators raised concerns that the exemption lacked adequate safeguards and could expose communities, particularly low-income communities and communities of color already burdened by cumulative pollution, to increased toxic emissions and industrial hazards. Potential health impacts associated with inadequately reviewed industrial facilities include exposure to particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and other hazardous pollutants linked to asthma, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, cancer risk, and adverse childhood health outcomes, especially in sites near schools, daycare centers, and senior housing facilities. 12 state Senators and 20 state Assemblymembers subsequently signed a letter urging corrective legislation to address these unresolved issues. SB 954 was introduced as a targeted clean-up measure intended to ensure that CEQA reforms are implemented consistently with California’s environmental justice, public health, labor, and tribal protection goals. Importantly, SB 954 pertains only to the non-housing industrial and manufacturing provisions enacted under SB 131 and does not alter existing housing streamlining measures.3 The bill would narrow the advanced manufacturing exemption by adding environmental and public health guardrails, including zero-emission backup generation requirements, industrial zoning and setback standards, protections for tribal cultural resources, and community benefits and labor standards. The bill would also expand the daycare CEQA exemption to include residentially zoned daycare facilities and ensure habitat for protected species remains subject to environmental review.
SB 954 is supported by a broad coalition of labor, environmental justice, public health, and environmental organizations, such as the Planning and Conservation League, Sierra Club California, Environment California, Clean Water Action, and Save the Bay, 4 also including the Alameda Labor Council, Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action, California Nurses Association, Communities for a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, and Urban Habitat.
2 Fact Sheet
3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB954 4 https://righttoknow-wicks.org/
Supporting SB 954 aligns with the City’s commitments to environmental justice, public health, labor protections, and equitable land use policy by ensuring that industrial development does not disproportionately burden vulnerable communities with additional toxic pollution and associated health impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
This item supports legislation intended to reduce harmful industrial pollution, preserve sensitive habitat, protect tribal cultural resources, and strengthen environmental safeguards for communities located near industrial operations.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Minimal staff time is associated with outreach to the recipients.
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Igor Tregub, 510-981-7140, [email protected] Olga Bolotina, Chief of Staff, [email protected] Amy Johnson, Legislative Aide, [email protected] Attachments:
1. Proposed Language for Letter of Support
2. Fact Sheet
Date: June 16, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor of California
The Honorable Catherine Blakespear
California State Senate
The Honorable Jesse Arreguín
California State Senate
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
California State Assembly
RE: Support for Senate Bill 954 (Blakespear) – Environmental Justice and Public Health Safeguards for CEQA Exemptions
Dear Governor Newsom, Senator Blakespear, Senator Arreguín, and Assemblymember Wicks:
The Berkeley City Council is writing to express our strong support for Senate Bill 954 (Blakespear), which provides important clarifications and safeguards to the non-housing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions enacted through Senate Bill 131 (2025). We respectfully urge your support for this measure and its timely passage.
The current statutory definition of advanced manufacturing is exceptionally broad and was adapted from an economic development tax credit framework rather than one designed to protect environmental and public health interests. As a result, the exemption may apply to a wide range of industrial activities, including lithium extraction, plastics processing, chemical manufacturing, fertilizer production, metal recycling, pesticide manufacturing, and medical waste incineration.
These industrial activities can generate significant environmental and public health impacts if not appropriately reviewed and mitigated. By allowing qualifying projects to bypass portions of CEQA review, the current exemption may limit evaluation of potential impacts to air quality, water quality, tribal cultural resources, environmentally sensitive habitat, and nearby residential communities. Communities already experiencing disproportionate pollution burdens, including many low-income communities and communities of color, could face increased exposure to toxic emissions and industrial hazards without adequate environmental safeguards.
SB 954 provides a balanced and targeted solution. The bill does not alter the housing streamlining provisions enacted under SB 131. Instead, it focuses specifically on non-
housing industrial and manufacturing exemptions by establishing reasonable environmental, labor, and public health guardrails. Among other provisions, SB 954:
Clarifies and narrows the advanced manufacturing exemption to ensure it is applied appropriately;
Requires important environmental and public health protections, including zero- emission backup generation requirements and industrial zoning and setback standards;
Protects tribal cultural resources and community interests; Establishes community benefit and labor standards for exempt projects; Extends CEQA exemptions for daycare facilities located in residential zones; and Ensures that habitat for protected species remains subject to environmental review.
These amendments help preserve California’s commitment to environmental justice while maintaining support for economic development and clean industry. The bill reflects the concerns raised by legislators, labor organizations, environmental justice advocates, tribal representatives, and public health experts who have called for greater accountability and safeguards in the implementation of SB 131.
SB 954 is supported by a broad coalition of organizations dedicated to protecting public health, workers, and the environment, including the Planning and Conservation League, Sierra Club California, Environment California, Clean Water Action, Save The Bay, the Alameda Labor Council, Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action, California Nurses Association, Communities for a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, and Urban Habitat.
Supporting SB 954 is consistent with the City of Berkeley’s commitment to environmental justice, public health protection, responsible land use planning, worker protections, and equitable economic development. The bill ensures that industrial growth does not come at the expense of vulnerable communities and helps maintain public confidence in California’s environmental review process.
For these reasons, Berkeley City Council respectfully supports Senate Bill 954 and urges its passage.
Sincerely,
Berkeley City Council
cc: Governor Gavin Newsom
Senator Catherine Blakespear
Senator Jesse Arreguín
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks
Office of Senator Blakespear
SB 954 Factsheet | Updated April 7, 2026
SB 954 : Tightening CEQA Exemptions
SUMMARY
SB 954 makes targeted changes to last
year’s California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) reforms enacted in SB 131. In
particular, the bill would narrow overly
broad definitions of advanced
manufacturing, add environmental
guardrails to protect communities, and
clarify language so the original intent of
SB 131 is followed without harming the
environment, labor or tribal resources.
BACKGROUND
SB 131 created numerous changes to
CEQA, adding a dozen new exemptions,
including for housing, high speed rail
facilities, and most significantly,
“advanced manufacturing.”
At the time of SB 131’s passage, several
legislators raised concerns about
insufficient protections for sensitive
species and tribal resources, and an
overly broad definition for advanced
manufacturing, while at the same time
supporting the main thrust of the bill.
A dozen Senators and 20
Assemblymembers signed a letter urging
prompt legislation to fix these
outstanding issues, but no action has
been taken yet.
PROBLEM
SB 131’s CEQA exemption for advanced
manufacturing relies on an expansive
definition originally developed for a tax
credit program that covers almost all
manufacturing. This means that even
manufacturing that is damaging to the
environment, such as s trip mining and
lithium extraction, gets a CEQA
exemption, without other historic
considerations or protections required.
This runs counter to the spirit of CEQA.
Additionally, SB 131 permitted childcare
facilities in industrial zones – but not in
residential areas – to qualify for CEQA
exemptions and allowed projects on
habitat for protected species to move
forward without environmental review.
SOLUTION
SB 954 strengthens protections for habitat
of protected species, extends CEQA
exemptions for residential daycare
facilities, and adds clear environmental
guardrails to the CEQA exemption for
advanced manufacturing. Specifically,
this bill requires projects to: 1) have zero
emission backup generation; 2) be sited
in heavy industrial zones with setbacks of
1,600 feet from sensitive receptors and
1,000-foot setbacks from disadvantaged
communities; 4) not harm tribal
resources; and 5) include a community
benefits agreement and high roads
labor standards. The b ill requires the
governor to certify these projects as
‘advanced manufacturing’ leaders, that
are not only more efficient, but also more
environmentally sound than current
industry standards. This bill also specifies
the intent of the Legislature to further
narrow the definition of advanced
manufacturing to appropriate sectors,
allowing room for stakeholders and the
Legislature to continue discussions on the
definition of advanced manufacturing
and CEQA exemptions.
Office of Senator Catherine Blakespear
SB XX Factsheet | Updated April 7, 2026
SB 954 fulfills commitments made to
address SB 131’s outstanding issues and
ensures that CEQA reforms are
implemented thoughtfully, balancing
streamlining with environmental
protections to support a clean and
abundant future for all Californians.
STAFF CONTACT
Jack Christensen | Chief of Staff |
[email protected]| 916-651-4038
Brynn Cook |Principal Consultant, Senate
Environmental Quality Committee|
[email protected] | 916-651-4108
CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Lunaparra (Author)
Subject: United for Health’s Moffitt Library Clinic: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Funds
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including $500 from Councilmember Lunaparra’s discretionary fund, and funds from any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute, to United for Health (UFH) to continue its Moffitt Library Clinic for UC Berkeley students, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose.
BACKGROUND
United for Health was created in 1991 when a group of healthcare professionals including a Social Worker, four Acupuncturists, a Family Crisis Counselor, a Nutritionist, a Psychologist, and a Nurse Practitioner came together with one common goal: to help bridge the gap in services to those who have the least access to care; at-risk youth, the unhoused, people with HIV/AIDS, and those with pain, mental health or substance use issues. Their staff works closely with many stakeholders, clinics, and schools to intervene with education and preventative services to reduce and eliminate costly medical visits and years of needless suffering. UFH partners with organizations and companies to treat their staff, helping them with stress, depression, and trauma, in addition to giving them the tools to sustain their well-being.
Acupuncture is the most utilized service offered by UFH; it can address addiction, mental health issues, pain, suppressed immunity, mobility issues, and other health conditions that are treated by Western Medicine. All acupuncture treatments through United for Health are provided by licensed acupuncturists.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Since 2006, UFH has offered UC Berkeley students ear acupuncture and counseling, treating their stress, anxiety, depression, pain, trauma, and substance use. Each semester, UFH staff helps them with these symptoms during the three weeks before finals with the Moffitt Library Clinic. These resources predominantly serve those who would otherwise not be able to access them. Offering these services to students reduces pressure on local safety nets and contributes to better public health outcomes across the city.
33
However, recent fiscal developments, including the loss of critical government funding, have forced UFH to consider cutting key programs, including the free acupuncture and counseling for students. Financial assistance from the Berkeley City Council would allow UFH to continue to provide these services for UC Berkeley students at the Moffitt Library Clinic during the most stressful and mentally-demanding time of the semester.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No anticipated impacts.
FISCAL IMPACTS
No General Fund impact. $500 is available from Councilmember Lunaparra’s office budget discretionary account.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, (510) 981-7170
Jonah Gottlieb, Chief of Staff
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
SUPPORT FOR UNITED FOR HEALTH’S MOFFITT LIBRARY CLINIC
WHEREAS, United for Health (UFH) was created in 1991 when a group of healthcare professionals including a Social Worker, four Acupuncturists, a Family Crisis Counselor, a Nutritionist, a Psychologist, and a Nurse Practitioner came together with one common goal: to help bridge the gap in services to those who have the least access to care; at- risk youth, the unhoused, people with HIV/AIDS, and those with pain, mental health or substance use issues; and
WHEREAS, their staff works closely with many stakeholders, clinics, and schools to intervene with education and preventative services to reduce and eliminate costly medical visits and years of needless suffering; and
WHEREAS, UFH partners with organizations and companies to treat their staff, helping them with stress, depression, and trauma, in addition to giving them the tools to sustain their well-being; and
WHEREAS, acupuncture is the most utilized service offered by UFH; it can address addiction, mental health issues, pain, suppressed immunity, mobility issues, and other health conditions that are treated by Western Medicine and all acupuncture treatments through United for Health are provided by licensed acupuncturists; and WHEREAS, since 2006, UFH has offered UC Berkeley students ear acupuncture and counseling, treating their stress, anxiety, depression, pain, trauma, and substance use.
Each semester, UFH staff helps them with these symptoms during the three weeks before finals with their Moffitt Library Clinic for UC Berkeley students; and WHEREAS, these resources predominantly serve those who would otherwise not be able to access them. Offering these services to students reduces pressure on local safety nets and contributes to better public health outcomes across the city; and WHEREAS, recent fiscal developments, including the loss of critical government funding, have forced UFH to consider cutting key programs, including the free acupuncture and counseling for students; and
WHEREAS, financial assistance from the Berkeley City Council would allow UFH to continue to provide these services for UC Berkeley students at the Moffitt Library Clinic during the most stressful and mentally-demanding time of the semester; and WHEREAS, United for Health seeks funds in the amount of $500 from Councilmember Lunaparra’s office budget, and up to $500 from each Councilmember to help cover the cost of renovations. Councilmember Lunaparra has surplus funds in her office expenditure account.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Berkeley City Council that up to $500 relinquished by Councilmembers – including $500 from Councilmember Lunaparra – shall be granted to United for Health to support free acupuncture and counseling for UC Berkeley students at the Moffitt Library Clinic.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
PUBLIC HEARING
June 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: Implement Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program on the 1500 Block of Delaware Street
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon its conclusion, adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 56,508-N.S. Section 25P by adding a subsection to implement Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) on the south side of Delaware Street between California Street and the Ohlone Greenway in RPP Area E.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Implementing RPP on this block would require installation of three signs, costing the City approximately $787, including labor. Funds are available in FY2026 adopted budget in the General Fund (Fund 011).
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Residents of 1523-1545 Delaware Street and 1800 California Street have submitted a petition to join the RPP Program in RPP Area E. As shown in Attachment 3, the block requesting to opt into the RPP Program is Delaware Street between California Street and the Ohlone Greenway.
In accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 14.72.050(A)(1), staff verified that residents submitted signatures on a qualifying petition representing a numerical majority of residentially zoned parcels wishing to “opt-in” to the RPP Program for the street section listed above and in the attached Resolution. Staff verified that at least 75% of the curb parking spaces were occupied during both mid-morning and mid- afternoon observation periods at the location.
The addition of the south side of one block in Area E, should have a minimal impact on enforcement capabilities because RPP restrictions are already in place on the north side of this block. Each new addition to the RPP Program results in slightly diminished enforcement for all other existing permit areas due to parking enforcement officers having slightly larger areas to patrol. In this instance, however, the increase in enforcement responsibilities is considered negligible and there is no anticipated impact to enforcement with this proposed addition.
34
Implement Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program on the PUBLIC HEARING 1500 Block of Delaware Street June 16, 2026
BACKGROUND
The RPP Program was instituted in 1980 to:
Protect Berkeley residential neighborhoods from an influx of non-resident vehicles and related traffic;
To assure continued quality of life for residents; and To provide neighborhood parking for residents.
In most areas, the RPP Program limits parking for vehicles not displaying an RPP permit to two hours, and reserves available daytime parking for residents, from 8 a.m.-7 p.m. Monday through Friday, and on some blocks, Saturday.
The RPP Program allows residents within RPP Program boundaries to petition the City to “opt-in” or “opt-out” of the Program. The process to install RPP controls requires submittal of a petition signed by residents (including tenants of rental properties) of at least 51% of dwellings sited along the affected block, and a parking survey of those blocks that shows at least 75% of available on-street parking spaces are occupied during the mid-morning and mid-afternoon time periods.
The RPP Program is in alignment with Strategic Plan Priorities, advancing our goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily accessible service and information to the community.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Expansion of the RPP Program to include additional blocks is expected to have minimal net environmental impact. While RPP controls may discourage some non-residents from driving to certain blocks to park, they also increase parking availability for residents, increasing the likelihood residents will own vehicles and park them on the street.
Adding a block within the existing residential study area boundaries through evaluations by an EIR study certified on September 27, 1988, and in accordance with California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, are categorically exempt as defined by Section 15.162(c).
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Households on the subject block overwhelmingly support including the south side of Delaware Street between California Street and the Ohlone Greenway in the RPP Program. Further, residents have met all requirements as set forth in BMC Section
14.72.050(A)(1) to opt this block into the RPP Program.
Implement Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program on the PUBLIC HEARING 1500 Block of Delaware Street June 16, 2026
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council may allow unrestricted parking to remain on these streets. However, Council has previously approved the “opting in” of blocks where the requisite number of households signed a petition requesting RPP control, and where the parking utilization exceeds 75%.
CONTACT PERSON
Mark Helmbrecht, Transportation Manager, Public Works, (510) 981-6403 Elliott Schwimmer, Senior Planner, Public Works, (510) 981-7066 Joshua Brett, Assistant Planner, Public Works (510) 981-7064 Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Public Hearing Notice
3. Map of Street Section Opting Into the RPP Program
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
IMPLEMENT RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING (RPP) PROGRAM ON
DELAWARE STREET BETWEEN CALIFORNIA STREET AND THE OHLONE
GREENWAY
WHEREAS, Berkeley Municipal Code Section 14.72.050.A.1, Designation of a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Area, allows residents to petition the City to "opt- in" or "opt-out" of the program and requires submittal of a petition containing signatures of residents of at least 51% of residentially zoned parcels on the affected block; and WHEREAS, residents of at least 51% of the dwellings on the following blocks has petitioned to “opt-in” to the RPP Program:
1. Delaware Street between California Street and the Ohlone Greenway (1500 block Delaware Street);
WHEREAS, staff has conducted field observations and determined at least 75% of available on-street parking spaces are occupied during the mid-morning and mid- afternoon time periods; and
WHEREAS, the designation of these blocks as a residential permit parking area will not be detrimental to the peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in the area designated; and
WHEREAS, adding a block within the existing residential study area boundaries through evaluations by an EIR study certified on September 27, 1988, and in accordance with California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, are categorically exempt as defined by Section 15.162(c); and
WHEREAS, the $787 implementation cost is available in the FY 2026 adopted budget in the General Fund 011 for Transportation Traffic Maintenance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the following subsection of Section 25 of Resolution No. 56,508-N.S. are hereby added to read as follows:
Section 25P DELAWARE STREET, south side between California Street and the Ohlone Greenway
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
EXTEND RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM TO
SOUTH SIDE OF THE 1500 BLOCK OF DELAWARE STREET
BETWEEN CALIFORNIA STREET AND THE OHLONE GREENWAY
The Department of Public Works is proposing to conduct a public hearing and, if recommendations are approved, adopt a Resolution amending Section 25P of Resolution No. 56,508-N.S. by adding a subsection to extend residential preferential parking on the south side of the 1500 block of Delaware Street between California Street and the Ohlone Greenway.
The Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program allows for residents to petition the City to "opt-in" or "opt-out" of the Program. Complying with program requirements, residents of the block under consideration for opting into the RPP Program have submitted the qualifying signatures on a petition and also have at least 75% of the curb spaces occupied during the morning and mid-afternoon observation periods. Adding a block within the existing residential study area boundaries through evaluations by an EIR study certified on September 27, 1988, and in accordance with California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, are categorically exempt as defined by Section 15.162(c).
The hearing will be held on June 16, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA 94702.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of 5 p.m. on May 28, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.
For further information, please contact Joshua Brett, Assistant Planner at (510) 981- 7064. Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
Posted by: June 4, 2026 - Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 14.72
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on June 4, 2026.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
ACTION CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Policy for Disruption of Remote Participation During Council Meetings
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the Policy for Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During Public Meetings and append the Policy to the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order as Appendix C.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Senate Bill 707 requires eligible legislative bodies to adopt a technology disruption policy at a noticed public meeting on or before July 1, 2026. The adoption of the policy may not be placed on the consent calendar and must be considered in open session.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has conducted meetings with remote public access and participation since the beginning of the pandemic in April 2020. Under the state emergency declaration the meetings were conducted fully remote with no in-person attendees. After the return of in-person attendees and the lifting of the emergency declaration, the City Council continued the use of Zoom for remote public access and participation in meetings.
Senate Bill 707 was a wide-reaching bill that enacted several new requirements for cities under the Brown Act. The bill prescribed these new requirements in granular detail. The policy presented here is one of the many new requirements for cities created by the bill. City Clerk staff, BUSD technical staff, and Berkeley Community Media are well equipped to meet this new requirement.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
35
Policy for Disruption of Remote Participation During Council Meetings ACTION CALENDAR June 16, 2026
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The adoption of this policy is mandated by state law, Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(1)(A)(i)(I)(ib).
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Telephonic or Internet Service Disruption Policy
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
POLICY: DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE DURING PUBLIC
MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, The Brown Act was amended to include additional requirements for remote participation at public meetings; and
WHEREAS, newly created Government Code Section 54953.4(b)(1)(A)(i)(I)(ib) requires cities to have a technology disruption policy for meetings of the city council; and WHEREAS, the policy in Exhibit A is presented for adoption and inclusion in the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the policy in Exhibit A to this resolution is hereby adopted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the policy in Exhibit A shall be appended to the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order as Appendix C.
Exhibits
A: Telephonic or Internet Service Disruption Policy
Technology Disruption Policy ǀ Page 1 of 2 City of Berkeley
Policy: Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During Public Meetings
1. Background
Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to require eligible legislative bodies to adopt, on or before July 1, 2026, a policy addressing how the agency will respond to disruptions in telephonic or internet service that prevent members of the public from attending or observing a meeting remotely.
This policy is adopted to comply with that requirement and to ensure continuity of public participation during technical disruptions.
2. Purpose
This policy establishes procedures for responding to a disruption in the telephonic or internet services that provide two-way remote public access to meetings of the Berkeley City Council, as required by the Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54953.4). The policy ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions.
3. Definitions
For purposes of this policy:
“Disruption” means any failure, outage, or other interruption that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via remote access services. “Remote access services” means the two-way telephonic service and/or two-way audiovisual platform used to provide real-time remote public attendance and participation in meetings.
4. Applicability
This policy applies to all open and public meetings of the Berkeley City Council at which remote public participation is offered or required under the Brown Act.
5. Procedures in the Event of a Service Disruption
5.1. Response to Service Disruption
If a disruption to the agency’s remote access services prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting remotely:
1. The Presiding Officer or City Clerk shall announce the disruption to the public.
2. The Presiding Officer will then call for a recess of the open session. The Council may convene in closed session during the recess, consistent with the Brown Act.
3. Staff will begin good faith efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted service.
4. The meeting shall remain in recess for at least one hour or until service is restored, whichever is sooner. The recess period may be extended if restoration efforts are ongoing.
Technology Disruption Policy ǀ Page 2 of 2
5.2. Efforts to Restore Service
The agency shall make good faith efforts to restore remote access services, which may include:
Troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment
Attempting alternative connection methods
Contacting necessary support staff or service providers Switching to back-up equipment or platforms, if available The City Clerk shall document the restoration efforts undertaken.
6. Reconvening the Open Session
6.1. Timing
The open session may be reconvened after at least one hour has elapsed from the time of disruption or as soon as service is restored, whichever occurs earlier.
6.2. If Service Is Restored
If the remote access service is restored before or at the time the meeting reconvenes, the meeting shall continue as normal.
6.3. If Service Is Not Restored
If service has not been restored after one hour, the Berkeley City Council may reconvene and:
1. Adjourn the meeting; or
2. Continue the meeting in open session by adopting, by roll call vote, the following, or a substantially similar, finding:
“The City of Berkeley has made good faith efforts to restore telephonic or internet service in accordance with its adopted policy, and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.” Upon adoption of the finding, the legislative body may continue the open session despite the fact that remote access services have not been restored.
7. Recordkeeping
The City Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes, including the following:
The nature and time of the disruption
The restoration efforts undertaken
The time the meeting was reconvened (if applicable)
Any finding adopted pursuant to Section 6.3
8. Review and Updates
This policy may be amended by the Berkeley City Council at a noticed public meeting in open session, not on the consent calendar.
Environment & Climate Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
ACTION CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Berkeley Environment and Climate Commission (ECC) Submitted by: Alison LaBonte, Chairperson, ECC
Subject: Affirming All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure and City Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION
The Berkeley Environment and Climate Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to:
• Adopt a formal policy prohibiting the installation of new natural gas infrastructure (hereafter referred to as “gas”) or the replacement of existing gas equipment with new gas equipment in any project funded by the proposed 2026 General Obligation Bond Measure;
• Include explicit all-electric construction and retrofit language in the bond measure itself; and
• Direct staff to apply this no-new-gas standard as a condition of all City capital spending, beyond bond-funded projects, thus affirming that public funds shall not be used to install new gas infrastructure in any municipal facility.
POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On May 20, 2026, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability Policy Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Lunaparra/Taplin) to send the item to Council with a Qualified Positive Recommendation with an addition to add exception language to be approved by City Council.
Vote: Ayes – Taplin, Lunaparra; Noes – None; Abstain – Humbert
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
All-electric construction is increasingly cost-competitive with gas-dependent construction. Electric systems eliminate ongoing gas utility costs, reduce long-term maintenance burdens, and position City facilities to benefit from falling costs of electric technologies. Any potential upfront cost differential is outweighed by the quantifiable benefits to public health, lifecycle savings, and avoided climate risk. No new appropriation is required to implement this policy direction.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley is preparing a proposed $300 million General Obligation Bond Measure for the November 2026 ballot. The measure proposes to fund major capital
36
All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure and City Capital Projects
ACTION CALENDAR
JUNE 16, 2026
projects across three categories: Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront; General Facilities and Buildings; and Fire Department facilities.
This bond measure represents one of the largest single investments in municipal infrastructure in Berkeley's recent history — and one of the most significant opportunities to permanently align City capital spending with Berkeley's climate commitments. Many of the proposed projects involve ground-up construction or comprehensive building renovations, making them ideal candidates for all-electric design at little or no additional cost.
Despite Berkeley's status as a national leader in building electrification policy, passing a first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas in new construction in 2019, there are no longer any laws prohibiting natural gas use in buildings, and no explicit electrification requirement has been proposed for the bond measure. While the 2024 ruling by the Ninth Circuit in opposition to Berkeley’s natural gas ban, and recent changes in state law limit changes to the building code, no restrictions exist on how a municipality chooses to direct its own spending. Other Bay Area cities, such as San Francisco, enacted all electric requirements applying to city buildings before proceeding to more expansive requirements that remain in force to this day. Without such a requirement, bond-funded projects could default to gas equipment for heating, cooking, water heating, or other building systems, locking in fossil fuel infrastructure for decades and undermining the City's climate goals.
This is a strategic planning priority, advancing Berkeley's goal to be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.
At the March 25, 2026 meeting, the commission took the following action:
Action: M/S/C (Ranney/Binns) to approve the substantive content of the report to Council, regarding the inclusion of building electrification in relation to the potential City of Berkeley $300M General Obligation Bond for the November 2026 Ballot and municipal capital projects, as revised at the March 25, 2026 meeting, with additional minor edits to ensure consistency and clarity throughout.
Vote: Ayes - Ranney, La Bonte, Tahara, Mahmoudian, Kesselman, Binns, Brown, Athanasiou, Syed; Noes - None; Abstain - None; Absent - McGuire.
BACKGROUND
The proposed 2026 bond measure applies to existing and new municipal buildings, which is a domain where the City has full discretion over construction standards. The City is free to ensure that its own facilities reflect its stated climate values, and has a rare opportunity to do so on a large scale.
All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure and City Capital Projects
ACTION CALENDAR
JUNE 16, 2026
The list of proposed projects span a wide range of building types and uses. Where projects involve full replacement or substantial renovation, such as community centers, fire stations, the Fire Training Center, and multiple civic buildings, all-electric design is achievable with current technology and at competitive cost. For projects involving more limited scope (e.g., mechanical system upgrades), a no-new-gas standard would at minimum prevent the installation of new gas-fired equipment where electric alternatives are available. The City should also strongly consider reducing reliance on other fossil fuel infrastructure where suitable alternatives exist, such as solar and storage for backup power.
Furthermore, the proposed bond measure explicitly lists "energy-efficient systems and lower long-term costs" and "environmental sustainability and resilience" among its stated values in evaluating and prioritizing projects. Codifying an all-electric requirement in the bond measure language is a direct and concrete expression of those values and a fulfillment of the measure's own stated goals. Such a requirement, both applying to projects funded by the bond measure and all future city projects, would implement crucial components of the Berkeley Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy, adopted by Council in 20211.
The public is supportive. Council polling of the measure revealed that the top infrastructure priority for Berkeley residents was climate resilience, with 35% of residents listing it as one of their top two priorities2.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Natural gas combustion in buildings is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and indoor air pollution. Installing new or replacement gas infrastructure in bond-funded municipal buildings would:
• Lock in fossil fuel dependency in City-owned facilities for 20–40 years, well beyond Berkeley's 2045 carbon neutrality target;
• Undermine Berkeley's credibility as a climate leader and signal to the public that the City's electrification commitments do not apply to its own operations; and • Expose building occupants, including community members (especially the more vulnerable young and elderly), fire fighters, and City employees, to the known indoor air quality risks associated with gas combustion appliances, which approach $1 billion annually across the Bay Area3.
1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Berkeley-Existing-Buildings-Electrification-Strategy.pdf 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2026-03- 17%20Special%20Agenda%20Packet%20-%20Council.pdf
3 https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-9-rule-4-nitrogen-oxides-from-fan-type- residential-central-furnaces/2021-amendments/documents/20230127_factsheet_rg09040906- pdf.pdf?rev=29d5bd3e4204460298a2ca1f02ac9214&sc_lang=en
All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure and City Capital Projects
ACTION CALENDAR
JUNE 16, 2026
Conversely, requiring all-electric construction across bond-funded projects (and all City capital spending) would meaningfully reduce municipal emissions, improve indoor air quality in public facilities, demonstrate institutional leadership, and create durable, future-proof infrastructure aligned with California's clean energy grid trajectory.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
1. The bond measure is the right vehicle. Because the bond measure will govern how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on City facilities over the next decade, it is the ideal place to enshrine an electrification requirement. Including it in the measure language increases public accountability and provides another reason for Berkeley voters to support it.
2. City polling indicates that the public is highly supportive of climate and green infrastructure goals.
3. There is no technical barrier. All-electric construction is viable across every project type in the proposed portfolio. Several of the proposed projects have already completed conceptual design; the Commission encourages the City to verify and update those designs to reflect an all-electric standard where they have not already done so.
4. The City's own spending is within its control. Berkeley can and should hold its own buildings to the highest electrification and emissions standards to improve the health of its residents and that of the environment.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
n/a
CITY MANAGER
The City Manager concurs with the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report, recognizing that this has been the City of Berkeley’s typical practice since 2020, when the since-repealed Prohibition on Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings became effective.
In addition, to improve regional air quality and reduce the amount of NOx and particulate matter emissions, the Bay Area Air District has adopted zero NOx emissions standards for natural gas fired furnaces and water heaters (Rules 9-4 and 9-6). These rules begin implementation on Jan 1, 2027 (for water heaters under 75,000 BTU/hr, typically residential size) and will impact commercial furnaces on Jan 1, 2029, and commercial water heaters (75,000 – 2M BTU/hr) on Jan 1, 2031. Electric heat pumps will comply with these regulations, applicable to all sales and installations in the Bay Area, in both replacements in existing construction and in new construction.
All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure and City Capital Projects
ACTION CALENDAR
JUNE 16, 2026
Although electrification is now standard practice and will increasingly be required throughout the Bay Area for water and space heating, the City Manager notes that there may be limited instances in which exceptions to the electrification of municipal facilities during new construction or the replacement of existing gas equipment may be needed.
For example, electrical and/or physical constraints of an existing municipal facility or local grid capacity may limit or eliminate safe, effective electrical replacement options for gas systems at time of replacement. Among the infrastructure projects currently under consideration for funding through the potential bond measure, the King Pool may require a gas alternative.
If such an exception would be sought due to technical infeasibility, the City Manager would come to City Council for approval of a gas alternative.
CONTACT PERSON
Alison LaBonte, Chairperson, ECC
Attachments:
1. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
Affirming All-Electric Standards for the 2026 Infrastructure Bond Measure and City Capital Projects
WHEREAS, installing new or replacement natural gas infrastructure in bond-funded municipal buildings would lock in fossil fuel dependency in City-owned facilities for 20– 40 years, well beyond Berkeley's 2045 carbon neutrality target; and WHEREAS, installing new or replacement gas infrastructure in bond-funded municipal buildings would undermine Berkeley's credibility as a climate leader and signal to the public that the City's electrification commitments do not apply to its own operations; and WHEREAS, installing new or replacement gas infrastructure in bond-funded municipal buildings would expose building occupants, including community members (especially the more vulnerable young and elderly), fire fighters, and City employees, to the known indoor air quality risks associated with gas combustion appliances, which approach $1 billion annually across the Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, requiring all-electric construction across bond-funded projects and all City capital spending would meaningfully reduce municipal emissions, improve indoor air quality in public facilities, demonstrate institutional leadership, and create durable, future-proof infrastructure aligned with California's clean energy grid trajectory.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley will adopt a formal policy prohibiting the installation of new natural gas infrastructure (hereafter referred to as “gas”) or the replacement of existing gas equipment with new gas equipment in any project funded by the proposed 2026 General Obligation Bond Measure;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that the City of Berkeley will include explicit all- electric construction and retrofit language in the bond measure itself; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley will direct staff to apply this no-new-gas standard as a condition of all City capital spending, beyond bond- funded projects, thus affirming that public funds shall not be used to install new gas infrastructure in any municipal facility.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Subject: Placing Charter Amendment Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot to Amend Multiple Administrative Provisions
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Resolution placing charter amendment measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot to update election procedures and timelines to conform with modern standards, clarify the recall process, align the referendum process with new changes in state law, and other administrative changes related to candidates, petitions, and officeholders.
2. Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct fiscal impacts related to the recommended action to place the measure on the ballot. In general, election services have seen a steep increase since 2018, with the City’s first million-dollar election in 2020. In addition, the number of measures placed on the ballot, and the length of the measures, are the primary driving factors in the fluctuation of election costs.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This amendment to the City Charter is proposed to update, clarify, and in some cases, modify Charter provisions related to various election processes and requirements.
The amendments have been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office and discussed at the Fair Campaign Practices Commission meeting of May 21, 2026.
Additionally, according to California Elections Code 9282 (b), measures placed on the ballot by the legislative body, or a member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body, or an individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide association of citizens, or a combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument for or against any city measure.
37
Placing Charter Amendment Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot ACTION CALENDAR to Amend Multiple Administrative Provisions June 16, 2026
BACKGROUND
As state laws, local processes, and election administration evolve, it is necessary to ensure that the City Charter remains relevant, enforceable, and implementable.
The notable amendments in the proposed measure are listed below. Reduction of the candidate filing fee from $150 to $25 and elimination of signatures-in-lieu of filing fee. The $150 filing fee was intended for cost recovery, but the accompanying in-lieu process actually reduces cost recovery, while increasing demands on staff resources. The maximum filing fee in the Elections Code is $25.
Removal of place of residence, place of birth, and taxpayer status from the candidate statement. These are unnecessary and potentially prejudicial. Also, the removal of residence address is in line with recent state legislation to protect candidates and officeholders from political violence.
Increase in the City’s maximum administrative cost recovery allocation from the Fair Elections Fund to support the public financing program. Addition of language to allow for a remedy when Charter requirements for the format of recall statements and answers are not followed. Addition of deadlines for recall proponents to move the process forward, avoiding limbo periods and indefinite gray areas.
Change of the term “qualified elector” to “registered voter” throughout the Charter when registered status is required by law.
Update of language and timelines in the officeholder vacancy sections to align with modern special election timelines for elections conducted by the County Registrar of Voters.
Update of the end of term date from April 30 to November 30 to align with current statutory term end date in the Charter for city elected offices. Addition of a deadline for the City Clerk to certify initiative petitions and an update to the deadline to submit the initiative to Council for action. Re-framing and clarification of the referendum requirements so that the City regulations do not conflict with the State Elections Code.
Placing Charter Amendment Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot ACTION CALENDAR to Amend Multiple Administrative Provisions June 16, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects associated with the recommendation in this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
To achieve efficiency and cost savings by combining multiple charter amendments into a single measure to respond to changes in state and local, as well as recommended updates by city staff.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CONTACT PERSON
Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900
Attachments:
1: Resolution Placing a Charter Amendment on the Ballot Exhibit A: Text of Measure
RESOLUTION NO. -N.S.
SUBMITTING TO THE BERKELEY ELECTORATE ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026
BALLOT AN AMENDMENT TO THE BERKELEY CITY CHARTER TO MODIFY THE
FILING FEE PROCEDURES AND AMOUNT, MODIFY THE CANDIDATE STATEMENT
REQUIREMENTS, ADJUST PUBLIC FINAN CING ALLOCATIONS, AMEND RECALL
PROCEDURES AND DEADLINES, UPDATE TERMINOLOGY, ALIGN DEADLINES
WITH MODERN ELECTIONS PRACTICES, CLARIFY STAFF RESPONSIBILITES FOR
PETITIONS, AND UPDATE REFERENDUM PROCEDURES TO ALIGN WITH STATE
ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, the Berkeley City Council has elected to submit to the voters at the November 3, 2026 , General Municipal Election, a measure to amend certain administrative provisions of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to submit this measure to be placed upon the ballot at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election, consistent with the Council’s Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026, calling for a General Municipal Election to be consolidated with said statewide election; and
WHEREAS, Council Resolution No. 72,236 -N.S. adopted the provisions of Elections Code Section 9285(a) providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City ballot measures, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285(b).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that a ballot measure amending the City Charter (“Measure”), the full text of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall be placed before the voters at the election on November 3, 2026; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to California Elections Code sections 9255, 10002, and 10403, this City Council does hereby call an election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, and requests that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate said election with the Statewide General Election on that same date in the manner and schedule established by Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026, and submit the Measure to the qualified voters of the City, at said consolidated election.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley hereby requests that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors permit the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County to perform services in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk. These serv ices are to include all necessary services related to official ballot creation, sample ballot and voter information pamphlet preparation, vote -by-mail, polling places, poll workers, voter registration, voting machines, canvass operations, and any and all o ther services necessary for the conduct of the consolidated election; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said proposed Measure shall be placed on the ballot
for the November 3, 2026, election with the statement of the Measure to be printed in the ballot in the following form:
CITY OF BERKELEY CHARTER AMENDMENT
Shall the measure amending the City Charter to reduce candidate filing fees; eliminate signatures in lieu of filing fee process; eliminate certain personal information from candidate statements; clarify and revise initiative, referendum and recall processes; amend election timelines for filling Mayor and Councilmember vacancies; increase the maximum amount from the public campaign financing fund for administration and enforcement from $250,000 to $400,000 per four-year election cycle; and make other changes be adopted?
YES
NO
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots the Measure enumerated above to be voted on by the voters of the qualified electors of the City of Berkeley, and that ballots for the election shall be provided in the form and in the number provided by law.
Voters shall be provided an opportunity to vote for or against the Measure on the ballot, in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the authorized officers of the County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Measure requires a simple majority vote threshold for passage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the full text of the Measure shall be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters in the City of Berkeley.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of notices, pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the Government Code, and the Elections Code of the State of California, and to file a certified copy of this Resolution, including all exhibits, no later than the close of business on August 7, 2026, with the County Registrar of Voters and the Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to obtain printing, supplies, and services as required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to enter into any contracts necessary for election consulting services, temporary employment services, printing services, and any such other supplies and services as may be required by the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Berkeley for the conduct of the November General Municipal Election.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will reimburse the Registrar of Voters for the
costs associated with placing the Measure on the ballot.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor, the City Manager, the Finance Director, the City Attorney and the City Clerk, and any of their designees, are hereby authorized to execute any documents and to perform all acts necessary to place the Measure on the ballot, and to make any changes to the text of the Measure, or the statement of the Measure to conform to any legal requirements of the County Registrar, in order to cause the election to be held and conducted in the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney, who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the filing of ballot arguments shall conform to the manner and schedule established by Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council, having reviewed the Measure, hereby finds that this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because it involves a legislative proposal to amend various provisions of the City Charter pertaining to elections and other processes and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
EXHIBITS
A: Text of Measure
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO THE BERKELEY CITY CHARTER TO MODIFY THE FILING FEE
PROCEDURES AND AMOUNT, MODIFY THE CANDIDATE STATEMENT
REQUIREMENTS, ADJUST PUBLIC FINAN CING ALLOCATIONS, AMEND RECALL
PROCEDURES AND DEADLINES, UPDATE TERMINOLOGY, ALIGN DEADLINES
WITH MODERN ELECTIONS PRACTICES, CLARIFY STAFF RESPONSIBILITES FOR
PETITIONS, AND UPDATE REFERENDUM PROCEDURES TO ALIGN WITH STATE
ELECTIONS CODE
The People of the City of Berkeley hereby amend the Charter of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Berkeley are amended as follows:
Section 6.1. Nomination - Filing Fee - Candidate's Statement of Qualifications.
Candidates for council office shall be nominated by registered voters from the council district for which they nominate the council candidate, as further provided in the State of California Elections Code.
At the time of filing their nomination papers, each candidate for the office of mayor, councilmember, auditor, rent stabilization board commissioner, and school board director shall pay a filing fee, in anthe amount prescribed by Elections Code Section 10228 or its successors .of $150. The filing fee may be offset in whole or in part by the submission of up to 150 signatures of registered voters in the City. Each signature of a registered voter shall offset $1 of the filing fee. Any such required submission of signatures, in lieu of filing fees, shall be in addition to the signatures otherwise required by the State of California Election Code to nominate a candidate, but may be of voters registered anywhere in the City.
At the time of filing their nomination papers, each candidate for an elective office may file with the City Clerk a verified statement showing the name of the candidate, the office for which they are a candidate, their place of residence, place of birth, present occupation, what public offices they have held, whether they are a taxpayer in the City of Berkeley, a statement giving information as to their experience and qualifications, and a recent photograph, to the end that the electors may be in a position to estimate their fitness to fill the office, and the names of not less than five or more than twenty residents of the City of Berkeley to whom they refer. Until Unless otherwise provided by ordinance, such statements of experience and qualifications shall not exceed two hundred words in length. At the time of filing said statement, each candidate shall also pay to the City Clerk a printing fee which , shall be set by until otherwise provided by ordinance., shall be the sum of $35.00. The City Clerk shall cause said candidates' statements to be printed in some convenient form and shall mail a copy of said statements to each registered voter with the sample ballot, provided that no name to which the candidate refers shall be
included in the publication by the City Clerk unless the written consent of the person named is filed with the City Clerk. The provisions of this section are self -executing, but the City Council, by ordinance, may more definitely prescribe the form of said candidate's statement. The printing f ees so collected by the City Clerk shall be paid into the City Treasury, and the expense of printing said candidates' statements shall be paid from the City Treasury. No refund from printing fees shall be made to ca ndidates, nor shall any extra charge be made, regardless of whether the printing expense is more or less than the amount of the fees received.
Section 6.2. Fair Elections Fund.
(1) Establishment of Fair Elections Fund.
A special, dedicated, non-lapsing Fair Elections Fund shall be established by the City Council for the purpose of:
(a) Providing public financing for the election campaigns of certified participating candidates; and
(b) Paying for the administrative and enforcement costs of the Berkeley Fair Campaign Practices Commission (“Commission”) and City staff related to the Fair Elections Fund public campaign financing program. The administrative and enforcement costs shall not exceed $400,000250,000 in any four- year election cycle.
(2) Appropriations to the Fair Elections Fund.
(a) The City Council shall appropriate $4 per Berkeley Resident per year, as determined by the most recent official United States Census Bureau Population Estimate for the City of Berkeley, from the City General Fund to the Fair Elections Fund.
(b) Other sources of revenue to be deposited in the Fund shall include:
i) Unspent funds distributed to any participating candidate who does not remain a candidate until the election for which they were distributed, or such funds that remain unspent by a participating candidate following the date of the election for which they were distributed;
ii) Fines levied by the Commission against candidates for violation of election laws;
iii) Voluntary donations made directly to the Fair Elections Fund;
iv) Other funds appropriated by the City Council;
v) Any interest generated by the Fund; and
vi) Any other sources of revenue determined as necessary by the City Council.
(c) The amount in the Fair Elections Fund shall not exceed $2 million at any time. In order to comply with this limitation, revenue that would otherwise be deposited in the Fair Elections Fund pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) shall instead be deposited in the City General Fund.
(d) The City Council may, by adoption of an ordinance by not less than two-thirds vote of its membership, make an official declaration of fiscal emergency and suspend or reduce the amount of the annual appropriation specified in subsection (a).
Any such ordinance suspending or reducing the annual appropriation shall be effective for no more than one year.
(3) Cost of Living Adjustments.
The Commission shall adjust the dollar amounts specified in subsections (1)(b), (2)(a) and (2)(c) of this Section upward or downward, for changes in the cost of living, by the percent change in the Consumer Price Index.
Section 2. Section 7 of Article IV of the Charter of the City of Berkeley is amended as follows:
Section 7. Recall of Elective Officers.
(1) Persons subject to recall.
Every incumbent of an elective office, whether elected by popular vote or appointed to fill a vacancy, is subject to recall by the voters of the City. The procedure for recall shall be as provided in this Section 7.
(2) Commencement of recall proceedings.
Recall proceedings may be commenced by the service, filing and publication of a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition pursuant to subdivision (6) of this Section 7. Proceedings may not be commenced against the holder of an office unless, at the time of commencement, the holder has held office for at least six months from the beginning of the holder’s current term and no recall petition has been filed against such holder within the preceding six months. Recall proceedings may not be commenced if the office holder’s term of office ends in six months or less.
(3) Recall petition.
A petition demanding the recall of the officer sought to be recalled shall be filed with the City Clerk. The petition shall be signed by not less than 25 percent of the
registered electors of the City eligible to vote for said officer as indicated by the most recent Report of Registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State.
(4) Repealed.
(5) Recall of more than one officer.
One election is sufficient for the recall of one or more officers, but a separate petition is necessary to propose the recall of each officer.
(6) Notice of intention to circulate petition; statement.
The proponents shall serve, file and publish a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition. Said notice shall contain the name of the officer sought to be recalled and the title of their office, a statement in not more than 500 words of the grounds on which the recall is sought, and the name and address of at least one proponent. The notice of intention shall be served, personally or by certified mail, on the officer sought to be recalled, and a copy thereof with a certificate of the time and manne r of service shall be filed with the City Clerk.
(7) Answer to statement of proponents.
Within seven days after the filing of the notice of intention, the officer sought to be recalled may file with the City Clerk an answer in not more than 500 words to the statement of the proponents, and, if an answer is filed, shall serve a copy thereof, personally or by certified mail, on one of the proponents named in the notice of intention.
(7.5) Statement and answer.
The statement and answer are intended solely for the information of the voters and no insufficiency in the form or substance thereof shall affect the validity of the election or proceedings. This section shall not be deemed to make the statement and answer, or the authors of the statement or answer, free or exempt from any civil or criminal action or penalty because of any false, slanderous, or libelous material included in the statement or answer, or from any requirement dictating the form of the statement or answer.
(8) Publication of notice, statement and answer.
Within 30 days after the deadline to file the answer with the City Clerk, Tthe notice, statement, and answer, if any, shall be published by the proponents at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City, or, if there be no such newspaper, then in a newspaper published in the County and of general circulation within the City. The provision of Section 68 of this Charter indicating that posting shall be sufficient publication of any matter required by the Charter to be published shall not be applicable to the publication requirement of this Subdivision (8) of Section 7.
(9) Circulation of petition.
Seven days after Upon filing an affidavit of publication of the notice, statement and answer, if any, with the City Clerk, the recall petition may be circulated and signed. The petition shall bear a copy of the notice of intention, and the statement and answer, if any. If the officer has not answered, the petition shall so state. Signatures shall
be secured and the petition filed within 90 days from the filing of the affidavit of publicationdate of publication of the notice.
(10) Signatures.
The signatures appended to the petition need not all be appended to one paper but may be in sections. Each signer shall print their name, add their signature, and list their residence, giving street and number. If no street or number exists, then a designation of the place of residence shall be given which will enable the location to be readily ascertained.
(11) Affidavit of Circulator.
Each section of the petition shall have attached to it an affidavit made by the circulator of the petition. The affidavit shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury and shall conform to the requirements of the state Elections Code Sections 104 and 9022 or their successors.
Any section of a petition may include a number of attached sheets.
(12) Clerk's examination of petition.
In order to be acceptable for filing, the petition must on its face purport to have appended to it signatures of voters in the required number. Within 30 business days from the date the petition is filed, the Clerk shall examine and from the records of registration ascertain whether or not the petition is signed by the requisite number of voters. The Clerk shall attach to the petition their certificate showing the result of their examination.
(13) Insufficient petition.
If the certificate of the City Clerk shows that the petition is insufficient, no action shall be taken thereon. The petition shall remain on file pursuant to Elections Code Section 11226 as it may be amended from time to time, and the failure to secure sufficient names shall not prejudice the filing later of an entirely new petition to the same effect.
(14) Submission to Council; order for election.
If the petition is sufficient, the Clerk shall submit certification of petition’s sufficiency to the Council without delay. The Council shall at once order a special election to be held, not less than 100 nor more than 180 days after the date of the order , to determine whether the voters will recall the officer sought to be recalled. If a regular municipal election, a previously called special municipal election, or any statewide election is to be held within this time period, the Council may order the rec all election to be held on the day of that election.
(15) Nominations.
(a) The provisions of Section 6 1/2 of Article III of the Charter shall be applicable in recall proceedings and elections.
(b) The officer sought to be recalled as well as the candidate or candidates nominated to succeed them may file the candidate's statement provided for in Section 6 1/2 of Article III of the Charter. The candidate's statement of the officer sought to be recalled shall be filed not later than the last day upon which nomination papers may be filed.
(c) The City Council shall set the nomination period by resolution. Said filing period shall end no later than the 88th day prior to the election.
(15.5) Sample ballot.
The Clerk shall cause to have mailed to each voter, at least 10 days prior to the election, a sample ballot and a separate printed copy of the statement of the proponents and of the answer, if any, of the officer sought to be recalled. If the recall of more than one officer is sought, the statement and answer for each shall be printed together and shall be clearly distinguished from those of any other officer.
(16) Form of recall question.
There shall be printed on the recall ballot, as to each officer whose recall is to be voted on, the following question: "Shall (name of person) be recalled from the office of (title of the office)?" Following which question shall be the words "yes" and "n o" on separate lines, with a voting square at the right of each, in which the voter shall indicate in the manner prescribed their vote for or against the recall.
(17) Ballot; nominees; counting votes.
On the recall ballots, under each question, there shall be printed the names of those persons who have been nominated, in the manner provided by this Charter for nominations at municipal elections, as candidates to succeed the incumbent if they are recalled from office by the recall election. The name of the person against whom the petition is filed shall not appear on the ballot as a candidate for the office. Voting procedure shall be in accordance with Article III, Section 5, Paragraph 12 and Art icle V, Section 9 of the City Charter.
(18) Canvass of votes.
The City Council shall meet at its usual place of meeting on the first Tuesday after the completion of the canvass of votes cast to declare the results as in a regular election. If a majority of those voting at the election voted in favor of the recall of any incumbent from office, the incumbent shall be deemed removed from office upon the qualification of their successor.
If all of the members of the City Council or Board of Education are recalled, and no candidates are elected to succeed them, the recall shall fail and the incumbents shall remain in office.
If all or part of the members of the City Council or Board of Education are recalled, and not enough candidates are elected to provide a quorum, the appointment of persons to bring the membership up to a quorum shall be by the remaining members of the City
Council or Board of Education, as the case may be. The quorum shall fill the remaining vacancies by appointments. If there are any unfilled vacancies remaining 60 days after the completion of the canvass of votes cast, and more than 180 days will elapse be fore the next general municipal election will be held, the City Council shall immediately cause an election to be held to fill the vacancies.
A person appointed to office under this section shall hold office for the remainder of the unexpired term of the recalled officer whose position they are appointed to fill.
(19) Declaration of election of candidate; failure to qualify; filling vacancy.
If the vote recalls the officer, the candidate who has received the highest number of votes for the office shall be declared elected for the unexpired term of the former incumbent. If the person who received the highest number of votes fails to qualify within 10 days after the declaration of their election, the office shall become vacant and shall be filled according to law.
(20) Vacancy in office after recall petition is filed. (1) If a vacancy occurs in the office sought to be recalled and more than one candidate has been nominated for the office, then the election shall be held as a special election to fill the vacancy and the recall question shall not appear on the ballot.
(2) If a vacancy occurs in the office sought to be recalled and only one person has been nominated for the office or no person has been nominated for the office, an election shall not be held. In such case the City Council or Board of Education, as the case may be, shall appoint to the office the person nominated, or, if no person has been nominated, shall appoint any qualified person.
(21) Disqualification from office.
A person who has been recalled, or who has resigned from office while recall proceedings were pending against them, shall not be a candidate for nor appointed to such office within one year after their resignation or recall.
(22) Further regulations.
The City Council may, by resolution, make such further regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Section.
Section 3. Sections 9, 10, 12, 12.1, and 13 of Article V of the Charter of the City of Berkeley are amended as follows:
Section 9. Election and Districts.
(a) The Mayor, Auditor and School Directors shall be elected at the general municipal election on a general ticket from the City at large. (b) The Councilmembers shall be elected at the general municipal election by districts. The Councilmembers shall be recalled by districts. Any person
appointed to fill a vacancy on the City Council shall be a citizen of the United States and a qualified electorregistered voter in the State of California and of the City of Berkeley as required in Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter, and must reside in the district in which they run for election.
(c) No later than April 1st of the second year following the year in which each decennial federal census is taken, commencing with the 2020 census, unless a later deadline is established by Section 9.5(d)(1), the City shall be divided into eight Council districts as set forth in Section 9.5 and any implementing legislation. Any such redistricting shall become effective as of the next general election of Councilmembers immediately following the effective date of the ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 9.5(d). (d) Each Councilmember shall be elected by the electors within a Council district, must have resided in the District in which they are elected for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date they file a declaration of candidacy for the office of Councilmember, must continue to reside therein during their incumbency, and shall be removed from office upon ceasing to be such resident, except as set forth in Section 9.5(g)(6).
(e) The candidate receiving the highest number of votes for the offices, respectively, of Mayor, Auditor and Councilmembers of the City shall be elected to such offices, provided that such candidate receives at least 40% of the votes cast for each such office. In the event that no candidate for Mayor, Auditor and Councilmember for one or more Council offices receives at least 40% of the votes cast for that office, then there shall be a runoff election between the two candidates receiving the most votes, which runoff election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February of the odd numbered year following the initial election. No other issues shall appear on the ballot of any runoff election. The successful candidate in any runoff election shall assume office on March 1, after the election results have been declared by the Council. If the provisions of Article III, Section 5, Paragraph 12 related to instant runoff voting are operative, the vote threshold requirements in this section shall have no application to municipal elections.
(f) Should any provision of this section be held invalid, the remainder of this section shall not be affected thereby, and such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this section shall remain in full force and effect. The voters hereby declares that they would have passed this section and each subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases had been declared invalid.
Section 10. Eligibility of Mayor, Auditor, Councilmember, and School Director.
To be eligible for the office of Mayor, Auditor, Councilmember, or School Director, a person must, at the time of filing nomination papers for the office, be a citizen of the United States and a qualified electorregistered voter of the State of California and of the City of Berkeley. Any person who has served as a voting member of the Independent Redistricting Commission shall be ineligible to file nomination papers for the
office of Council member in their district of residence or Mayor in the next occurring general municipal election in which said office appears on the ballot after their service on the Commission terminates under Sections 9.5(b)(2) or 9.5(e).
Section 12. Vacancy in Office of Mayor or Councilmember. (1) If a vacancy shall occur in the office of Mayor or Councilmember:
(a) If the unexpired term is less than one year, the remaining members of the Council shall elect appoint a successor with requisite qualifications to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term. Vacancies shall be filled only at a regular meeting of the Council after reasonable notice of intent to fill the vacancy has been given to the public.all remaining members of the Council by any Councilmember by placement on the agenda.
Should the Council fail to fill any vacancy within 60 days after its occurrence, the Council shall, within 10 days, order a special municipal election, to be held not less than 60 90 nor more than 90 120 days after the date of the order; provided, however, if any regular statewide or general municipal election is to be held in the City not more than 180 days or less than 80 100 days from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy, in the case of a regular statewide election, or not more than 180 days nor less than 60 days from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy in the case of a general municipal election, then the vacancy shall not be filled by the Council nor by special election, but at said regularly occurring election.
(b) If the unexpired term is for one year or more, the vacancy shall be filled by special election, to be called by the Council within ten days after the occurrence of the vacancy and to be held not less than 60 90 nor more than 90 120 days after the date of the order; provided, however, if any regular statewide or general municipal election is to be held in the City not more than 180 days nor less than 80 100 days from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy, in the case of a regular statewide election, or not more than 180 days nor less than 60 days from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy in the case of a general municipal election, then the vacancy shall not be filled by special election, but at said regularly occurring election.
(2) If at any municipal election a Mayor or the required number of Councilmembers be not elected by reason of a tie vote among any of the candidates therefor, then the Council, after the qualification of the persons, if any, elected thereto at such election, shall appoint one of the persons receiving such tie vote to fill such office.
In such case the person so appointed shall hold office, subject to the provisions of the Recall, to and including the April November 30th following the next general municipa l election.
Section 12.1. Vacancy in office of Auditor.
If a vacancy shall occur in the office of Auditor, the Council shall appoint a person to fill such vacancy. If at any municipal election an Auditor be not elected by reason of a tie vote among any of the candidates therefor, then the Council, after the qualification of the persons, if any, elected thereto at such election, shall appoint one of
the persons receiving such tie vote to fill such office as in the case of a vacancy therein.
In such case the person so appointed shall hold office, subject to the provisions of the Recall, to and including the June November 30th following the next general municipal election.
Section 13. Vacancy in office of School Director.
If a vacancy shall occur in the office of School Director, the Board of Education shall appoint a person to fill such vacancy. If at any municipal election a School Director be not elected by reason of a tie vote among any of the candidates therefor, then the Board of Education, after the qualification of the persons, (if any, elected thereto at such election, shall appoint one of the persons) receiving such tie vote, to fill such office as in case of a vacancy therein. In each case the person so appointe d shall hold office, subject to the provisions of the Recall, to and including the April November 30th following the next general municipal election.
Section 4. Sections 44 and 46 of Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Berkeley are amended as follows:
Section 44. Ordinances, resolutions and motions.
(1) Action by Council.
The Council may act by ordinance, resolution or motion.
(2) Ayes and noes.
The ayes and noes shall be taken upon the passage of all ordinances, resolutions and motions and entered upon the journal of the proceedings of the Council.
(3) Majority vote of Council.
No ordinance, resolution or motion shall be passed or beco me effective without receiving the affirmative votes of at least five members of the Council.
(4) Subject and title.
Every ordinance or resolution, except an ordinance making appropriations, shall be confined to one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title, and every ordinance making appropriations shall be confined to the subject of appropriations. If any subject shall be embraced in an ordinance which shall not be expressed in its title, such ordinance shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in its title.
(5) Enacting clause of ordinances.
The enacting clause of all ordinances passed by the Council shall be in these words: "Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:".
(6) Requirements of an ordinance.
To constitute an ordinance a bill must before final action thereon be
publicized as provided in Article III Section 5(2) with the ayes and noes for two days, and, in case of any amendment being made thereto before the final adoption of the ordinance, must in like manner be republicized as amended for not less than one day.
(7) Ordinance required in certain cases.
No action providing for the acquisition, sale or lease of public property; for the levying of any tax or assessment; for the granting of any franchise; for establishing or changing fire limits; or for the imposing of any penalty, shall be taken except by ordinance; provided, that such exceptions be observed as may be called for in cases where the Council takes action in pursuance of a general law of the State.
(8) Reconsideration.
When any bill is put upon its final passage and fails to pass, and a motion is made to reconsider, the vote upon such motion shall not be taken except at a meeting of the Council held not less than one week after the meeting at which such motion was made.
(9) Signing and attesting.
All resolutions and ordinances shall be signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
(10) Revision and amendment.
No ordinance shall be revised, re -enacted or amended by reference to its title only; but the ordinance to be revised or re-enacted, or the section or sections thereof to be amended, or the new section or sections to be added thereto, shall be set forth and adopted in the method provided in this section for the adoption of ordinances.
(11) Repeal.
No ordinance nor section thereof shall be repealed except by ordinance adopted in the manner provided in this section.
(12) (repealed)
(13) Record of City ordinances.
A true and correct copy of all ordinances shall be kept and certified to by the City Clerk in a book marked "City Ordinances." Such record copy, with such certificate, or the original ordinance, shall be prima facie evidence of the contents of the ordinance and of the due passage and publication of the same, and shall be admissible as such in any court or proceeding. Such records shall not be filed in any case, but shall be returned to the custody of the City Clerk. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the proof of the passage and publication of an ordinance in the usual way.
(14) Urgency ordinances.
The Council may adopt an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, which contains a statement of its urgency, and is passed by a seven-ninths (7/9) vote of the Council, provided, that no grant
of any franchise shall be construed to be an urgency measure.
Section 45. (repealed)
Section 46. (repealed)Publication of Charter and ordinances.
The Council, during the first year after its organization under this Charter and from time to time thereafter, shall cause all ordinances at such time in force to be classified under appropriate heads, and, together with or separately from the Charter of the City and such provisions of the Constitution and laws of the State as the Council may deem expedient, to be published in book form.
Section 47. Repealed.
Section 5. Section 92 of Article XIII of the Charter of the City of Berkeley are amended as follows:
Section 92. Direct legislation.
The qualified voters of the City shall have power through the initiative and otherwise, as provided by this Charter and the general laws of the State, to enact appropriate legislation to carry out and enforce any of the powers of the City or any of the powers of the Council.
(1) Any proposed ordinance or charter amendment may be submitted to the Council by a petition signed by registered electors voters of the City equal in number to the percentage hereinafter required.
(2) Provisions of Article III apply.
The provisions of Article III respecting the forms and conditions of the petition and the mode of verification and certification and filing shall be substantially followed, with such modification as the nature of the case requires.
(3) Initiative Ordinance: Ten percent petition.
If the petition accompanying the proposed ordinance or measure be signed by electors registered voters equal in number to ten percent of the entire vote cast for all qualified candidates for Mayor at the last preceding general municipal election at which a Mayor was elected, and contain a request that said ordinance be submitted forthwith to the vote of the people at the next occurring regular statewide or general municipal elec tion, the City Clerk shall attach the certificate of sufficiency to the petition within 10 days of the completion of the signature verification process unless so delayed by an official administrative or judicial proceeding related to the petition. tThen, the Council shall either:
(a) Pass said ordinance without alteration within twenty thirty days after the attachment of the City Clerk's certificate of sufficiency to the accompanying petition (subject to a referendary vote, under the provision of Article XIV of this Charter); or
(b) Within twenty-fivethirty days after the City Clerk shall have attached
to the petition accompanying such ordinance the certificate of sufficiency, the Council shall cause said ordinance without alteration to be submitted to a vote of the people at the next occurring regular statewide or general or special municipal election providing no posting, publication or other legal deadline as set forth in the California Elections Code and Government Code, has expired at the time the City Clerk reports verification of the petition to the City Council.
(4) Initiative Ordinance: Five percent petition.
If the petition be signed by electors registered voters in number to at least five but less than ten percent of the entire vote cast for all qualified candidates for Mayor at the last preceding general municipal election at which a Mayor was elected, the City Clerk shall attach the certificate of sufficiency to the petition within 10 days of the completion of the signature verification process unless so delayed by an official administrative or judicial proceeding related to the petition. tThen the Council shall either:
(a) andPass said ordinance be not passed by the Council as provided in the preceding subdivisionSection 92, Paragraph (3)(a); or
(a)(b) , then such ordinance, without alteration, shall be s Submitted said ordinance by the Council to a vote of the people at the next general municipal election providing no posting, publication or other legal deadline as set forth in the California Elections Code and Government Code, has expired at the time the City Clerk reports verification of the petition to the City Council.
(5) The Charter may be amended by initiative pursuant to the California Elections Code and Government Code.
(6) Publicizing of Popular Ordinance or Charter Amendment.
Whenever any ordinance, charter amendment, or proposition is required by this Charter to be submitted to the voters of the City at any election, (a) the Council shall cause the ordinance, charter amendment, or proposition to be printed and it shall be the duty of the City Clerk to enclose a printed copy thereof in an envelope with a sample ballot and mail the same to each voter prior to the election, and (b) the Council shall order such ordinance, charter amendment, or proposition to be printed in the offic ial newspaper of the City and publicized in the like manner as ordinances adopted by the Council are required to be publicized.
(7) (repealed)
(8) Several ordinances or charter amendments at one election.
Any number of proposed ordinances, charter amendments, or both may be voted upon at the same election, in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
(9) Repeal of popular ordinance or charter amendment.
The Council may submit a proposition for the repeal of any such ordinance,
charter amendment, or for amendments thereto, to be voted on at any succeeding general municipal election; and should such proposition, so submitted, receive a majority of the votes cast thereon at such election, such ordinance or charter amendment shall b e repealed or amended accordingly. An ordinance or charter amendment proposed by petition, or adopted by a vote of the people, cannot be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people.
(10) Further regulations.
The Council may, by ordinance, make such further regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, and to adapt the provisions of Article III thereto.
Section 6. Sections 93 and 94 of Article XIV of the Charter of the City of Berkeley are amended as follows:
Section 93. Mode of protesting against ordinances.
(a) City Ordinances are subject to referendum pursuant to Division 9, Article 2 of the CaliforniaState Elections Code, No ordinance passed by the Council shall go into effect before thirty days from the time of its final passage except when otherwise required by the general laws of the State or by the provisions of this Charter respecting street improvements, and except the an ordinance making the annual tax levy, and except an urgency ordinance, as defined in Section 44. for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, which contains a statement of its urgency, and is passed by a seven-ninths (7/9) vote of the Council, provided, that no grant of any franchise shall be construed to be an urgency measure, but all
(b) All franchises shall be subject to the referendum vote as herein provided.
(c) If during said thirty days aA petition signed by qualified electorsregistered voters of the City equal in number to at least ten percent of the entire vote cast for all qualified candidates for Mayor at the last preceding general municipal election at which a Mayor was elected, filed by the prescribed deadline in the Elections Code, protesting against the passage of such ordinance, be presented to the Council, the same shall thereupon be suspended said ordinance from going into operation. and it
(d) It shall be the duty of the Council to reconsider such ordinance, and if the same be not entirely repealed, the council shall submit the ordinance, as is provided in Article XIII, Section 92, Paragraph (3) of the Charter, to the vote of the electors of the city, at the next occurring regular statewide or general or special municipal election providing no posting, publication or other legal deadline as set forth in the California Elections Code and Government Code, has expired at the time the City Clerk reports verification of the petition to the City Council. , and s
(e) Such ordinance shall not go into effect or become operative unless a majority of the qualified electorsregistered voters voting on the same shall vote in favor thereof. The provisions of Article III respecting the forms and conditions of the petition and the mode
of verification and certification and filing shall be substantially followed with such modification as the nature of the case requires.
Section 94. Reference of measures to popular vote.
Any ordinance or measure that the Council or the qualified electorsregistered voters of the City shall have authority to enact, the Council may of its own motion submit to the electors voters for adoption or rejection at a regular statewide or general or special municipal election, in the same manner and with the same force and effect as is provided in this Charter for ordinances or measures submitted on petition. At any such election there shall be no bar to the submission of other questions to a vote of the electors in addition to the ordinance or measures herein provided for, if said o ther questions are such as may legally be submitted at such election. If the provisions of two or more measures approved or adopted at the same election conflict then the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall control.
Section 7. Section 121 of Article XVII of the Charter of the City of Berkeley is amended as follows:
Section 121. Composition of Rent Board.
There shall be in the City of Berkeley an elected Rent Stabilization Board.
The Board shall consist of nine elected Commissioners. The Board shall elect annually one of its members to serve as Chairperson.
(1) Eligibility.
Residents who are duly qualified electorsregistered voters of Berkeley are eligible to serve as Commissioners of the Board.
(2) Full Disclosure of Holdings.
Candidates for the position of Commissioner shall fulfill the requirements as set forth in this Charter in Article III, Sec. 6 1/2.
In addition, when filing nomination papers, candidates shall submit a verified statement of their interests and dealings in real property, including but not limited to its ownership, sale or management and investment in and association with partnerships, corporations, joint ventures and syndicates engaged in its ownership, sale or management during the previous three years.
(3) Conflict of Interest.
Commissioners shall be subject to the requirements of the California Political Reform Act and other applicable state and local conflict of interest codes.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Subject: Placing a General Obligation Bond Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot for the Acquisition or Improvement of Real Property for Public Infrastructure and Facilities
RECOMMENDATION
1) Adopt a Resolution determining public interest and necessity for issuing a general obligation bond in the amount of $300 million for public infrastructure and facilities, submitting to the Berkeley electorate on the November 3, 2026 ballot a measure to authorize a general obligation bond in that amount, and finding that the proposed measure is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. 2) Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct fiscal impacts related to the recommended action. Election services have seen a steep increase since 2018, with the City’s first million-dollar election in 2020. It is uncertain at this time how recent state mandates and the pandemic will affect election costs on an ongoing basis. In addition, the number of measures placed on the ballot, and the length of the measures, are the primary driving factors in the fluctuation of election costs.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City has received direction from the City Council to place a $300 million General Obligation bond measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot to fund priority public infrastructure and facilities improvements. This item implements Council direction provided at the May 19, 2026 Council meeting, where Council reviewed the results of
38
Placing a General Obligation Bond Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot ACTION CALENDAR for Public Infrastructure Improvements June 16, 2026
the second community survey and affirmed direction to prepare ballot language for the measure1.
Berkeley faces significant unfunded capital infrastructure needs and a growing deferred maintenance backlog across public safety facilities, community-serving facilities, civic buildings, parks and recreation assets, sidewalks, ADA accessibility improvements, seismic upgrades, and climate-resilient infrastructure. Many City facilities and public assets were constructed decades ago and no longer meet current standards for accessibility, seismic safety, climate resilience, operational efficiency, or modern service delivery. Existing annual capital allocations and available funding sources are not sufficient to address these needs at the scale or pace required.
The proposed bond measure would provide one-time capital funding for eligible infrastructure projects across three high-level categories: Public Safety; Community Facilities and Quality of Life; and Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility. Representative project areas include fire station replacement and modernization, emergency response facilities, parks and recreation facilities, public buildings, sidewalk and ADA improvements, seismic upgrades, waterfront resilience, and other critical infrastructure needs.
The current working framework assumes $300 million in bond sales and approximately $13 million in bond interest earnings, for total projected program capacity of approximately $313 million. This includes approximately $272.5 million in project costs and approximately $40.5 million in staffing and implementation resources needed to administer and deliver a multi-year bond-funded capital program, including planning, procurement, project management, construction management, compliance, reporting, auditing, and oversight. These implementation resources are intended to support project delivery and administration, not ongoing operations or routine maintenance.
The measure tested in the community survey assumed an estimated average annual tax rate of approximately $22.14 per $100,000 of assessed property value, with $100 million in bonds issued every five years beginning in 2027. When combined with the City’s existing General Obligation bond authorizations, the estimated average tax rate over time would be approximately $44.13 per $100,000 of assessed value, depending on issuance timing, interest rates, assessed valuation growth, and other financing assumptions.
The City’s second community survey, conducted April 21–26, 2026, found that initial support for the potential $300 million GO bond was 69 percent, with support decreasing to 64 percent after voters heard supporting and opposing statements. The survey indicates that the measure remains viable but may be sensitive to concerns regarding 1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/2026-05- 19%20Item%2021%20Proposed%20FY%202027%20and%20FY%202028.pdf
Placing a General Obligation Bond Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot ACTION CALENDAR for Public Infrastructure Improvements June 16, 2026
overall tax burden, affordability, and the number of potential revenue measures expected on the November 2026 ballot.
At the May 19, 2026 meeting, following discussion, Council voted to affirm direction to prepare ballot language for a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure for the November 3, 2026 ballot to fund priority infrastructure investments. This item now places the proposed bond measure before Berkeley voters for consideration.
If approved by two-thirds of voters, the bond would provide a significant source of capital funding to address high-priority infrastructure needs. If the measure is not approved by voters, the City would need to continue relying on existing limited funding sources, grants, and future budget allocations, which would likely result in continued deferral of major infrastructure investments, increasing repair costs, and greater risk of service disruption or facility failure.
BACKGROUND
The City’s consideration of a 2026 General Obligation bond measure is grounded in a series of City Council referrals, long-range infrastructure planning efforts, cross- departmental analysis, voter survey research, and community engagement activities focused on Berkeley’s aging public infrastructure and long-term capital needs.
Berkeley faces significant unfunded infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs across public safety facilities, parks and recreation facilities, civic buildings, sidewalks, ADA accessibility improvements, seismic upgrades, waterfront infrastructure, and other critical public assets. Current estimates indicate that the City’s long-term infrastructure needs exceed $1.5 billion.2 In addition, the proposed Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 identifies over $2.1 billion in needs.3 Existing capital funding sources and annual appropriations are insufficient to address these needs at the scale and pace required.
This work builds upon the City’s broader infrastructure planning framework, including Vision 2050, which emphasizes climate resilience, equity, public health and safety, sustainability, accessibility, and integrated long-term infrastructure planning. The proposed bond framework is also informed by prior infrastructure planning efforts, deferred maintenance analyses, facility assessments, and capital improvement planning work conducted across multiple City departments.
On June 17, 2025, City Council referred to the City Manager an item to assess the potential for a 2026 ballot measure to support capital improvements to Fire Department facilities4. On September 30, 2025, Council referred an additional item to assess the 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY-2025-2029-Capital-Improvement-Program.pdf 3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting- attachments/Item%2002%20Proposed%20FY27-
FY31%20Proposed%20CIP%20Budget%20Presentation.pdf
4 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-06- 17%20Item%2028%20Fire%20Facility%20Revenue%20Measures.pdf
Placing a General Obligation Bond Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot ACTION CALENDAR for Public Infrastructure Improvements June 16, 2026
potential for a 2026 ballot measure to support recreation and community facility improvements5. These referrals reflected Council’s interest in evaluating a potential revenue measure to address major capital needs that cannot be fully funded through existing sources.
On December 2, 2025, City Council reviewed staff’s preliminary assessment of the City’s infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs and provided direction to explore a potential General Obligation bond measure for the November 2026 ballot, with a funding capacity up to $300 million6. Staff subsequently organized potential bond projects into three high-level categories: Public Safety; Community Facilities and Quality of Life; and Critical Infrastructure and Accessibility.
Potential projects were identified and refined through a collaborative cross-departmental process involving multiple City departments and subject matter experts. Staff also developed an evaluation framework to help assess projects based on factors including health and safety impacts, infrastructure condition and resilience, community use and equity, climate resiliency and sustainability, deliverability and readiness, and opportunities to leverage external funding.
To support the development of a potential bond measure, the City contracted with Lake Research Partners to conduct voter survey research related to potential 2026 revenue measures. The first community survey, conducted February 19–23, 2026, tested voter priorities and support for potential General Obligation bond concepts. At the March 17, 2026 Council work session, Council reviewed the first survey results and directed staff to continue developing a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure, refine project priorities and cost assumptions, and conduct a second survey to test refined ballot language7.
In parallel with the survey process, the City conducted broader community engagement activities, including meetings with City commissions, focus groups, joint district community meetings, and public informational materials and website updates regarding potential bond projects and infrastructure priorities. Feedback consistently emphasized interest in life safety, emergency response, accessibility, climate resilience, parks and recreation facilities, sidewalks, public buildings, and other visible neighborhood infrastructure improvements. Community members also emphasized the importance of accountability, transparency, geographic equity, and implementation feasibility.
The second community survey was conducted April 21–26, 2026 and tested refined ballot language for a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure in the context of other anticipated local and regional revenue measures. Results indicated 69 5 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-09- 30%20Item%2011%20Recreation%20and%20Community%20Facility%20Improvement%20Measures.pdf 6 https://berkeleyca.gov/city-council-special-meeting-eagenda-december-2-2025 7 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/2026-03- 17%20Special%20Item%2001%20Presentation%20and%20Discussion.pdf
Placing a General Obligation Bond Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot ACTION CALENDAR for Public Infrastructure Improvements June 16, 2026
percent initial support for the proposed bond measure, with support decreasing to 64 percent after voters heard supporting and opposing statements. The survey also demonstrated strong voter interest in investments related to fire stations, emergency response infrastructure, parks and recreation facilities, accessibility improvements, and climate-resilient public infrastructure.
At the May 19, 2026 Council meeting, Council reviewed the second survey results, discussed the refined project framework and financial assumptions. Following discussion, Council voted to affirm direction to prepare ballot language for a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure for the November 3, 2026 ballot to fund priority infrastructure investments.8
This item implements Council’s direction by submitting the proposed General Obligation bond measure to Berkeley voters for consideration at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election. If approved by two-thirds of voters, the measure would authorize the issuance of up to $300 million in general obligation bonds to fund eligible capital infrastructure and facility improvements identified in the final bond framework and accompanying measure materials.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Many of the infrastructure investments under consideration for a potential November 2026 ballot measure directly advance the City’s environmental sustainability, climate resilience, and environmental justice goals. Modernizing aging public facilities provides opportunities to incorporate energy-efficient building systems, high-performance materials, and low-carbon construction practices consistent with Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan policies.
Several of the proposed project categories and example projects also directly support climate adaptation and resilience objectives, including improvements to stormwater infrastructure, shoreline and waterfront protection, seismic upgrades to critical facilities, and retrofits that enhance emergency response capacity during climate-related emergencies such as extreme heat, wildfire smoke events, flooding, and power outages. Investments in public safety facilities and emergency communications infrastructure further strengthen the City’s ability to respond to increasingly frequent and severe climate-driven hazards.
In addition, proposed investments in sidewalks, ADA accessibility, and pedestrian infrastructure advance sustainable transportation and public health outcomes by improving walkability and accessibility, reducing reliance on vehicle travel, and supporting safer, more connected neighborhoods. Enhancements to parks, recreation facilities, and community centers also contribute to urban greening, heat mitigation, and 8 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/2026-05- 19%20Special%20Item%2001%20Presentation%20and%20Discussion.pdf
Placing a General Obligation Bond Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot ACTION CALENDAR for Public Infrastructure Improvements June 16, 2026
community resilience by providing cooling spaces and accessible public gathering areas during extreme weather events.
Project prioritization and implementation will continue to be guided by the Vision 2050 framework, which elevates climate resilience, sustainability, equity, and integrated infrastructure planning as core principles. As specific projects are refined, staff will incorporate climate risk screening and lifecycle sustainability considerations to ensure that public investments are durable, resilient to future climate conditions, and aligned with the City’s long-term environmental and climate goals.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City Clerk is presenting this action in accordance with the direction given by the City Council at the May 19, 2026 meetings.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
CONTACT PERSON
Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager, (510) 981-7000
Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Text of Measure
Exhibit B: Tax Rate Statement
RESOLUTION NO. -N.S.
DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY DEMAND THE
ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO FINANCE
THE ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES, AND SUBMITTING TO THE BERKELEY ELECTORATE ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 BALLOT A MEASURE TO AUTHORIZE
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR SUCH PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a comprehensive review of its infrastructure and facilities needs, and as documented in the City’s Adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2025-2029, identified over $1.5 billion in infrastructure and facilities needs, with the proposed Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 identifying over $2.1 billion in infrastructure and facilities needs (such Programs as updated from time to time and Capital Improvement Programs for subsequent time periods are referred to herein as the “Capital Improvement Programs”); and WHEREAS, the City’s Vision 2050 Framework is a comprehensive plan to build, upgrade, and repair Berkeley’s infrastructure and facilities to be more sustainable, safe, and resilient and to meet the needs of future generations, including addressing climate and environmental challenges; and
WHEREAS, the size and scale of local infrastructure and facilities needs show the challenge ahead despite the proactive steps taken to address these issues over the last decade; and
WHEREAS, existing funds and funding sources are inadequate for these infrastructure and facilities needs; and
WHEREAS, the City faces a projected $31 million General Fund deficit in the 2027 fiscal year and $29 million deficit in the 2028 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to provide for the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance municipal improvements pursuant to Chapter 7.64 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, and is authorized to issue, sell and refund general obligation bonds pursuant to certain provisions of the California Government Code, including Article 1, commencing with Section 43600, of Chapter 4 of Division 4 of Title 4 and Article 4.5, commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 (each, the “Bond Law”); and WHEREAS, in order to address the infrastructure needs identified in the Capital Improvement Programs and the City’s Vision 2050 Framework, under the Bond Law and Chapter 7.64 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, the City intends to issue general obligation bonds (“Bonds”) to finance the acquisition or improvement of real property for public infrastructure and facilities (“Improvements”), including but not limited to the City’s fire stations, emergency response facilities, parks and recreation facilities and infrastructure, accessibility improvements, seismic and climate resiliency upgrades, sidewalk
improvements, facility modernization and reliability and other public infrastructure, including renovation, replacement, or reconstruction so that the public can continue to benefit from infrastucture and facility improvements; and WHEREAS, the issuance of the Bonds to finance the infrastructure and facilities needs documented in the City’s Capital Improvement Programs and the City’s Vision 2050 Framework is part of the City’s comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing the City’s infrastructure and facilities needs, and the Improvements are related as a result of such approach; and
WHEREAS, the Improvements may include any public art integrated into the Improvements consistent with Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 6.13; and WHEREAS, the City may have the opportunity to leverage Federal, State, regional and County of Alameda (“County”) funds allocated for these needs if it issues the Bonds to address these needs; and
WHEREAS, fiscal accountability protections including public disclosure of all spending and regular audits help ensure funds will be spent as promised; and WHEREAS, funding from the Bonds should be guided by the City’s non-exhaustive list of proposed projects identified through the public input process carried out by the City in 2026 for the purpose of identifying potential projects to be funded by bond revenues, provided that projects not identified in that process shall also be eligible provided they consist of the acquisition or improvement of real property for public infrastructure and facilities provided they are identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Programs and the City’s Vision 2050 Framework; and
WHEREAS, by law, all funds must remain under local control in the City and cannot be taken away by the State or the County or used for other purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of ensuring adequate maintenance funding from existing sources for Improvements financed by the Bonds and not supplanting existing City infrastructure funding with proceeds of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, United States Income Tax Regulations section 1.150-2 provides generally that proceeds of tax-exempt debt are not deemed to be expended when such proceeds are used for reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of such debt unless certain procedures are followed, one of which is a requirement that prior to the payment of any such expenditure, the issuer declares an intention to reimburse such expenditure; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City declares its official intent to reimburse certain of the proposed expenditures referenced herein; and
WHEREAS, proceeds from the sale of the Bonds will be used to finance the Improvements, and all expenditures will be subject to regular audits by the City Auditor; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to submit this measure to be placed on the ballot at the November 3, 2026 Statewide General Election, consistent with the Council’s Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026, calling for a General Municipal Election to be consolidated with said statewide election; and
WHEREAS, the Council’s Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026, adopted the provisions of Elections Code Section 9285(a) providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city ballot measures, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285(b).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that the public interest and necessity require the issuance of one or more series of general obligation bonds in the amount of $300,000,000 to fund the Improvements, subject to completion of the proceedings required by the Bond Law.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution is adopted pursuant to and in conformance with Chapter 7.64 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
A. A ballot measure authorizing the City to issue general obligation bonds to finance the acquisition and improvement of real property for the Improvements (the “Measure”), the full text of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall be placed before the voters at the election on November 3, 2026.
B. The maximum rate of interest to be paid on the Bonds shall not exceed the maximum interest rate permitted by law at the time the Bonds are issued.
C. The estimated cost of the Improvements may include costs and expenses incidental to or connected with the issuance and sale of the Bonds.
D. Proceeds of the Bonds shall be used to finance the acquisition and improvement of real property for the Improvements, and to pay any fees and costs in connection with issuance of the Bonds, including but not limited to, legal fees, auditing costs, and bond printing costs.
E. The Improvements will be completed as needed, and each is assumed to include its share of costs, including planning, program management and construction costs. The final cost of each Improvement will be determined as real property is purchased, plans are finalized, construction bids are awarded, or projects are completed. In addition, certain acquisition or improvement funds are expected from non-bond sources, including funds which have not yet been secured. Therefore,
the City Council cannot guarantee that the Bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion of all needed Improvements.
F. As part of the process to adopt a budget, the City Manager shall provide to the City Council a comprehensive report of funds received from any Bonds authorized by this Measure.
G. The following commissions or their successors shall provide oversight by reporting to the City Council on an annual basis regarding projects funded by the Bonds and the expenditure of proceeds of the Bonds, whether those expenditures are consistent with the purposes of the Bonds set forth in this Resolution, and recommendations on projects proposed to be funded by the Bonds and proposed expenditures of the proceeds of the Bonds:
1. The Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission shall provide oversight on Improvements related to properties and facilities identified in Municipal Code Section 3.26.040.A, including all parks, recreation, and waterfront Improvements.
2. The Transportation and Infrastructure Commission shall provide oversight on the Improvements related to transportation and other public infrastructure.
H. All expenditures will be subject to regular audits by the City Auditor at least once every three years to confirm that expenditures of proceeds of the Bonds are consistent with the intent of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to California Elections Code sections 10002 and 10403, this City Council does hereby call an election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 and requests that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate said election with the Statewide General Election on that same date in the manner and schedule established by Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026, and submit to the qualified voters of the City, at said consolidated election, the Measure, such approval to constitute the authorization to issue the Bonds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley hereby requests that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors permit the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County to perform services in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk. These services are to include all necessary services related to official ballot creation, sample ballot and voter information pamphlet preparation, vote-by-mail, polling places, poll workers, voter registration, voting machines, canvass operations, and any and all other services necessary for the conduct of the consolidated election.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City proposes to issue and sell general obligation bonds of the City, in one or more series, in the maximum amount and for the objects and
purposes set forth above, payable from and secured by ad valorem taxes levied and collected in the manner prescribed by laws of the State of California, all equally and ratably secured, without priority, by the taxing power of the City, if two-thirds of all qualified voters voting on the Measure vote in favor thereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said proposed bond measure shall be placed on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 election with the statement of the measure to be printed in the ballot in the following form:
CITY OF BERKELEY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND MEASURE
BONDS
YES
Shall the measure authorizing issuance of $300,000,000 in general obligation bonds to fund acquisition and improvement of fire stations, emergency response facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and other public infrastructure and facilities, and increase climate resiliency, subject to independent oversight and audits, be adopted?
Financial Implications: Average annual taxpayer costs over projected 40 years bonds are outstanding are approximately $22.14 per $100,000 assessed property value; generating approximately $15,200,000/year.
BONDS
NO
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that at this time, the best estimate of the average and highest tax rates expected to be levied for debt service on the bonds is set forth in the Tax Rate Statement attached hereto as Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots the measure enumerated above to be voted on by the voters of the qualified electors of the City of Berkeley, and that ballots for the election shall be provided in the form and in the number provided by law.
Voters shall be provided an opportunity to vote for or against the Measure on the ballot, in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the authorized officers of the County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the full text of the measure shall be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters in the City of Berkeley.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of notices, pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the Government Code and the Elections Code of the State of California, and to file a certified copy of this Resolution, including all exhibits, no later than the close of business on August 7, 2026, with the County Registrar of Voters and the Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to obtain printing, supplies and services as required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to enter into any contracts necessary for election consulting services, temporary employment services, printing services, and any such other supplies and services as may be required by the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Berkeley for the conduct of the November General Municipal Election.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will reimburse the Registrar of Voters for the costs associated with placing the measure on the ballot.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor, the City Manager, the Finance Director, the City Attorney and the City Clerk, and any of their designees, are hereby authorized to execute any documents and to perform all acts necessary to place the Measure on the ballot, and to make any changes to the text of the Measure, the statement of the measure or the Tax Rate Statement to conform to any legal requirements of the County Registrar, in order to cause the election to be held and conducted in the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney, who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the filing of ballot arguments shall conform to the manner and schedule established by Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council, having reviewed the Measure, hereby finds that this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because it involves the establishment of a government financing mechanism that does not involve any commitment to specific projects to be constructed with proceeds of the Bonds. The use of the proceeds of the Bonds to finance any project or portion of any project will be subject to approval of the applicable decision-making body at that time, upon completion of planning and any further required environmental review under CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
Exhibits
A: Text of Measure
B: Tax Rate Statement
EXHIBIT A
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BERKELEY TO ISSUE GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT
OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Be it ordained by the people of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a comprehensive review of its infrastructure and facilities needs, and as documented in the City’s Adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2025-2029, identified over $1.5 billion in infrastructure and facilities needs, with the proposed Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 identifying over $2.1 billion in infrastructure and facilities needs (such Programs as updated from time to time and Capital Improvement Programs for subsequent time periods are referred to herein as the Capital Improvement Programs”); and WHEREAS, the City’s Vision 2050 Framework is a comprehensive plan to build, upgrade, and repair Berkeley’s infrastructure and facilities to be more sustainable, safe, and resilient and to meet the needs of future generations, including addressing climate and environmental challenges; and
WHEREAS, existing funds and funding sources are inadequate for these infrastructure and facilities needs; and
WHEREAS, the City faces a projected $31 million General Fund deficit in the 2027 fiscal year and $29 million deficit in the 2028 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to issue general obligation bonds to finance municipal improvements pursuant to certain provisions of the California Government Code, including Article 1, commencing with Section 43600, of Chapter 4 of Division 4 of Title 4 or Article 4.5, commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 (each, the “Bond Law”); and
WHEREAS, under the Bond Law and Chapter 7.64, the City intends to issue general obligation bonds (“Bonds”) to finance the acquisition or improvement of real property for public infrastructure and facilities (“Improvements”), as further described in Section 2 below; and
WHEREAS, the issuance of the Bonds to finance the infrastructure and facilities needs documented in the City’s Capital Improvement Programs and the City’s Vision 2050 Framework is part of the City’s comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing the City’s infrastructure and facilities needs, and the Improvements are related as a result of such approach; and
WHEREAS, the Improvements may include any public art integrated into the Improvements consistent with Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 6.13; and WHEREAS, the City may have the opportunity to leverage Federal, State, regional and County of Alameda (“County”) funds allocated for these needs if it issues the Bonds to address these needs; and
WHEREAS, fiscal accountability protections including public disclosure of all spending and regular audits help ensure funds will be spent as promised; and WHEREAS, funding from the Bonds should be guided by the City’s non-exhaustive list of proposed projects identified through the public input process carried out by the City in 2026 for the purpose of identifying potential projects to be funded by bond revenues, provided that projects not identified in that process shall also be eligible provided they consist of the acquisition or improvement of real property for public infrastructure and facilities; and
WHEREAS, by law, all funds must remain under local control in the City and cannot be taken away by the State or the County or used for other purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of ensuring adequate maintenance funding from existing sources for Improvements financed by the Bonds and not supplanting existing City infrastructure funding with proceeds of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, United States Income Tax Regulations section 1.150-2 provides generally that proceeds of tax-exempt debt are not deemed to be expended when such proceeds are used for reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of such debt unless certain procedures are followed, one of which is a requirement that prior to the payment of any such expenditure, the issuer declares an intention to reimburse such expenditure; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City declares its official intent to reimburse certain of the proposed expenditures referenced herein; and WHEREAS, proceeds from the sale of the Bonds will be used to finance the Improvements, and all expenditures will be subject to regular audits by the City Auditor.
Section 2. Object and Purpose of Bonds.
This measure (the “Measure”) authorizes the issuance of the Bonds, the object and purpose of which is to finance, by the City of Berkeley or a third party, as applicable, the acquisition or improvement of real property for the Improvements. The Improvements include, but are not limited to:
Emergency (including Fire Department) response facilities;
City’s parks and recreation facilities and infrastructure; Accessibility improvements in the City;
Seismic and climate resiliency upgrades;
Facility modernization and reliability improvements; and Construction of or improvements to other City infrastructure, including renovation, replacement, or reconstruction for public benefit.
The Improvements (as defined above) will be completed as needed, and each is assumed to include its share of costs, including planning, program management and construction costs. The final cost of each Improvement will be determined as real property is purchased, plans are finalized, construction bids are awarded, or projects are completed.
In addition, certain acquisition or improvement funds are expected from non-bond sources, including funds which have not yet been secured. Therefore, the City Council cannot guarantee that the Bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion of all needed Improvements.
Proceeds of the Bonds may be used to reimburse the City for expenditures on the Improvements that are paid before the date of execution, delivery or issuance of the Bonds.
Section 3. Estimated Cost of Improvements.
The estimated cost of the Improvements to be funded by the Bonds is $300,000,000.
The estimated cost of the Improvements includes legal and other fees, the cost of printing the Bonds and other costs and expenses (including auditing costs), in each case incidental to or connected with the authorization, issuance or sale of the Bonds. The cost of the Improvements includes planning, program management and construction costs.
Section 4. Principal Amount of Bonds.
The aggregate principal amount of Bonds to be issued shall not exceed $300,000,000.
Section 5. Maximum Interest Rate.
The maximum rate of interest to be paid on the Bonds shall not exceed the maximum interest rate permitted by law at the time the Bonds are issued.
Section 6. Accountability Requirements.
The following accountability measures apply to the issuance of Bonds pursuant to this Measure:
A. The specific purpose of the Bonds is to finance the acquisition or improvement of real property for the Improvements; and
B. The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds will be used only for the purposes specified in this Measure, and not for any other purpose; and C. The proceeds of the Bonds will be deposited into an account to be created and held by the City; and
D. The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds may be used to reimburse the City for amounts advanced from the general fund or other funds or accounts for Improvements, when such purchases are made prior to the availability of Bond proceeds; and
E. As part of the process to adopt a budget, the City Manager shall provide to the City Council a comprehensive annual report of funds received from any bonded indebtedness authorized by this Measure, funds expended, and the status of the Improvements.
F. The following commissions or their successors shall provide oversight by reporting to the City Council on an annual basis regarding projects funded by the Bonds and Bond expenditures, whether those Bond expenditures are consistent with the purposes of the Bonds, and recommendations on projects proposed to be funded by the bond and bond expenditures:
1. The Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission shall provide oversight on Infrastructure Improvements related to properties and facilities identified in Municipal Code Section 3.26.040.A, including all parks, recreation, and waterfront improvements.
2. The Transportation and Infrastructure Commission shall provide oversight on the Infrastructure Improvements related to transportation and other public infrastructure.
G. All expenditures will be subject to an audit by the City Auditor at least once every three years to confirm that Bond expenditures are consistent with the intent of this Measure.
EXHIBIT B
TAX RATE STATEMENT
An election will be held in the City of Berkeley (the “City”) on November 3, 2026, to authorize the sale of up to $300 million in general obligation bonds of the City to finance the specific projects identified in the measure. If such bonds are authorized, the City expects to sell $100 million every five years commencing in 2027. Principal and interest on the bonds will be payable solely from the proceeds of ad valorem tax levies made upon the taxable property in the City. The following information is provided in compliance with Sections 9400-9404 of the California Elections Code. Such information is based upon the best estimates and projections presently available from official sources, upon experience within the City, and other demonstrable factors.
Based upon the foregoing and projections of the City’s assessed valuation:
1. The best estimate of the average annual tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund the bond issue over the entire duration of the bond debt service, based on a projection of assessed valuations available at the time of filing of this statement is 2.2 cents per $100 (or $22 per $100,000) of assessed valuation of all property to be taxed. The best estimate of the final fiscal year in which the tax is anticipated to be collected is 2066/67.
For purposes of this paragraph, the term “average annual tax rate” refers to the mean annual tax rate.
2. The best estimate of the highest tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund the bond issue, based on a projection of assessed valuations available at the time of filing this statement is 3.5 cents per $100 (or $35 per $100,000) of assessed valuation of all property to be taxed. The best estimate of the first year in which the highest tax rate will apply is 2040/41.
3. The best estimate of the total debt service, including the principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all the bonds are issued and sold is $610,000,000.
Voters should note that such estimated tax rates are specific to the repayment of bonds issued under this authorization and will be in addition to tax rates levied in connection with other bond authorizations approved or to be approved by the City or any other overlapping public agency.
Voters should note that the estimated tax rate is based on the ASSESSED VALUE of taxable property on Alameda County’s official tax rolls, not on the property’s market value. In addition, taxpayers eligible for a property tax exemption, such as the
homeowner’s exemption, will be taxed at a lower effective tax rate than described above. Property owners should consult their own property tax bills to determine their property’s assessed value and any applicable tax exemptions.
Attention of all voters is directed to the fact that the foregoing information is based upon projections and estimates only, which amounts are not maximum amounts or durations and are not binding upon the City. The actual debt service amounts, tax rates and the years in which they will apply may vary from those presently estimated, due to variations from these estimates in the timing of bond sales, the amount of bonds sold and market interest rates at the time of each sale, and actual assessed valuations over the term of repayment of the bonds. The dates of sale and the amount of bonds sold at any given time will be determined by the City based on need for funds and other factors. The actual interest rates at which the bonds will be sold will depend on the bond market at the time of each sale. Actual future assessed valuation will depend upon the amount and value of taxable property within the City as determined by the Alameda County assessor in the annual assessment and the equalization process.
Dated: June 16, 2026
Paul Buddenhagan
City Manager, City of Berkeley
ACTION CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Subject: Placing a Transactions and Use (Sales) General Tax Measure on the November 3, 2026 Ballot
RECOMMENDATION
1) Adopt a Resolution submitting to the Berkeley electorate on the November 3, 2026 ballot a measure to authorize a one-half of one percent (0.5%) transactions and use (sales) tax for general municipal purposes, bringing the aggregate sales tax rate in Berkeley to 10.75%, and finding that the proposed measure is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.
2) Designate, by motion, specific members of the Council to file ballot measure arguments on this measure as provided for in Elections Code Section 9282.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No direct fiscal impacts related to the recommended action to place the measure on the ballot. In general, election services have seen a steep increase since 2018, with the City’s first million-dollar election in 2020. In addition, the number of measures placed on the ballot, and the length of the measures, are the primary driving factors in the fluctuation of election costs.
If adopted by the voters, the tax is estimated to generate approximately $9 million - $10 million annually for the City’s general fund.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This measure is presented to the Council for placement on the November 3, 2026 ballot pursuant to Council direction on May 19, 2026.
The City is continuing to evaluate revenue options to address its projected General Fund structural deficit and sustain essential City services. As discussed during the May 19,
39
2026 City Council meeting 1, Berkeley is facing ongoing fiscal pressures across several funds, including the General Fund. Without additional ongoing revenue, the City may need to rely more heavily on service reductions, staffing reductions, expenditure controls, or other budget-balancing strategies to address projected deficits.
A potential 0.5 percent increase in the City’s sales and use tax would generate an estimated $9 million to $10 million annually for general governmental purposes. The proposed measure would increase Berkeley’s total sales and use tax rate from 10.25 percent to 10.75 percent. If approved by voters, the revenue would be placed in the City’s General Fund and could be used to support core City services, including fire, police, 911 dispatch, parks and recreation services to serve youth and community, and other essential operations.
The proposed sales and use tax measure is intended to provide ongoing revenue to help reduce pressure on the General Fund and preserve essential services. As identified in prior budget discussions, new revenue from the measure could help mitigate potential reductions in public safety and community-serving departments, including avoiding or reducing impacts to fire service capacity, emergency response, 911 dispatch support, proactive public safety services, and programs serving youth, seniors, and other community members.
At the May 19, 2026 Special Council meeting2, Council reviewed the results of the second community survey, which tested refined ballot language for both a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure and a potential 0.5 percent sales and use tax increase.
Council voted M/S/C (Taplin/Tregub) to affirm direction to prepare ballot language for the sales and use tax measure for the November 3, 2026 ballot to address the City’s projected General Fund structural deficit and support essential City services.
Placing the measure on the ballot would allow Berkeley voters to determine whether to authorize the proposed sales and use tax increase. If the measure is not placed on the ballot, or if it is not approved by voters, the City would need to continue addressing its projected deficit through other available budget-balancing strategies. These strategies may include service reductions, staffing reductions, deferral of programmatic investments, or other actions that could affect the City’s ability to maintain current service levels.
According to California Elections Code 9282(b), measures placed on the ballot by the legislative body, or a member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body, or an individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide association of citizens, or a combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument for or against any city measure.
1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/2026-05- 19%20Item%2021%20Proposed%20FY%202027%20and%20FY%202028.pdf 2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/2026-05- 19%20Special%20Item%2001%20Presentation%20and%20Discussion.pdf
BACKGROUND
The City’s consideration of a potential sales and use tax measure is part of a broader effort to evaluate revenue options for the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election.
This work has occurred alongside Council’s consideration of a potential General Obligation bond measure for infrastructure needs; however, the two measures serve different purposes. A General Obligation bond would provide one-time capital funding for eligible infrastructure projects, while a sales and use tax increase would provide ongoing General Fund revenue to support essential City services and help address the City’s projected structural deficit.
On January 27, 2026, City Council directed staff to include a question in the voter survey regarding a potential 0.5 percent sales and use tax increase3. The referral requested that staff test voter interest in increasing Berkeley’s sales and use tax rate from 10.25 percent to 10.75 percent as a potential strategy to generate resources for the City’s projected General Fund budget shortfall and ongoing fiscal challenges.
Following that direction, the City worked with Lake Research Partners to conduct voter survey research related to potential revenue measures. The first community survey was conducted from February 19–23, 2026 and tested voter perspectives on potential revenue options, including a sales and use tax increase. At the March 17, 2026 Council work session4, Council reviewed the first survey results and directed staff to continue evaluating the sales and use tax measure, including through a second survey that would test refined ballot language in the context of the anticipated November 2026 ballot environment.
The second community survey was conducted April 21–26, 2026. The survey tested a potential 0.5 percent sales and use tax increase that would raise Berkeley’s total sales tax rate to 10.75 percent and generate an estimated $9 million to $10 million annually, with proceeds placed into the General Fund for general City uses. The survey found that initial support for the sales tax measure was 52 percent, with support increasing to 56 percent after voters heard supporting and opposing statements.
At the May 19, 2026 Special Council meeting, Council reviewed the second survey results and, following discussion, Council voted M/S/C (Taplin/Tregub) to affirm direction to prepare ballot language for both a potential $300 million General Obligation bond measure to fund priority infrastructure investments and a potential 0.5 percent increase in the City’s sales and use tax to address the City’s projected General Fund structural deficit and support essential City services.
This item implements Council’s direction by placing the proposed general tax measure before Berkeley voters for consideration at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election.
3 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/2026-01- 27%20Item%2017%20Refer%20to%20the%20City%20Manager%20to%20include.pdf 4 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/2026-03- 17%20Special%20Item%2001%20Presentation%20and%20Discussion.pdf
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental and climate effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This measure is presented to the Council for placement on the November 3, 2026 ballot pursuant to Council direction on May 19, 2026.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Council may decide not to place the measure on the 2026 ballot, or request that staff resubmit the item for a future election.
CONTACT PERSON
Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager (510) 981-7000
Attachments
1. Resolution
a. Exhibit A: Text of Measure
1 RESOLUTION NO. -N.S.
SUBMITTING TO THE BERKELEY ELECTORATE ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026
BALLOT AN ORDINANCE MEASURE TO IMPOSE A ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT (0.5%) TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, the City faces a structural deficit of several million dollars in the coming fiscal years which will require cuts to essential City services, including but not limited to fire, police and 911 dispatch services, youth and senior services, and community programs; and
WHEREAS, the City faces a projected $31 million General Fund deficit in the 2027 fiscal year and $29 million deficit in the 2028 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to place a transactions and use tax measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot to help address the City’s projected General Fund structural deficit and support essential City services; and
WHEREAS, Section 7299 of Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code authorizes the City to impose a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes at a rate of no more than 0.5 percent; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has chosen to submit to the voters a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.5 percent for general municipal purposes; and WHEREAS, should the measure be approved by the voters, the aggregate sales and use tax and transactions and use tax rate in the City of Berkeley would be 10.75%; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to submit this measure to be placed upon the ballot at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election, consistent with the Council’s Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026, calling for a General Municipal Election to be consolidated with said statewide election; and
WHEREAS, Council Resolution No. 72,236-N.S. adopted the provisions of Elections Code Section 9285(a) providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city ballot measures, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285(b).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that a ballot measure authorizing the City to levy a transactions and use tax at a rate of one-half of one percent (0.5%) for general municipal purposes (the “Measure”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall be placed before the voters at the election on November 3, 2026.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the measure requires a simple majority vote threshold for passage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to California Elections Code sections 10002
2 and 10403, this City Council does hereby call an election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026 and requests that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors consolidate said election with the Statewide General Election on that same date in the manner and schedule established by Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026, and submit the Measure to the qualified voters of the City, at said consolidated election.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Berkeley hereby requests that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors permit the Registrar of Voters of Alameda County to perform services in connection with said election at the request of the City Clerk. These services are to include all necessary services related to official ballot creation, sample ballot and voter information pamphlet preparation, vote-by-mail, polling places, poll workers, voter registration, voting machines, canvass operations, and any and all other services necessary for the conduct of the consolidated election.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said proposed Measure shall be placed on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 election with the statement of the Measure to be printed in the ballot in the following form:
CITY OF BERKELEY SALES TAX MEASURE
YES
Shall the measure levying a 0.5% sales tax in Berkeley, increasing the total sales tax rate in the City to 10.75%, estimated to generate $9,000,000 to $10,000,000 annually, with proceeds placed into the General Fund for general City uses, including but not limited to sustaining fire, police and 911 dispatch services, youth and senior services, and community programs, until ended by the voters, with independent audits, be adopted?
NO
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County is hereby requested to include on the ballots and sample ballots the Measure enumerated above to be voted on by the voters of the qualified electors of the City of Berkeley, and that ballots for the election shall be provided in the form and in the number provided by law. Voters shall be provided an opportunity to vote for or against the Measure on the ballot, in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the authorized officers of the County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the full text of the Measure shall be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters in the City of Berkeley.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the posting, publication and printing of notices, pursuant to the requirements of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, the Government Code, and the Elections Code of the State of California, and to file a certified copy of this Resolution, including all exhibits, no later than the close of business on August 7, 2026, with the County Registrar of Voters and the Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors.
3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to obtain printing, supplies, and services as required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to enter into any contracts necessary for election consulting services, temporary employment services, printing services, and any such other supplies and services as may be required by the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Berkeley for the conduct of the November General Municipal Election.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will reimburse the Registrar of Voters for the costs associated with placing the Measure on the ballot.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor, the City Manager, the Finance Director, the City Attorney and the City Clerk, and any of their designees, are hereby authorized to execute any documents and to perform all acts necessary to place the Measure on the ballot, and to make any changes to the text of the Measure, or the statement of the Measure to conform to any legal requirements of the County Registrar, in order to cause the election to be held and conducted in the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney, who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the Measure. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the filing of ballot arguments shall conform to the manner and schedule established by Resolution No. 72,236-N.S., adopted on April 21, 2026.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council, having reviewed the Measure, hereby finds that this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because it involves the establishment of a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to specific projects to be constructed with proceeds of the tax.
The use of the proceeds of the tax to finance any project or portion of any project will be subject to approval of the applicable decision-making body at that time, upon completion of planning and any further required environmental review under CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
Exhibits
A: Text of Measure
4 Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDING THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
CHAPTER 7.34 TO IMPOSE A ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT
(0.5%) TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO BE ADMINISTERED
BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE
ADMINISTRATION
BE IT ORDAINED by the People of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. That the Berkeley Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 7.34 to read as follows:
7.34.010 – Title
This chapter shall be known as the “2026 Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance.”
7.34.020 – Purpose
This ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:
a. To impose a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, other than Section 7251.1, and pursuant to Section 7299 of Part
1.7 of Division 2 which authorizes the City to adopt this tax ordinance which shall be operative if a majority of the electors voting on the measure vote to approve the imposition of the tax at an election called for that purpose. b. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. c. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefore that can be administered and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes.
d. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of
5 this ordinance.
7.34.030 – Operative Date
"Operative Date" means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance. For purposes of Revenue and Taxation Code section 7265, this ordinance shall be considered adopted on the date of the election in which it is approved by the qualified voters of the City.
7.34.040 – Contract with State
Prior to the Operative Date, the City shall contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the City shall not have contracted with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration prior to the Operative Date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case, the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract.
7.34.050 – Transactions Tax Rate
For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the City at the rate of 0.50 percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this ordinance.
7.34.060 – Place of Sale
For the purposes of this ordinance, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
7.34.070 – Use Tax Rate
An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of 0.50 percent of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.
7.34.080 – Adoption of Provisions of State Law
6 Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein.
7.34.090 - Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:
a. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this City shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution shall not be made when:
1. The word “State” is used as a part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California;
2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against this City or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordinance.
3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to:
a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; or
b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provision of that code.
4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797, or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. b. The word “City” shall be substituted for the word “State” in the phrase “retailer engaged in business in this State” in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203.
7 1. “A retailer engaged in business in the District” shall also include any retailer that, in the preceding calendar year or the current calendar year, has total combined sales of tangible personal property in this state or for delivery in the State by the retailer and all persons related to the retailer that exceeds five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000).
For purposes of this section, a person is related to another person if both persons are related to each other pursuant to Section 267(b) of Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations thereunder.
7.34.100 – Permit Not Required
If a seller’s permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor’s permit shall not be required by this ordinance.
7.34.110 - Exemptions and Exclusions
a. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax.
b. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from:
1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government.
2. Sales of property to be used outside the City which is shipped to a point outside the City, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the City shall be satisfied:
a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-City address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury signed by the buyer stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and
8 b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address.
3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance.
4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. c. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this City of tangible personal property:
1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance.
2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.
3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance.
4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs 3 and 4 of this section, storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to
9 a contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.
6. Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in business in the City shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the City or participates within the City in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the City or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the City under the authority of the retailer.
7. “A retailer engaged in business in the City” shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the City.
d. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax.
7.34.120 – Amendments
All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this ordinance, provided however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance.
7.34.130 – Enjoining Collection Forbidden
No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the State or the City, or against any officer of the State or the City, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected.
7.34.140 – Annual Audit
10 The proceeds resulting from this transactions and use tax shall be deposited into the City’s General Fund and become subject to the same independent annual audit requirements as other general fund revenue.
7.34.150 – Authorization and Limitation on the Issuance of Bonds The City shall be authorized to pledge revenues generated by this tax to the repayment of limited tax bonds or other forms of indebtedness authorized under this Section. The Council shall by ordinance or resolution, as applicable, establish the terms of any limited tax bonds or other forms of indebtedness authorized hereby, including but not limited to, the amount of the issue, date, covenants, denominations, interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities, redemption rights, tax status, manner of sale, and such other particulars as are necessary or desirable.
7.34.160 – Severability
If any word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion of this ordinance, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for any reason, then such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion, or the prescribed application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this chapter, and all applications thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional or invalid, shall remain in full force and effect. The People of the City of Berkeley hereby declare that they would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.
7.34.170 – Savings Clause
No section, clause, part, or provision of this Chapter shall be construed as requiring the payment of any tax that would be in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the Constitution or laws of the State of California.
7.34.180 – Liberal Construction
This Chapter shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose.
Section 2 – California Environmental Quality Act Requirements.
This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., under, including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity authorized herein may have a significant effect on the environment and pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8), and CEQA Guidelines section 15273 as the approval of government revenues to fund existing services.
11 Section 3 – Effective Date
This ordinance relates to the levying and collection of the City transactions and use tax and shall take effect ten days after declaration of the election results by the City Council pursuant to Elections Code section 9217.
Section 4 – Amendment, repeal, and reenactment.
The City Council may repeal this ordinance, or amend it in any manner that does not result in an increase in the tax imposed herein, or add or modify exemptions, without further voter approval. If the City Council repeals this ordinance, it may subsequently reenact it without voter approval, as long as the reenacted ordinance does not result in an increase in the tax imposed herein. Except as otherwise provided in this section, this tax shall remain in effect until repealed or amended by the voters.
Section 5 – General Tax; Simple Majority Vote Requirement This Ordinance imposes a general tax and shall be effective only if approved by a simple majority of the voters voting thereon.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
PUBLIC HEARING
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Maricar Dupaya, Budget Manager
Subject: Proposed FY 2027 and FY 2028 Biennial Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Proposed Biennial Budget and Five-Year CIP Public Hearing No. 2
RECOMMENDATION
Continue discussion and provide comments on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2027 and Fiscal Year 2028 Biennial Budget and Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP); conduct Public Hearing No. 2 on the Proposed Biennial Budget and Five-Year CIP, with final adoption on June 23, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Proposed Biennial Budget establishes planned citywide operating expenditures for Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028 for all funds, including General Fund spending, and the Proposed CIP outlines planned capital investments for Fiscal Years 2027–2031 across CIP, Enterprise, Grant, Internal Service, and Special Revenue Funds. The CIP includes proposed capital budget for FY 2027 and FY 2028 and identifies anticipated projects and funding sources for FY 2029–2031.
Fiscal impacts may change based on Council direction and will be finalized with budget adoption on June 23, 2026.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Proposed Biennial Budget includes the City’s proposed budget balancing plan, projected revenues, and proposed expenditures by funding source; proposed departmental expenditure plans; proposed staffing levels; strategic plan updates, and performance measures. The Proposed Five-Year CIP provides a comprehensive plan for addressing infrastructure needs and identifies significant unfunded capital needs.
The Proposed FY 2027 and FY 2028 Biennial Budget was presented to City Council on May 19, 2026, as agenda item #21. 1
1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2026-05-19%20Agenda%20Packet%20- %20Council%20-%20WEB.pdf
40a
Proposed Biennial Budget and Five-Year CIP Public Hearing #2 PUBLIC HEARING June 16, 2026
The Proposed Five-Year CIP was presented to City Council on June 9, 2026, as agenda item #28. 2
The FY 2027–2028 Proposed Biennial Budget and the Proposed Five-Year CIP support the City’s strategic goals of providing an efficient and financially-healthy City government and providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Actions included in the Proposed Biennial Budget and Five-Year CIP will be developed and implemented in alignment with the City’s environmental sustainability goals and requirements.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This recommendation supports continued Council review and public input on the Fiscal Year 2027 and 2028 Proposed Biennial Budget and Five-Year CIP, leading to the final adoption on June 23, 2026.
The Budget and Finance Policy Committee and the City Council have held multiple meetings on the FY 2027–2028 Proposed Budget and Five-Year CIP. The meetings listed below will allow for further public input, Council direction, and refinement of the Proposed Budget and CIP prior to adoption.
June 16, 2026 – City Council: Continued Discussion of the Proposed Biennial Budget and 5-Year CIP and Public Hearing No. 2
June 23, 2026 – City Council: Adoption of the FY 2027 and FY 2028 Biennial Budget, Five-Year CIP, and FY 2027 Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO)
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions have been considered.
CONTACT PERSON
Maricar Dupaya, Budget Manager, City Manager’s Office, 981-7000 Attachments:
1: Public Hearing Notice
2 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2026-06-09%20Agenda%20Packet%20- %20Council%20-%20WEB.pdf
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
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
FY 27 AND FY 28 PROPOSED BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PUBLIC HEARING #2
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.
The City Manager’s Office is proposing a second public hearing for the Fiscal Year 2027 and Fiscal Year 2028 Proposed Budget and Five-Year CIP.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-council/city-council-agendas as of June 4, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for the public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.
For further information, please contact Maricar Dupaya at (510) 981-7000.
Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
Posted: June 4, 2026
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on June 4, 2026.
_________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
ACTION CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe (Author) and Councilmember Brent Blackaby (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Budget Referral for the Solano Avenue Stroll
RECOMMENDATION
1. Refer to the FY 2027-2028 Budget Process the cost of providing police, fire, and public works services to the Solano Stroll, totaling $81,000 per year, for a two-year total of $162,000, including:
a. $55,000 per year for Police, including command/supervision, dispatch, community service officers, and parking enforcement officers to manage traffic control, safety, and missing children;
b. $14,000 per year to cover the cost of Fire Department staffing and the use of fire engines and ambulances; and
c. $12,000 per year for Waste Management Services.
2. Refer to the FY 2027-2028 Budget Process the cost of safety barricades, street closure supplies, and zero waste fees including:
a. $50,000 per year for vehicle barricade rentals ($100,000 total); b. $6,000 per year for street closure supplies and rentals ($12,000 total); and c. $1,500 per year to cover zero waste fees ($3,000 total).
3. Refer to the City Manager to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of purchasing barriers for City use compared to the ongoing costs of renting barriers, and report back with findings and recommendations.
POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On May 28, 2026 the Budget and Finance Committee took the following action: M/S/C (Ishii/Blackaby) to send the item to Council with a qualified positive recommendation with amendments to include a referral to staff to cost out purchasing barriers as opposed to renting them.
Vote: Ayes – Blackaby, Ishii; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent - Kesarwani
SUMMARY STATEMENT
The Solano Avenue Stroll (the “Stroll” or the “Solano Stroll”) is an annual, multicultural event that draws visitors of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities from Berkeley and neighboring
40b
communities. The event is an inclusive, no-barrier, family-friendly, outdoor celebration that is and always has been free to the public.
As the largest street fair in the East Bay, the Stroll draws upwards of 250,000 people and spans both Albany and Berkeley. Its scale and regional significance requires a high level of coordination and long-standing partnership between the two cities, which have provided consistent in-kind and financial support for decades.
The Solano Avenue Association, led by a board of local stakeholders, works diligently to produce the Stroll on a "shoestring" budget, despite the event’s size and complexity. Following a two-year pause during the COVID-19 pandemic, the event returned with renewed community support and enthusiasm, drawing its largest crowd yet in 2023.
While the City previously provided in-kind services such as police, fire, and public works to support the event, including in 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, the City is no longer able to provide these services at no cost. Given the City’s ongoing structural deficit, estimated to be between $27 and $30 million, these expenses must be budgeted for.
The Solano Avenue Association has repeatedly expressed its gratitude to Berkeley and Albany for supporting the event’s success, especially in the face of pandemic-related losses and the years following. The Association has determined that without the support of city services, the event may not be able to move forward.
The 50th Solano Avenue Stroll is scheduled to take place on September 13, 2026.
BACKGROUND
The Solano Avenue Association was formed in 1974 and achieved nonprofit status in 1983. The Association’s signature annual event – the Solano Avenue Stroll – is an approximately one-mile long, 26-block closed-street festival, spanning Solano Avenue from the Alameda to San Pablo Avenue in both Berkeley and Albany. Attended by some 250,000 people each year, the Stroll is a free, family-friendly, smoke- and alcohol-free one-day event celebrating the vitality and diversity of the East Bay.
In 2000, the Solano Avenue Stroll became an official “Local Legacy,” included in the United States Library of Congress with the help of Congresswoman Barbara Lee and was recognized as celebrating “America's rich diverse culture.” Now approaching its semicentennial, the Stroll has been sponsored with both services and funds by the Cities of Berkeley and Albany longer than the Solano Avenue Association has records.
The Stroll draws both local residents and visitors from across the region. In 2013, a zip code survey was taken from 453 event goers and recorded 139 different zip codes from across the Bay Area. The event kicks off with a parade featuring dancers, bands, floats, and youth and families from many schools and organizations. Typically, the Stroll features over 500 vendors, including 50 entertainers representing a wide variety of cultures, food from 50 booths and local
restaurants representing cuisines from every continent, 150 government and non-profit agencies, 150 juried handcrafters, a 75-participant parade with local bands, performers, schools, and organizations, safe mechanical rides for children, and more. The Stroll gives people from near and far a rare opportunity to experience everything our unique community has to offer.
The event also provides significant community and economic benefits. Not only does the event introduce thousands of visitors to local businesses in Berkeley, it also allows for nonprofits, community organizations, city departments, faith institutions, schools, sports teams, elected officials and more to conduct meaningful outreach and connect directly with thousands of constituents and provide information about opportunities, programs, and services. All these groups rely on the exposure provided by the Stroll to connect with stakeholders, potential clients, volunteers, and donors – in-person.
The Stroll draws significant traffic to local restaurants, retail businesses, and arts and culture venues who participate in the event, and Solano Avenue merchants – both long-standing and newly arrived – benefit from the exposure to 250,000 potential customers. Some 92% of participating organizations and vendors return each year.
It takes about 600 staff-hours to produce the Solano Stroll, plus thousands of additional volunteer hours, and the event is one of only four in the United States and Canada that operates in two municipalities simultaneously.1 The Stroll is unique in that it requires coordination among municipalities and with the Solano Avenue Association to ensure security, zero waste, toilet facilities, parade staging, setup and take-down of performance, commerce, and event spaces, electricity, barricades, and other services and elements. Despite the magnitude of the Stroll, Solano Avenue is virtually spotless and fully restored to normal operations within 24 hours of the close of the event.
While historically, city services were provided at no-cost, given budgetary and General Fund constraints, that is no longer possible. To ensure that the festival can continue, this item also refers $55,000 per year to the budget process for Berkeley Police Department event support and $14,000 for Fire Department staffing. Furthermore, this item refers to the budget process $50,000 per year for vehicle barricade rentals ($100,000 total), $6,000 per year for street closure supplies and rentals ($12,000 total), and $1,500 per year to cover zero waste fees ($3,000 total).
Though the Solano Stroll may be the first event to confront the reality of having to pay for both city services and street closure supplies, future special events will have to do the same.
Therefore, this item asks City Staff to consider the costs and benefits of purchasing the barriers instead of continuing to rent them.
1 A Brief History of the Solano Avenue Stroll,” Solano Avenue Association. https://www.solanoavenueassn.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/solanoavenuestrollhistory.pdf
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Without City support, it’s likely the Solano Avenue Association will be unable to take on the financial cost of the event and the Solano Stroll will cease to exist. In recent years, Berkeley has already seen the loss or near-loss of several beloved community events – including the Kite Festival, 4th of July at the Marina, and the Berkeley Flea Market. These closures and near misses underscore the fragility of free community events. Against this backdrop, the City cannot afford to lose another signature event like the Solano Stroll – one of the last remaining large- scale, free, and deeply rooted community celebrations.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Solano Avenue Association works actively to minimize the environmental impact of the Stroll. In addition to regular AC Transit service, free event-day shuttles provide rides from 10AM to 7PM to and from the North Berkeley BART Station and up and down the length of Marin Avenue, making stops at intersections with stop lights on Marin. In the past, free valet bicycle parking, provided by the Albany High School Cougars mountain biking team and the Albany Strollers & Rollers, has been available.
Recycling and composting are part of the zero waste ethos of the event. In 2022, the Solano Avenue Association began requiring all vendors to provide only compostable bags and foodware, unless items are not available due to supply chain challenges, or for health and safety reasons (to avoid spilling of hot liquids, for example). Recycling and composting bins have and will continue to be provided along the entire route of the event.
FISCAL IMPACTS
As noted above, the Solano Avenue Stroll provides day-of and residual income to local businesses, and generates significant regional exposure and goodwill, contributing to the local tax base and economy.
The item refers to the budget process City services totaling $162,000 ($81,000 per year), and expenses related to zero waste and safety including barricades and street closure supplies totaling $115,000 ($57,500 per year).
CONTACT
Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe, [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager
INFORMATION CALENDAR
June 16, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 2276 Shattuck Avenue /#LMSAP2024-0005
INTRODUCTION
The attached Landmarks Preservation Commission Notice of Decision (NOD) is presented to the Mayor and City Council pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code/Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (BMC/LPO) Section 3.24.240.A, which requires that “a copy of the Notice of Decision shall be filed with the City Clerk and the City Clerk shall present said copy to the City Council at its next regular meeting.”
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC/Commission) has approved a Structural Alteration Permit (SAP) for the subject Landmark property. This action is subject to a 15-day appeal period, which began after the notice was mailed on June 1, 2026.
BACKGROUND
BMC/LPO Section 3.24.300 allows City Council to review any action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission in granting or denying a Structural Alteration Permit. For Council to review the decision on its merits, Council must appeal the Notice of Decision.
To do so, a Council member must move this Information Item to Action and then move to set the matter for hearing on its own. Such action must be taken within 15 days of the mailing of the Notice of Decision, or by June 16, 2026. Such certification to Council shall stay all proceedings in the same manner as the filing of an appeal.
If the Council chooses to appeal the action of the Commission, then a public hearing will be set. The Council must then rule on the designation within 30 days of closing the hearing, otherwise the decision of the Commission is automatically deemed affirmed.
Unless the Council wishes to review the determination of the Commission and make its own decision, the attached NOD is deemed received and filed.
41
Notice of Decision: 2276 Shattuck Avenue / INFORMATION CALENDAR #LMSAP2024-0005 June 16, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE IMPACTS
Landmark designation and discretionary alteration reviews by staff and LPC provide opportunities for the adaptive re-use and rehabilitation of historic resources within the City. The rehabilitation of these resources, rather than their removal, achieves construction and demolition waste diversion, and promotes investment in existing urban centers.
POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Council may choose to appeal the decision, in which case it would conduct a public hearing at a future date.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no known fiscal impacts associated with this action.
CONTACT PERSON
Allison Riemer, Senior Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7433 Attachments:
1: Notice of Decision – #LMSAP2024-0005 / 2276 Shattuck Avenue
Attachment 1, Part 1
L A N D M A R K S
P R E S E R V A T I O N
C O M M I S S I O N
N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n
DATE OF BOARD DECISION: December 4, 2025
DATE NOTICE MAILED: June 1, 2026
APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION: June 16, 2026
EFFECTIVE DATE (Barring Appeal or Certification): June 17, 20261 2276 Shattuck Avenue – Morse Block (Donogh
Arms)
Structural Alteration Permit #LMSAP2024-0005 to rehabilitate street-facing elevations and construct a 15-story addition at a City Landmark property.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the Structural Alteration Permit request. Applicant Rhoades Planning Group
2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 705
Berkeley, CA
Property Owner Pasand Courtyard, LLC
2804 Gateway Oaks Dr., #100
Berkeley, CA
ZONING DISTRICT: Downtown Mixed Use (C-DMU)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation.
1 Pursuant to BMC Chapter 3.24, the City Council may “certify” any decision of the LPC for review, which has the same effect as an appeal. In most cases, the Council must certify the LPC decision during the 15-day appeal period. However, pursuant to BMC Section 1.04.070, if any portion of the appeal period falls within a Council recess, the deadline for Council certification is suspended until the first Council meeting after the recess, plus the number of days of the appeal period that occurred during the recess, minus one day. If there is no appeal or certification, the Use Permit becomes effective the day after the certification deadline has passed.
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2024-0005
2276 Shattuck Avenue
Mailed: June 1, 2026
The application materials for this project are available online at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/construction-development/land-use-development/zoning-projects or https://permits.cityofberkeley.info/CitizenAccess/Default.aspx
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED
TO THIS NOTICE
COMMISSION VOTE: 6-0-0-1
YES: FINACOM, LEUSCHNER, MONTGOMERY, MONTILLA, ORBUCH, SCHWARTZ NO: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: CRANDALL
TO APPEAL THIS DECISION (see Section 3.24.300 of the Berkeley Municipal Code):
To appeal a decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to the City Council you must:
1. Submit a letter clearly and concisely setting forth the grounds for the appeal to the City Clerk, located at 2180 Milvia Street, 1st Floor, Berkeley. The City Clerk’s telephone number is (510) 981-6900.
a. Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.300.A, an appeal may be taken to the City Council by the application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the application of at least fifty residents of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of Chapter 3.24.
2. Submit the required fee (checks and money orders must be payable to ‘City of Berkeley’):
a. The basic fee for persons other than the applicant is $3,000. This fee may be reduced to $1,000 if the appeal is signed by persons who lease or own at least 50 percent of the parcels or dwelling units within 300 feet of the project site, or at least 25 such persons (not including dependent children), whichever is less. Signatures collected per the filing requirement in BMC Section 3.24.300.A may be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee, so long as the signers are qualified. The individual filing the appeal must clearly denote which signatures are to be counted towards qualifying for the reduced fee.
b. The fee for all appeals by Applicants is $6,000.
3. The appeal must be received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the "APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION" date shown above (if the close of the appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the appeal period expires the following business day).
If no appeal is received, the Structural Alteration Permit will be final on the first business day
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2024-0005
2276 Shattuck Avenue
Mailed: June 1, 2026
following expiration of the appeal period.
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS:
If you object to this decision, the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1. If you challenge this decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Landmarks Preservation Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
2. You must appeal to the City Council within fifteen (15) days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is mailed. It is your obligation to notify the Land Use Planning Division in writing of your desire to receive a Notice of Decision when it is completed.
3. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b) and Government Code Section 65009(c)(1), no lawsuit challenging a City Council decision, as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(e), regarding a use permit, variance or other permit may be filed more than ninety (90) days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). Any lawsuit not filed within that ninety (90) day period will be barred.
4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), notice is hereby given to the applicant that the 90-day protest period for any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions included in any permit approval begins upon final action by the City, and that any challenge must be filed within this 90-day period.
5. If you believe that this decision or any condition attached to it denies you any reasonable economic use of the subject property, was not sufficiently related to a legitimate public purpose, was not sufficiently proportional to any impact of the project, or for any other reason constitutes a “taking” of property for public use without just compensation under the California or United States Constitutions, your appeal of this decision must include the following information:
A. That this belief is a basis of your appeal.
B. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" of property as set forth above.
C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” as set forth above.
If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
#LMSAP2024-0005
2276 Shattuck Avenue
Mailed: June 1, 2026
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website.
Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Questions about the project should be directed to the project planner, Allison Riemer, at (510) 981-7433 or [email protected]. All project application materials may be viewed at the Permit Service Center (Zoning counter), 1947 Center Street, 3 rd Fl., during regular business hours.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings and Conditions
2. Project Plans
ATTEST:
Allison Riemer, Secretary
Landmarks Preservation Commission
cc: City Clerk
Rhoades Planning Group, 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 705, Berkeley 94704 Pasand Courtyard, LLC, 2804 Gateway Oaks Dr., #100, Sacramento 95833
A t t a c h m e n t 1, Part 2
F i n d i n g s a n d C o n d i t i o n s
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 2276 Shattuck Avenue – Morse Block (Donogh
Arms)
Structural Alteration Permit #LMSAP2024-0005 to rehabilitate street-facing elevations and construct a 15-story addition at a City Landmark property.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation”).
FINDINGS RELATED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS Regarding the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOI) for Rehabilitation, the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley makes the following findings:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
Evidence: The property will retain its historic mixed-use, including commercial and residential uses.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Evidence: The proposed project would rehabilitate the building’s street-facing elevations.
The proposed overall retention of extant storefronts and selective addition of an entrance front and a storefront on Bancroft Way would not affect any historic forms, spaces or features of the historic building façades while adding compatibly designed features. The proposed scope of work retains all the building’s character-defining features, aside from its three-story roof with flat roof and parapet.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
Evidence: The proposed residential entry and storefront entry at the lounge along Bancroft Way will be differentiated from the existing historic storefronts.
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2276 SHATTUCK AVENUE – #LMSAP2024-0005 December 4, 2025 Page 2 of 11
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Evidence: The subject property does not feature changes that have acquired significance in their own right.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Evidence: The proposed project will retain all of the identified character-defining forms, features and materials of the historic building façades along with the construction techniques and craftsmanship embodied therein, without change or loss.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Evidence: The proposed project would retain and repair deteriorated historic features including existing storefront windows and surrounding brick exterior, spandrel panels, decorative elements at the upper façade, and decorative cornice elements. Deteriorated wood windows at the second and third floors will be replaced with aluminum windows when retention is not feasible.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Evidence: The proposed historic building façade work will include cleaning and repairing identified historic exterior elements and materials, consistent with the Standards.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved.
If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
Evidence: The project does not have the potential to affect any archaeological resources because the project does not require any excavation or substantial ground disturbance.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Evidence: The proposed project includes constructing a 15-story addition above the historic, three-story building, of which the street-facing elevations will be rehabilitated. The project will retain and reuse the architecture of a turn-of-the-20th century, downtown mixed-use building within its historic urban setting. The proposed design establishes a clear separation between the old building and the new addition by setting the addition
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2276 SHATTUCK AVENUE – #LMSAP2024-0005 December 4, 2025 Page 3 of 11
back. The proposed new addition is a contemporary design and employs contemporary details and materials. The proposed use of color to subtly differentiate between the historic base and tower addition further distinguishes the old and the new. While relatively large, the proposed addition enables reuse as well as the retention and protection of the historic building façades.
10.New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Evidence: If the proposed new addition were to be removed in the future, the historic building façades would remain and continue to retain most of its character-defining features and continue to convey its historic significance as an early 20th century mixed- use building.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Pursuant to BMC Section 3.24.260(C)(1), approval of permit applications pursuant to this section may be granted only upon determination that the proposal conforms to the criteria set forth in paragraphs 1.
1. For permit applications for construction, alteration or repair:
(a) For applications relating to landmark sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the landmark and, where specified in the designation for a publicly owned landmark, its major interior architectural features; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site, as viewed both in themselves and in their setting.
Evidence: The character-defining exterior features of this Neoclassical mixed-use building include its prominent corner location, three-story height, U-shaped footprint with light court, tripartite composition, expression of the piano nobile, prominent decorative cornice, brick pilasters and quoins, spandrel panels, buff brick exterior, wood one-over- one windows at second and third stories, and ground floor storefronts. Overall, most of the character-defining features will be retained under the proposed project. (b) For applications relating to property in historic districts, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. The proposed work shall also conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the designation of the historic district.
Evidence: N/A. The site is a designated City Landmark Park and not in a Historic District. (c) For applications relating to structure of merit sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the architectural features if architectural merit is the basis for designation; nor shall the
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2276 SHATTUCK AVENUE – #LMSAP2024-0005 December 4, 2025 Page 4 of 11
proposed work adversely affect the special cultural, educational or historical interest or value if that is the basis for designation.
Evidence: N/A. The site is a designated City Landmark Park and not a Structure of Merit.
E x h i b i t A
Conditions of Approval
D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 2 5
Page | 5
I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring
1. Project Approval. This Structural Alteration Permit approval is for 2276 Shattuck Avenue, as substantially shown and described on the project plans received October 17, 2025, except as required to be modified by conditions herein and plans as presented to the Landmarks Preservation Commission on December 4, 2025 (“Approval Date.”). For any condition herein that requires preparation of a Final Plan where the project applicant has submitted a conceptual plan, the project applicant shall submit final plan(s) in substantial conformance with the conceptual plan, but incorporate the modifications required by the conditions herein for approval by the City.
City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning
2. Approval Limited to Proposed Project. This Permit authorizes only the proposed project described in the application. In no way does an approval authorize other uses, structures or activities not included in the project description.
City of Berkeley
BMC Sections
23.404.060
On-Going Land Use Planning
3. Compliance Required. All land uses and structures in Berkeley must comply with the Zoning Ordinance and all applicable City ordinances and regulations. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance does not relieve an applicant from requirements to comply with other federal, state, and City regulations that also apply to the property.
City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning
4. Conformance to Approved Plans. All work performed under an approved permit shall be in compliance with the approved plans and any Conditions of Approval.
City of Berkeley
BMC Section
23.404.060. B.4
On-Going Land Use Planning
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2276 SHATTUCK AVENUE – #LMSAP2024-0005 December 4, 2025 Page 6 of 14
I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring
5. Permit Revocation. The City may revoke or modify a discretionary permit for completed projects due to: 1) violations of permit requirements; 2) Changes to the approved project; and/or 3) Vacancy for one year or more. However, no lawful residential use can lapse, regardless of the length of time of the vacancy. Proceedings to revoke or modify a permit may be initiated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), or City Council referral.
City of Berkeley
BMC Section
23.404.080
On-Going Land Use Planning
6. Exercise and Expiration of Permits A permit authorizing a land use is exercised when both a valid City business license is issued (if required) and the land use is established on the property.
A. A permit authorizing a land use is exercised when both a valid City business license is issued (if required) and the land use is established on the property.
B. A permit authorizing construction is exercised when both a valid City building permit (if required) is issued and construction has lawfully begun.
C. The Zoning Officer may declare a permit lapsed if it is not exercised within one year of its issuance, except if the applicant has applied for a building permit or has made a substantial good faith effort to obtain a building permit and begin construction. The Zoning Officer may declare a permit lapsed only after 14 days written notice to the applicant. A determination that a permit has lapsed may be appealed to the ZAB in accordance with Chapter 23.410 (Appeals and Certification).
D. A permit declared lapsed shall be void and of no further force and effect. To establish the use or structure authorized by the lapsed permit, an applicant must apply for and receive City approval of a new permit.
City of Berkeley
BMC Section
23.404.060 (C)
“Time Limits”
On-Going Land Use Planning
7. Hold Harmless. The permittee agrees as a condition of approval of this application to indemnify, protect, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless, the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, City of Berkeley On-Going Land Use Planning
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2276 SHATTUCK AVENUE – #LMSAP2024-0005 December 4, 2025 Page 7 of 14
I. General Administrative Conditions Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the approval of this application, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement, or any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 210000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions. The indemnification shall include any Claims that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the permittee, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents. The permittee’s duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permittee has asserted the Claims, although the permittee shall still have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City.
II. At Building Permit Submittal Regulation Source Timing/Implementation Enforcement/ Monitoring
1. Conditions of Approval on Building Permit Plan Submittal Structural Alteration Permit. The Conditions of Approval for this Structural Alteration Permit shall be printed on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit pursuant to this Structural Alteration Permit, under the title ‘Structural Alteration Permit Conditions.’ City of Berkeley At the Time of Building
Permit Submittal
Building & Safety/Land Use
Planning