19 The chart below shows the breakdown of uses by incident type.
The map below shows the locations of the equipment deployments by BPD in Berkeley (excluding the Mobile Command Post where the MCV is deployed near UC campus).
20 Fiscal Impact
Funding for all training and ongoing cost in military equipment are sourced from the Berkeley Police Department’s existing budget. The only eligible equipment that was purchased in 2025 was .223 ammunition and .308 ammunition. The projected eligible equipment acquisitions in 2026 will be for .223 and .308 ammunition.
The Berkeley Police Department conducts in-house training on all specialized equipment that the department possesses. This ensures officers are fully trained to utilize the tools in the department’s possession to safeguard our community. The cost of in-house training is staff time. Some of the training on specialized equipment must be conducted externally. The fiscal cost on external training related to military equipment in 2025 included expenses from Special Response Team training ($1,811) and rifle and less lethal instructor training ($5,198). Training frequencies vary by equipment type and operational role. All officers train annually on less lethal equipment. Officers authorized to carry the .223 rifle are required to complete a one- time 16-hour external certification course, after which proficiency is maintained through regular internal training, with Special Response Team members conducting additional operational training involving rifles, flash bangs (inert for training) and the LRAD. Ongoing departmental range training most often occurs in an on-duty status.
M4/Patrol Rifle
Rifle prices, like other firearms, will range depending on current market demand and availability. While M4 rifles purchased several years ago cost between $1,000 and $1,200 each, current rifles cost between $1,400 and $1,600. It should be expected that these prices will fluctuate and likely increase over time.
Ammunition costs fluctuate with the costs of components (brass, primers, gunpowder, and bullets) and supply/demand. Current costs for .223 Remington range from $0.50 to $0.75 a round for training ammunition (55 grain) and $1.25 to $1.50 a round for duty ammunition (62 grain). 35,000 rounds of .223 ammunition were acquired in 2025 with a fiscal impact of $16,636.73.
Every officer that is authorized to carry a rifle on duty must attend a minimum 16-hour CA POST approved rifle instruction course before being authorized to carry the rifle on duty. This course may be administered by Berkeley Police Firearm Instructors or by other POST approved agencies. Tuition for the CA POST approved class is dependent on the hosting agency. If conducted in-house the cost only includes the officer’s hourly wage, range fee, and ammunition costs (all vary). Outside agencies charge between $25 to $500 depending on the range location and duration (some classes are 32-hours while POST only requires 16-hours.) Additionally, all officers who are issued a rifle receive specific 8-hour rifle training every two years by POST certified Berkeley Police Department Firearm Instructors.
21 Typical round count for such classes range between 800 rounds and 1200 rounds per student.
Additionally, all officers issued a rifle receive specific 8-hour rifle training every two years by a BPD firearm instructor which constitutes an additional 500 or so rounds per officer.
Maintenance costs vary depending on use over time. Traditionally, various springs and pins need to be replaced every five years and may cost between $3 and $30 per rifle. Other parts such as the barrel and bolt need to be replaced around ten years and range between $150 and $300 per rifle.
Penn Arms 40MM Single Launcher
Penn Arms 40MM single Launchers purchased by the department cost $815.00 each. Ongoing cost for Penn Arms single Launcher should be based on the projectiles used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on department trainings, projectile availability and events that unfold in the city and surrounding region.
Every officer authorized to deploy a less lethal Launcher must pass a certification course administered by a Berkeley Police Department Firearms Instructor. The certification class consists of classroom, range qualification and scenario application if the venue allows. This class is largely handled in house; thus, the cost only includes staff time, range fees, and projectile costs, which all vary.
Maintenance costs vary depending on use. Generally, various springs and pins need to be replaced every 5 years which can cost $3 to $30.
Milkor LTL Multi-Launcher
Milkor LTL Multi-Launchers purchased by the department cost $3,950.00 each. The ongoing cost for the Milkor LTL Launcher should be based on the projectiles used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on department trainings, projectile availability and events that unfold in the city and surrounding region.
Every officer authorized to deploy a less lethal Launcher must pass a certification course administered by a Berkeley Police Firearm Instructor. The certification class consists of classroom, range qualification and scenario application if the venue allows. This class is largely handled in house; thus, the cost only includes the officer’s hourly wage, range fees, and projectile costs which all vary.
Maintenance costs vary depending on use. Generally, various springs and pins need to be replaced every 5 years which can cost $3 to $30.
FN 303 and FN Pava Impact Projectile
22 FN 303s purchased by the department cost $800.00 each. Ongoing cost associated with the FN303 Launcher should be based on the projectiles used in training and on duty. This will fluctuate based on department trainings, projectile availability and events that unfold in the city and surrounding region.
Every officer authorized to deploy a less lethal Launcher must pass a certification course administered by a Berkeley Police Firearm Instructor. The certification class consists of classroom, range qualification and scenario application if the venue allows. This class is largely handled in house; thus, the cost only includes the officer’s hourly wage, range fees, and projectile costs which all vary.
Maintenance costs vary depending on use. Generally, O-rings need to be replaced every 3,000 rounds and cost $30 per kit.
Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile (CS) and OC
The cost for CS canisters ranges from $20.00 to $39.00 per unit. The cost for OC canisters ranges from $36.00 to $44.00 per unit. Training is conducted by a Police Officer Standard Training (POST) certified Berkeley Police chemical agent training officer. The cost of training is staff time.
Remington 700 Rifle
The initial cost to purchase this rifle with its associated components is approximately $10,000 dollars each. Their average life span is 10-years at which time it will likely need to be replaced.
Ongoing cost for all firearms should be based on the ammunition used in training and on duty and maintenance. This will fluctuate based on training.
The cost associated with training is the staff time, range fees, and cost of spent ammunition.
Special Response Team (SRT) members train once a month and, on average, each member shoots approximately 50-rounds. Currently, there are only 4 members shooting at each training day. This equates to approximately 2,400 rounds of ammunition being fired per year. This does not include special training days or attendance to training schools/classes. A single box of 20- rounds costs approximately $20 dollars or $1 dollar per round. Authorized and trained Berkeley Police armorers service and provide regular maintenance of the rifles. The cost of maintenance is staff time. In 2025, BPD purchased 500 rounds at a cost of $$656.81.
Barrett Model 99 Rifle
The retail cost of the Barrett Model 99 Rifle is approximately $12,500. The Department of Justice provided the Barrett Modell 99 Rifle to the Berkeley Police Department in 2007. The ongoing cost related to this rifle is the cost of ammunition and training.
23 The ammunition has a retail cost of approximately $6 dollars per bullet; $60 for a box of 10 and $600 for a case of 10 boxes, plus shipping and handling. The cost associated with training is the staff time, range fees, and cost of spent ammunition.
Light/Sound Distraction Device
Diversionary Devices cost approximately $45 per unit. Purchases for these tools are made when inventory becomes low, based upon critical incident usage and Special Response Team trainings that incorporate live devices.
Only trained and qualified personnel are permitted to deploy diversionary devices. These trained Berkeley Police officers are typically members of the Berkeley Police Department Special Response Team who receive monthly training which includes training in the deployment of diversionary devices. The cost of training is staff time.
Long Range Acoustic Device (LRADS)
The LRAD 450XL and the LRAD 100X were purchased in 2018. The total cost for both the LRADs, rechargeable battery packs and accessories was $49,999. Training is conducted by Berkeley Police personnel who are trained in the use and procedures of the LRAD. The cost to train is staff time.
ReconRobotics Recon Scout XT
The initial cost for the Recon Scout XT robot was about $12,500 per unit in 2010. There are no ongoing costs associated with the use of the Recon Scout XT robot. Being that it is battery operated, there is a nominal cost associated with charging the Recon Scout XT robot’s batteries, and the batteries of the OCU (controller).
The Recon Scout XT robot is fairly simple to operate, thus there is no cost associated with training officers in its use. Generally, the Recon Scout XT robot is robust and does not need regular repair or service. The cost of training is staff time.
Andros Remotec HD-1 Hazardous Duty Robot
The Hazardous Duty Robot was purchased in 2008 for $214,496. Being that it is battery operated, there is a nominal cost associated with charging the robot. Maintenance of the Hazardous Duty Robot is conducted by the Berkeley Police Bomb Technicians.
Berkeley Police Bomb Technicians are trained during regular bomb squad training sessions and maintain their skills through training scenarios. The cost of training and maintenance is limited to staff time.
Mobile Command Vehicle
24 The Mobile Command Vehicle was purchased in 2003 for $230,800. The ongoing cost associated to the MCV is the cost of gasoline and maintenance of the vehicle. Both gasoline and maintenance are received at the City Corporation Yard. Training is conducted in-house, by the Berkeley Police personnel, who are trained in the operation of the vehicle. The training cost is staff time.
The expected useful lifespan of the MCV was 15 years and was eligible for replacement in 2018.
A replacement fund for the MCV currently amounts to approximately $368,000. The vehicle is still functioning, but may need to be replaced in the near future. 36” Baton
The Berkeley Police Department maintains a supply of these batons and ongoing costs is only as replacement is needed. The thermoplastic/polymer 36 inch baton ranges from $50-95 per baton.
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
July 7, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: David Sprague, Fire Chief
Subject: Ambulance Transport Fee Increase
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution adjusting the Ambulance User Fee to match Alameda County’s approved ambulance user fee schedule made effective July 1, 2026, for the Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, and Piedmont and to adjust the First Responder Fee. The increase would be included as an updated addendum to the Ambulance Provider Agreement, and rescinding Resolution 71,829–N.S..
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Alameda County Health Care Services Agency notified the City on April 9, 2026 that they had approved an increase in the Bundled Base Rate User Fee that may be charged by the County’s 911 Ambulance Transport Service Provider. Under the terms of the of Berkeley’s Emergency Medical Services Ambulance Transport Services Agreement, the City may increase its Bundled Base Rate to $5,001.45, Mileage to $112.85, Oxygen to $373.65, and Treatment/Non-Transport to $1,003.06 beginning July 8, 2026. The City will increase its first responder fee by the same percentage. This fee is consolidated (bundled) with the transport fee into a Bundled Base Rate of $5,618.64.
The City will increase its rate effective July 8, 2026 and will not apply the increase retroactively. These adjustments account for the increased cost of ambulance transport, paramedic services, and medical equipment/supplies.
Ambulance Transport Fee Increase PUBLIC HEARING
July 7, 2026
Existing Proposed
Base Rate $4,529.89 $5,001.45
Mileage $102.21 $112.85
Oxygen $338.42 $373.65
Treatment / Non-Transport * $908.49 $1,003.06
First Responder Fee** $559.00 $617.19
*This rate shall be limited to patients who receive a medical intervention, such as intravenous medication administration, and subsequently refuse transport. Patient assessment, including ECG monitoring, does not constitute treatment. **This fee would be limited to instances when a patient is transported.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Under the terms of the Alameda County Ambulance Provider Agreement, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is responsible for setting and approving any fees that are applicable to all providers. The increases are either cost of living or base rate adjustments. For the City of Berkeley, the last rate increase was approved by the City Council on June 17, 2025 (Resolution 71,829–N.S.); and the rate increase was made effective July 1, 2025.
BACKGROUND
Alameda County EMS is responsible for the procurement of emergency ambulance services for the local EMS system. The Berkeley Fire Department has had an agreement with Alameda County to be the emergency transport provider for Berkeley since 1977. Albany, Piedmont, Alameda City, and Falck serve as the ambulance transport providers for other parts of Alameda County. Under the current agreement, all transport providers, including Berkeley, are in the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services District. Since 1986, the Berkeley Fire Department (Department) has provided ambulance transport service at the Advanced Life Support (ALS) or paramedic level.
Under the terms of the Alameda County Ambulance Provider Agreement, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is responsible for setting and approving any fees that are applicable to all agencies. The increases are either cost of living or base rate adjustments. As the exclusive provider for transport services within the City of Berkeley, the Department may propose adjustments to the fees charged for these services. As background, in 1980, the California Legislature enacted the EMS Act “to achieve coordination and integration” for the prehospital EMS system.1 The EMS Act establishes a two-tiered system of regulation of the California Emergency Medical 1 County of San Bernardino v. City of San Bernardino (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 909, 915.
Ambulance Transport Fee Increase PUBLIC HEARING
July 7, 2026
Services Authority on the state level and local EMS agencies, such as the Alameda County local EMS agency (“Alameda LEMSA”), at the local level:2 If a county elects to establish an emergency medical
services program, the duties of its designated local EMS agency include the following: (1) planning, implementing, and evaluating an emergency medical services system
“consisting of an organized pattern of readiness and
response services based on public and private agreements and operational procedures” (§ 1797.204); (2) developing a formal plan for the system in accordance with the Authority's guidelines and submitting the plan to the Authority on an annual basis (§§ 1797.250, 1797.254); (3) “consistent with such plan, coordinat[ing] and otherwise facilitat[ing]
arrangements necessary to develop the emergency medical services system” (§ 1797.252). Once a local EMS agency
implements its system, all providers of prehospital
emergency medical services within its jurisdiction must operate within that system. (See § 1797.178 [“No person or organization shall provide advanced life support or limited advanced life support unless that person or organization is an authorized part of the emergency medical services
system of the local EMS agency....”].)
An important aspect of the EMS Act is the Legislature’s acknowledgment of the continued role of cities and fire districts, such as the Berkeley Fire Department, through the enactment of Health and Safety Code section 1797.201, which states, in relevant part:
[Unless a city or fire district consents through agreement or waiver3], prehospital emergency medical services shall be continued at not less than the existing level, and the
administration of prehospital EMS by cities and fire districts presently providing such services shall be retained by those cities and fire districts….
Section 1797.201 is “a grandfathering of existing emergency medical service operations [by cities or fire districts] until such time as these services are integrated into the larger EMS system. The apparent purpose of this grandfathering provision was to ‘allow such entities to protect the investments they had already made in various assets— emergency medical equipment, infrastructure, personnel, etc.’, as well as to ensure 2 Ibid.
3 Id. at 924; Health & Saf. Code § 1797.201.
Ambulance Transport Fee Increase PUBLIC HEARING
July 7, 2026
against the disruption of adequate emergency medical services.”4 The Department operates a grandfathered EMS system within the City of Berkeley, and has consistently done so since the enactment of the EMS Act.
The EMS Act defines “emergency medical services,” as “services utilized in responding” to “a condition or situation in which an individual has a need for immediate medical attention, or where the potential for such need is perceived by emergency medical personnel or a public safety agency.” (Health and Safety Code §§ 1797.72, 1797.90.) This is reinforced by the ordinances in Alameda County that defines a 9-1-1 level of service, which includes “a 9-1-1 request for an ambulance to transport or assist persons in apparent sudden need of medical attention; or an ambulance transport that is initially classified as a non-emergency call that becomes a 9-1-1 emergency call due to a change in the patient's medical condition.”5 Within the City of Berkeley, the Department is the sole entity authorized under state law to provide EMS transports. Within the City of Berkeley, any other ambulance that arrives and discovers that a patient appears to have a medical emergency is required to call 9-1-1, so that the Department or a subcontractor to the Department, can transport the patient.6 With the exception of the Department or a provider subcontracted to the Department, no private ambulance company or other entity is an authorized provider of EMS within the City of Berkeley.7
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the action requested in this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Berkeley Fire Department is seeking Council approval to increase the base rate for ambulance user fees to match those approved by Alameda County and made effective on July 8, 2026 and to bring them in line with those of other regional transport providers.
Additionally, the department is seeking to increase the City’s first responder fee by a commensurate percentage. Periodic rate increases help to recoup increasing costs incurred for providing ambulance services.
Government Code Section 6062(a) dictates the manner of publication for fee increase public hearings.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Continue with the existing User Fee Schedule which was approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and made effective July 1, 2025 and adopted by the City June 17, 2025 (Resolution 71,829–N.S.); and made effective July 1, 2025. 4 Valley Med. Transp., Inc. v. Apple Valley Fire Prot. Dist. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 747, 758. 5 Alameda County Code of Ordinances § 6.114.050
6 Alameda County Ordinance §§ 6.114.060(A), 6.114.270(B). 7 Health & Saf. Code § 1797.178.
Ambulance Transport Fee Increase PUBLIC HEARING
July 7, 2026
CONTACT PERSON
David Sprague, Fire Chief, (510) 981-3473
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: City of Berkeley User Fee Adjustment Letter – FY26-27 3: Public Hearing Notice
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AMBULANCE USER FEE ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda and the City of Berkeley are in an Ambulance provider Agreement dated June 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda Board of Supervisors sets the rates applicable to all providers within the district for emergency ambulance transport; and WHEREAS, the County of Alameda Board of Supervisors established and approved a new Contractor’s User Fee schedule for ambulance transport providers. The rates will be made effective in Berkeley on July 8, 2026; and
WHEREAS, under the California Emergency Medical Services Act (the “EMS Act”), Health and Safety Code sections 1797, et seq. The Department operates a grandfathered EMS system within the City of Berkeley, and has consistently done so since the enactment of the EMS Act; and
WHEREAS, as the exclusive provider within the City of Berkeley, the Department may propose adjustments to fees that bring them in line with those of other regional transport providers and cover expenses related to providing said service; and WHEREAS, the revenue collected will be deposited into General Fund revenue account 010-6405-341-7900.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the new ambulance user fee schedule is adopted in accordance with the rates established by the County of Alameda, effective July 8, 2026, as follows:
User Fee Schedule
Base Rate $5,001.45
Mileage $112.85
Oxygen $373.65
Treatment / Non-Transport $1,003.06
First Responder Fee $617.19
Base Bundled Rate $5,618.64
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the new ambulance user fee schedule shall be effective and that Resolution No. 71,829–N.S. is rescinded, effective July 7, 2026.
July 7, 2026
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
AMBULANCE USER FEE ADJUSTMENT
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.
Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that a public hearing will be conducted by said city council of the City of Berkeley at which time and place all persons may attend and be heard upon the following:
The Fire Department is proposing to increase the Ambulance User Fee rates to match the ambulance transport provider fees set forth and approved by the County of Alameda and charged by other regional transport providers. Collected ambulance fees are deposited into a General Fund revenue account.
The County of Alameda has established and approved a new base rate Contractor’s User Fee schedule for ambulance transport providers effective July 1, 2025. The City of Berkeley fee increase would be effective July 8, 2026. For the City of Berkeley, the last rate increase was approved by the City Council on June 17, 2025 (Resolution 71,829– N.S.); and made effective July 1, 2025.
User Fee Schedule
Base Rate $5,001.45
Mileage $112.85
Oxygen $373.65
Treatment / Non-Transport $1,003.06
First Responder Fee $617.19
Base Bundled Rate $5,618.64
*This rate shall be limited to patients who receive a medical intervention, such as intravenous medication administration, and subsequently refuse transport. Patient assessment, including ECG monitoring, does not constitute treatment.
The hearing will be held on July 7, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.
For further information, please contact David McPartland, EMS Assistant Chief, at (510) 981-3473.
A copy of the staff report for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.berkeleyca.gov as of June 25, 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.
July 7, 2026
Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
If you challenge the above 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 City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.
Published: June 26 and July 3, 2026 – The Berkeley Voice Per Government Code 6062A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 25, 2026.
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Dear Mr. Buddenhagen:
This letter constitutes notice that the EMS Director of the Alameda County EMS Agency has -1-
1 ambulance transport service provider Falck. Under the terms of the City of Berkeley current Emergency Medical Services Ambulance Transport Agreement Section 10.2, your Contracted Private Provider rates effective July 1, 2026.
UPDATED EXHIBIT G
911 SYSTEM
Current Effective 7/1/2026*
Bundled Base Rate $4,529.89 $5,001.45
Mileage/Mile $102.21 $ 112.85
Oxygen $338.42 $ 373.65
** Treat, Non-transport Rate $908.49 $1,003.06
* It is understood that these rate increases are conditional on each city's ability to demonstrate that the charges are not considered taxes under the California Constitution (art. XIIIC sec. 1e). Each city will be responsible for vetting this issue for their individual Councils. Actual effective date based on City Council approval. ** Treat, Non-transport rate applies to patients who receive a treatment intervention (such as 50% Dextrose) and subsequently refuse transport. Assessment (vital signs, EKG, etc.) does not constitute treatment interventions. The Treat, Non-Transport rate also applies to patients who receive treatment via referral to EMS Agency Director-approved telehealth All other terms and conditions of your Agreement with the County shall remain in full force and effect. Please acknowledge receipt and understanding of this notification as provided below, and return an original signed copy to the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency no later than July 1, 2026 at the following address:
Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency
Attention: Michelle Barrientos
1000 San Leandro Blvd, Suite 200
San Leandro, CA 94577
Please also forward a copy of any documentation reflecting approval of the user fee increase by your City Council, if applicable, upon receipt.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (510) 618-2030.
Sincerely,
William McClurg
Interim EMS Director
Alameda County EMS Agency
__________________________________
Acknowledged by (Signature)
For: City of Berkeley
Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Name and Title
__________________________________
Date
CC: Chief David Sprague, Berkeley Fire Department
Aneeka Chaudhry, Interim Director, Alameda County Health Scott Dickey, Alameda County Assistant County Counsel
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.ci.berkeley.ca.us/manager
PUBLIC HEARING
July 7, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Prepared by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution to:
1. Approve the attached MOU Compendium reflecting the current operational agreements between the Berkeley Police Department and other law enforcement agencies and private organizations.
2. Accept the attached Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).
3. Accept the attached Mutual Aid requests and responses report as submitted in accordance with existing City Council directives.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fiscal impact of not approving these inter-agency operational agreements is difficult to quantify, but the potential costs to the City of Berkeley could be substantial. Without formal partnerships between agencies, the City could face significantly higher expenditures when responding to critical incidents or large-scale emergencies, including but not limited to major criminal investigations, civil unrest, natural disasters, or acts of terrorism. The absence of these agreements may also necessitate that the department develop and maintain additional internal expertise, equipment or specialized programs in order to meet operational needs independently.
These agreements are essential for enabling coordinated, timely and cost-effective responses that minimize strain on City resources and ensure public safety during such events.
Approval of these agreements supports the continuation of law enforcement operations as outlined in the Department’s current budget. While non-approval may yield short-term budget savings, it could lead to increased investigative costs and immeasurable impacts on public safety and justice outcomes if offenders are not effectively identified or prosecuted.
The cost, or lack thereof, for each agreement is outlined in the summary included in the attached MOU Compendium.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 07, 2026 2 CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The majority of these agreements have been in place for several years and are updated as needed to ensure continued relevance and operational effectiveness. This allows daily law enforcement operations to proceed smoothly. Challenges that may arise are addressed through mutual cooperation and strong working relationships between agencies. Without these agreements or memoranda of understanding (MOUs), the Department’s efficiency and ability to deliver services effectively would be significantly diminished.
This compendium consolidates those agreements into a single reference document for Council's review. To understand what has changed, start with the Preface, which categorizes and summarizes all modifications made since the previous version. The Table of Contents further highlights the addition or deletion of agreements. Once a change is identified, readers can locate the full updated language in the corresponding section of the document. Agreements that are new, amended, or renewed are clearly labeled to distinguish them from those that remain unchanged.
BACKGROUND
Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) §§2.04.150 – 2.04.210 requires City Council approval of any agreements, understandings, or policies involving mutual aid, information sharing, or operational cooperation between the Berkeley Police Department and local, state or federal law enforcement agencies, military or intelligence agencies, and private security organizations. These provisions came into effect under Ord. 4640 NS §1, 1973, requiring annual City Council approval. The last City Council approval was July 22, 2025.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Berkeley Police Department provides law enforcement services to those who live, work, and visit Berkeley. It does so under the guidance of federal, state and local laws. The ability to leverage regional partnerships and shared resources is critical to the Department’s mission and to maintaining a just system and effective system of law enforcement. That cannot be accomplished without the cooperation of other law enforcement agencies and private organizations.
Effectively managing large-scale emergencies, critical incidents or disasters require substantial personnel and logistical resources. Such responses are only possible through the mutual aid system established by the State and coordinated at the County level. Additionally, to remain eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster funding and/or reimbursement, agencies must follow the guidelines set forth by the National Incident Management System (NIMS), as required by federal law.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 07, 2026 3 Many external agencies, including the University of California, Bay Area Rapid Transit, East Bay Regional Parks, and California Highway Patrol, have jurisdictional interests in areas, buildings or structures located within Berkeley. Formal agreements help ensure seamless coordination and, in some cases, are required by state law.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED:
An alternative to approving the current set of inter-agency agreements would be to defer or decline their adoption. However, this is not recommended. Failure to approve these agreements would place the City out of compliance with BMC 2.04.150–2.04.210 and compromise the Berkeley Police Department’s ability to coordinate effectively with external agencies. Without formal agreements in place, the Department would face operational limitations, increased risk during critical incidents, and potential disqualification from certain state and federal funding. In addition, the absence of MOUs could hinder joint investigations, prolong emergency response times, and reduce the Department’s ability to ensure public safety. Given the critical role these agreements play in maintaining compliance, operational readiness, and regional collaboration, there is no viable alternative to their review and approval.
CONTACT PERSON:
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police, 510-981-5900
Attachments
1. Resolution
Exhibit A: MOU Compendium: Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations
Section # / Title
Section 1 - Local Agencies
Section 2 - State Agencies
Section 3 - Federal Agencies
Section 4 - Private Security Entities
2. Public Hearing Notice
3. SAR Report
4. Mutual Aid Report
RESOLUTION NO.____________ N.S.
APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING COMPENDIUM, REVISED AND UPDATED AS OF JULY 7, 2026, WHICH EXPRESS TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS WHEREAS, the Berkeley Police Department has established written agreements with other law enforcement agencies and private organizations; and WHEREAS, such agreements are needed to enhance investigative resources and emergency services provided to the citizens of Berkeley, creating a safer environment for all; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley Municipal Code §2.04.150 et seq. (the Ordinance) requires public disclosure and City Council approval of written agreements between the Berkeley Police Department and outside agencies or organizations; and
WHEREAS, the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) has been prepared and submitted in accordance with existing City Council directives and is attached for review and acceptance; and
WHEREAS, the Mutual Aid Requests and Responses Report has been prepared and submitted in accordance with existing City Council directives and is also attached for Council review and acceptance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley approves the agreements between the Berkeley Police Department and other law enforcement agencies and private organizations as set forth in the City Manager Report dated July 7, 2026, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and made part hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley accepts the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) and the Mutual Aid Requests and Responses Report as submitted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that record copies of the aforementioned documents to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and be available electronically via the City of Berkeley website.
CITY OF BERKELEY
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) COMPENDIUM
AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
As of July 7, 2026
(Submitted in compliance with Berkeley Municipal Code §2.04)
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 7, 2026 1 PREFACE
This Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) Compendium contains current written agreements referenced in Berkeley Municipal Code §2.04.150, et seq. (hereafter, Ordinance). It fulfills the Ordinance’s requirement for public disclosure of formal relationships with other law enforcement agencies and private organizations.
The 2026 MOU Compendium has been updated to align with the Ordinance’s intent and content. It reflects current agreements presented to and approved by Council on July 7, 2026.
Informal agreements or understandings are excluded to maintain a clear focus on active, formal agreements.
Where interaction, cooperation, or information sharing with other law enforcement agencies and private organizations is not specified in this compendium, the Department shall do so only as permitted by law, policy, and when necessary to support lawful investigations and public safety.
For reference, the previous 2025 MOU Compendium can be found at this link.
The information below describes changes that were made to the current MOU Compendium and is organized as follows:
• New agreements added since July 22, 2025
• Existing agreements renewed or revised
• Existing agreements removed or discontinued
New Agreements
• 1.2 San Francisco Police Department : This agreement was with the San Francisco Police Department for BPD Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Squad to provide services for the duration of the Suber Bowl 60 week from January 31 through February 8, 2026. These services included securing public saf ety and continuity of operations including but not limited to maintaining a robust law enforcement presence, preserving the public peace, preventing and deterring crime and facilitating access control to event locations in the city and county of San Franci sco and the San Francisco International Airport.
Existing Agreements
• 1.1 Alameda County Sobering Center; No changes
• 1.7 Bay Area Rapid Transit Police (BART); No changes
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 7, 2026 2 • 1.9 East Bay Regional Parks Police (EBRP Police); No changes • 1.12 University of California Police Department (UCPD); No changes • 1.15 San Jose Police Department, Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force; Format change, updated signature
• 1.21 Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMS Agency) ; No changes
• 2.7 California Department of Justice CALPHOTO; No changes • 2.9 California Department of Justice CLETS; No changes • 2.11 California Highway Patrol (CHP); No changes
• 2.16 California Sex and Arson Registry (CSAR); No changes • 3.12 Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC); No changes • 3.13 United States Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force; No changes • 4.1 Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing and Coordination (CALICO); No changes • 4.2 Critical Reach Public Safety Communications Systems; No changes • 4.3 A Safe Place Domestic Violence Resource Center; No changes
Existing Agreements: Minor Updates
• 1.4 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Victim/Witness Assistance Division:
This agreement highlights some programmatic requirements of both current and forthcoming versions of grant -funded victim assistance programs, administered by the ACDAO. This collaboration encompasses, but is not limited to, Victim Witness Assistance Program, Unserved/Underserved Victim Advocacy and Outreach Program , Human Trafficking Advocacy Program, Family Justice Centers Program.
Agreements Removed or Discontinued
• 1.8 Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD): This agreement was from 2009 and was thus outdated and limited in scope. Formal BPD assistance at events is now manage d through the department’s third -party contract ing processes and a formal operation al agreement to codify any additional scope of services , if necessary, is a longer term project.
• 1.11 Union Pacific Railroad Police Department: This agreement was from 2007.
Union Pacific has transitioned to using “no trespassing” letters. This request is now processed according to procedures for these letters.
• 4.5 Bay Area Women Against Rape (BAWAR): This agreement expired in September 2025 and BAWAR has since ceased operations.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Compendium: PUBLIC HEARING Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies and Private Organizations July 7, 2026 3 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
City Council accomplished public hearings, review and approval of submitted agreements and general understandings as required by BMC 2.04.170 on:
March 12, 1974 (Resolution No. 46,409 N.S.)
March 11, 1975 (Resolution Nos. 47,103 N.S.; 47, 104 N.S.; 47, 105 N.S.) March 30, 1976 (Resolution No. 47,873 N.S.)
March 22, 1977 (Resolution No. 48,630 N.S.)
July 27, 1982 (Resolution No. 51,445 N.S.)
October 16, 1984 (Resolution No. 52,458 N.S.)
April 29, 1986 (Resolution No. 53,207 N.S.)
September 19, 2006 (Resolution No. 63,432 N.S.)
April 20, 2010 (Resolution No. 64,847 N.S.)
November 8, 2011 (Resolution No. 65,505 N.S.)
September 18, 2012 (Resolution No. 65,901 N.S.)
September 18, 2012 (Resolution No. 65,902 N.S.)
October 15, 2013 (Resolution No. 66,344 N.S.)
October 28, 2014 (Resolution No. 66,836 N.S.)
December 15, 2015 (Resolution No. 67,327 N.S.)
March 14, 2017 (Resolution No. 67,870 N.S.)
June 20, 2017 (Resolution Nos. 68,050 N.S, 68-051 N.S., 68-052 N.S., 68-053 N.S) July 23, 2018 (Resolution No. 68517 N.S.)
July 22, 2025 (Resolution No. 71,902 N.S.)
DEPARTMENT HEAD AFFIRMATION AND APPROVAL
I affirm I have reviewed the contents of this Compendium and approve its presentation to City Council for public hearing, review and approval.
__________________ ____07/07/26_____
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police Date
Ch. Pg. Title
CHAPTER 3 - FEDERAL AGENCIES
3 12 Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) 3 13 United States Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force 4 1 Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing & Coordination (CALICO) 4 2 Critical Reach Public Safety Communication System
4 3 A Safe Place
4 5 Bay Area Women Against Rape
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT
MOU COMPENDIUM: AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
2026
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
| EXISTING ITEMS ARE BLACK | REVISED ITEMS ARE BLUE |
| NEW ITEMS ARE RED | REMOVED ITEMS ARE GREEN |
CHAPTER 1 - LOCAL AGENCIES
1 1 Alameda County, Safe House Sobering Center (sponsored private program) 1 2 San Francisco Police Department
1 4 Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Victim/Witness Assistance Division 1 7 Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department
1 8 Berkeley Unified School District
1 9 East Bay Regional Parks Police Department
1 11 Union Pacific Railroad Police Department
1 12 University of California Berkeley Police Department 1 15 San Jose Police Department, Silicon Valley, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force 1 21 Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency
CHAPTER 2 - STATE AGENCIES
2 7 California Department of Justice, Cal-Photo
2 9 California Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) 2 11 California Highway Patrol
2 16 California Sex and Arson Registry
CHAPTER 4 - PRIVATE AGENCIES
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 1.1
Title: LOCAL: ALAMEDA COUNTY, CHERRY HILL DETOXIFICATION SERVICES PROGRAM (sponsored private program)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: April 20, 2010 / Latest: June 24, 2025 Summary:
Cherry Hill Detoxification Services Program (hereafter “Program”) is operated on behalf of Alameda County by Horizon Treatment Services. Its mission is to provide opportunities for consenting eligible adults exhibiting acute physiological effects of alcohol and/or drug intoxication to regain sobriety in a safe, supervised environment. The Police Department agrees to support the Program’s operational mission and participate as a referring law enforcement agency.
Rationale:
The supervised sobering services offered by the Program provide consenting intoxicated persons a reasonable alternative to incarceration, and an avenue toward detoxification and
improvement in their health and quality of life. Referrals to the Program may have a positive effect upon other social services, health care facilities, communities, and families adversely impacted directly or indirectly by chronic intoxicant abuse. Maintaining an operational agreement with the Program promotes consistent participation in their Program and may serve as a viable alternative to incarceration.
Cost:
If Approved: Specific costs for incident investigation and criminal case preparation cannot be exactly calculated. Non-criminal disposition may reduce costs associated with investigation and prosecution.
If Not Approved: Fiscally neutral. Staff will continue to investigate incidents, direct offenders to the criminal justice system, and participate in court case preparation.
Recommendation: Approval
Police Department
2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.5700 TDD: 510.981.5799 Fax: 510.981.5704 E-mail: [email protected]
Cherry Hill
Horizon Treatment Services
2035 Fairmont Dr.
San Leandro, CA 94578
Subject: MUTUAL OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Anthony Bass, Program Manager:
This Operational Agreement stands as evidence that the involved Parties, the City of Berkeley Police Department (hereafter "Department'') and Cherry Hill Detoxification Services Program (hereafter "Program") intend to work together toward the mutual goal of providing opportunities for consenting eligible adults exhibiting acute physiological effects of alcohol and/or drug intoxication (hereafter "Clients") to regain sobriety in a safe, supervised environment.
Both Parties to this Agreement believe that the supervised sobering services offered by the Program provide Clients a reasonable alternative to incarceration and criminal prosecution, and an avenue toward detoxification and improvement in their health and quality of life. The Parties also acknowledge referral of Clients to the Program may have a positive effect upon social services, health care-facilities, communities, and families adversely impacted directly or indirectly by chronic intoxicant abuse.
To this end, the Department agrees to support the Program’s operational mission and participate as a referring law enforcement agency. Within written operational guidelines established and agreed to by both Parties:
1) Department employees will refer Clients to the Program as an authorized alterative to their investigation and incarceration for criminal public intoxication (e.g., CA Penal Code §647(f)). Department employees may also cite and release Clients for Penal Code §647(f) while simultaneously referring them to the Center.
2) The Department will be responsible for the Client's care and safety until the conclusion of the Program’s intake process and Iawful release from custodial detention.
3) The Program will evaluate eligibility of Clients referred to their facility by Department employees during the intake process and receive those deemed acceptable.
a. Should the Program determine a Client is not acceptable for entry to the Program due to medical reasons, the Program will accept responsibility for the Client and be responsible for coordinating necessary immediate medical care.
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 1.2
Title: LOCAL: SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT (SFPD)
Type: Memorandum of Understanding
Approvals: Initial: January 20, 2026
Summary:
The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is responsible for the investigation of criminal incidents in the city and county of San Francisco. SFPD requested assistance with securing the event surrounding and supporting the weeklong events associated with the National Football League’s Super Bowl LX. The influx of people and enhanced security needs at multiple venues necessitated a larger law enforcement response than SFPD could staff.
Specifically, they required the assistance of allied agencies who have specially trained and certified EOD/bomb technicians.
This assistance was requested from January 31, 2026 through February 8, 2026.
Rationale:
Entering into this written agreement supported the law enforcement mission and promotion of public safety in our area for a high security event.
Cost:
If Approved: Costs for this event were only for staff time. This MOU was entered into in a similar fashion to that of mutual aid, however since the event was preplanned it did not fit the requirements of such a request. SFPD provided lodging, sustenance, and fuel for vehicles deployed. Deployed staff are a highly trained scarce resource who are used as a regional asset when needed and available.
If Not Approved: Fiscally neutral.
Recommendation: Approval
APPROVED BY:
BY: � (Jan 20, 2026 09:07:59 PST)
Jennifer Louis
Chief of Police
Berkeley Police Department
BY: ______ _
Derrick Lew
Chief of Police
San Francisco Police Department
Berkeley PD/SFPD
Jan 20, 2026
Date: ________ _
Date: _________ _
4
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 1.4
Title: LOCAL: ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
VICTIM / WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: 2015 / Latest: August 11, 2025
Summary:
The Alameda County District Attorney's Office's Victim/Witness Assistance Division provides services to victims of crime and their families. The Police Department affirms its statutory responsibilities regarding provision of Victim Assistance information (ref. Government Code §13968(c)), commitment to victim referral, and facilitation of in- service training programs sponsored by the District Attorney’s Office.
Rationale:
Cooperation with the District Attorney's Office's Victim / Witness Assistance Division promotes the successful prosecution of offenders and effective recovery for victims and their families.
Cost:
If Approved: Costs would be neutral. Maintenance of victim assistance referral services with the Police Department are managed within its existing budget.
If Not Approved: Cannot estimate cost of/or liability associated with non-compliance with statutory requirements regarding provision of victim assistance.
Recommendation: Continued approval
René C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA. 94612 Phone: (510) 272-6222 [email protected]
Ursula Jones Dickson
District Attorney
da.alamedacountyca.gov
Operational Agreement
This Operational Agreement (OA) is entered into by the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (“ACDAO”) and Berkeley Police Department (BPD). This operational agreement (OA) stands as evidence that the Berkeley Police Department will work collaboratively with the Victim/Witness Assistance Division (VWD) and/or Family Justice Center (ACFJC), in support of grant-funded victim assistance programs administered by the ACDAO. To this end, the ACDAO and the Berkeley Police Department will, when appropriate, provide referrals to victims of crime who are in need of services provided by each agency, to assist crime victims, families, and individuals impacted by multiple forms of victimization, including but not limited to, domestic violence, stalking/harassment, sexual assault, elder abuse, human trafficking (labor and sex), mass violence, and homicide.
Roles and Responsibilities. In adherence with compliance and programmatic requirements of both current and forthcoming versions of grant-funded victim assistance programs, administered by the ACDAO. This collaboration encompasses, but is not limited to, the following:
• Victim Witness Assistance Program (VW)
• Unserved/Underserved Victim Advocacy and Outreach Program (UV) • Human Trafficking Advocacy Program (HA)
• Family Justice Centers Program (FJ)
Berkeley Police Department will provide victims of crime who are injured and their family members with information regarding State Compensation assistance and refer them to the ACDAO for assistance in filing a California Victim Compensation Board (CalVCB) application.
Berkeley Police Department will provide the information necessary to complete and verify CalVCB applications for State Compensation assistance, when requested by staff of the ACDAO Claims Unit (13962 Government Code).
The ACDAO will provide appropriate comprehensive services as mandated by law, including, but not limited to: crisis intervention, emergency assistance, resource and referral counseling, assistance in filing for State Compensation, property return, orientation to the criminal justice system, court support, case status and disposition, and restitution assistance (13835.5 Penal Code).
The ACDAO will, by agreement with the Alameda County DA’s Chief of Inspectors, deploy if requested by Alameda County OHSES in an event of a mass victimization incident.
Non-fiscal Resource Sharing. The ACDAO will provide information, presentations, and training to members of the Berkeley Police Department upon request of the BPD staff.
René C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA. 94612 Phone: (510) 272-6222 [email protected]
Primary Contacts. The following individuals will serve as the ACDAO’s primary liaisons for all related communication and coordination efforts and services, pursuant to this Operational Agreement.
Victim/Witness Assistance Division:
Kelli Sage, Co-Director Jenifer Mello, Co-Director
(510-) 272-6180 (510) 272-6180
Family Justice Center:
Karla Elias Flores, Executive Director
(510) 267-8800
Term. This Operational Agreement shall remain in effect through September 30, 2030.
Signatures. We, the undersigned, as authorized representatives of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office and the Berkeley Police Department, do hereby approve this agreement.
Subrecipient and Implementing
Agency:
Alameda County District Attorney’s Office
______________________
Ursula Jones Dickson
District Attorney, County of Alameda
Participating Agency: Berkeley Police Department
______________________
Jennifer Louis
Chief of Police, City of Berkeley
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 1.7
Title: LOCAL: BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART) POLICE DEPARTMENT Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: March 12, 1974 / Latest: July 24, 2025 Summary:
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police Department is responsible for the investigation of criminal incidents occurring at BART owned or leased properties within Berkeley (e.g., BART stations, parking lots, subterranean rail system, lease commercial spaces). As BART PD generally does not engage in enforcement action in areas outside of BART jurisdiction, Berkeley Police Department personnel generally refrain from law enforcement activity on BART properties.
In an emergency or critical incident, BPD may submit, or participate in response to, a formal request for assistance pursuant to formal Mutual Aid protocols.
Rationale:
A single written agreement improves the Police Department's ability to function efficiently and effectively in the provision of law enforcement services.
Cost: Cost factor is neutral; as there is no extraordinary fiscal commitment.
Recommendation: Continued approval
1 OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT
Between
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT and BART POLICE DEPARTMENT
PURPOSE
This Operational Agreement codifies a cooperative professional association between Berkeley Police Department (BPD) and Bay Area Rapid Transit Police Department (BART PD). The purpose of this association is to promote public safety and the interests of law enforcement in areas of common jurisdiction and collaborative activity.
To this end, each agency agrees to abide by the jurisdictional protocols and op·erational procedures described hereafter.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Pursuant to Penal Code §830.1 and Penal Code §830.33(a), police officers of both agencies shall have the authority to exercise peace officer powers at all times within the political subdivisions each represents.
OPERATIONAL JURISDICTION
BART maintains transit stations, rail and related support systems, and commercial business space in the City of Berkeley. For transit station and commercial space location information, refer to Appendix-A attached to this Operational Agreement.
Rail tracks associated with the BART transit system are primarily subterranean, descending from above ground rail structures in the area of Martin Luther King Jr. Way and 63rd Street near the Oakland-Berkeley border, and Peralta Street just north of Hopkins Street in north central Berkeley. Above ground rail structures lead southward and northward, respectively, from these areas. Ashby and North Berkeley Stations both have ground-level parking lots for use by BART patrons.
While BPD and BART PD share jurisdictional authority within each other's political subdivisions within the City of Berkeley, BART PD will have primary responsibility for all police operations and investigations upon and within the BART stations, trains, structures, parking lots and BART right of way, including elevated, subterranean, and at grade track way.
BPD will have primary responsibility for law enforcement activity in or on the areas below elevated tracks, areas immediately outside of BART properties (whether fenced or open), and public sidewalks, streets, and all other areas over or immediately surrounding BART stations, parking lots, subterranean tracks and properties within the City of Berkeley.
2 BPD officers should not engage in routine patrol of BART stations or parking facilities.
BPD will provide support services to BART PD, whether based on an on-view event or upon request for assistance for incidents occurring on BART property within Berkeley.
BPD involvement may include, but will not necessarily be limited to, the apprehension and detention of suspects, stabilization of an incident scene pending the arrival of BART PD personnel, or assistance with preliminary investigative activities (e.g., area checks, taking witness statements, etc.).
BART PD officers should not engage in routine patrol in areas where BPD has primary jurisdiction. BART PD will provide support services to BPD, whether based on an on- view event or upon request for assistance for incidents occurring within BPD's jurisdiction. BART PD involvement may include, but will not necessarily be limited to, the apprehension and detention of suspects, stabilization of an incident scene pending the arrival of BPD personnel, or assistance with preliminary investigative activities (e.g., area checks, taking witness statements, etc.).
The operational protocols within this agreement do not preclude the provision of assistance or sharing of information accomplished in the course of common law enforcement activity, and in accordance with professional courtesy.
An operational conflict which cannot be resolved by on-scene personnel will be presented via the Chain of Command to the attention of each department head. The Chiefs of Police will be responsible for the cooperative review of the issue and for providing direction to their respective subordinates to avoid future conflict.
In the event of a major incident within a BART station, rail tubes, or properties which results in the activation of BART's Emergency Plan, BPD agrees to cooperate and render requested assistance in accordance with that plan.
INCIDENT COMMAND AND CONTROL
When operating jointly, the ranking officer whose Department has operational jurisdiction will have command and control responsibility. This standard operational protocol may be modified or suspended by mutual agreement if doing so is in the interest of public safety or law enforcement effectiveness.
When a formal Incident Command Structure has been established, both agencies agree to participate in the incident response in accordance with standard SEMS/NIMS protocols.
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE
When requested by BPD for a bona fide public safety or law enforcement purpose, BART PD Communications Center staff will facilitate control of BART train activity (i.e., communicating requests to the Operations Control Center for trains to hold, stop or be held outside of stations). BPD agrees to advise BART PD Communications Center anytime BPD personnel require entry to the BART track way. After notification to BART
3 PD, BPD personnel should wait for a confirmation that train movement has been stopped prior to entering the track way or any other restricted area.
When requested by BART PD, BPD Communications Center staff will dispatch a Berkeley Fire Department ambulance. The facilitation of ambulance services shall be in accordance with the provisions of relevant BPD policy.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
Each agency will be primarily responsible for statistical accounting and statutory reporting of criminal offenses occurring in their respective jurisdiction. Each agency will, upon request, provide the other with relevant information (i.e., "out-aid" reports, arrests, etc.) to facilitate accurate and comprehensive administrative tracking.
AUTHORIZATION OF AGREEMENT
We, the undersigned, as authorized representatives of our respective agencies, do hereby approve this document on the date(s) indicated.
___________________________ ________
Jennifer Louis Date
Chief of Police
Berkeley Police Department
___________________________ ________
Kevin Franklin Date
Chief of Police
BART Police Department
cc: Original #1, Berkeley Police Department
Original #2, BART Police Department
4 APPENDIX-A
OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT
between
BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT and BART POLICE DEPARTMENT
The following are locations within the City of Berkeley owned or leased by BART wherein BART PD exercises primary law enforcement jurisdiction:
BART STATIONS
Ashby Station:
Berkeley Station:
North Berkeley Station:
OTHER FACILITIES:
Located below the 3000-3100 blocks of Adeline Street.
Located below the 2100-2200 blocks of Shattuck Avenue.
Located beneath northwest of Delaware & Sacramento Sts.
Ventilation Structure: North side of 2000 block of Hearst Avenue, mid-block between Bonita Avenue and Milvia Street.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPENDIX-A
We, the undersigned, as authorized representatives of our respective agencies, do hereby approve this document on the date(s) indicated.
___________________________ ________
Jennifer Louis Date
Chief of Police
Berkeley Police Department
___________________________ ________
Kevin Franklin Date
Chief of Police
BART Police Department
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 1.9
Title: LOCAL: EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT POLICE
DEPARTMENT (EBRPD PD)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Latest: December 1, 2010 Summary:
EBRPD PD is responsible for the investigation of incidents occurring on properties in Berkeley that are owned or contractually obligated to the East Bay Regional Parks District. EBRPD PD generally does not engage in enforcement action in areas outside its primary jurisdiction.
Similarly, Berkeley Police Department personnel generally refrain from law enforcement activity on EBRPD PD properties.
In an emergency or critical incident, the Police Department may submit, or participate in response to, a formal request for assistance pursuant to formal Mutual Aid protocols.
Rationale:
Written agreements support the law enforcement mission and promotion of public safety. They ensure the Police Department's ability to function efficiently and effectively in the provision of law enforcement services in areas of concurrent jurisdiction.
Cost: Cost factor is neutral. Activities funded in existing Police Department budget.
Recommendation: Continued approval
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 1.12
Title: LOCAL: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
POLICE DEPARTMENT (UCBPD)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: March 12, 1974 / Current: November 9, 2024 Summary:
UCBPD is responsible for investigation of incidents occurring at University- owned or leased properties in Berkeley. UCBPD may engage in enforcement activity withing one mile of campus or in/around the aforementioned properties (ref. Education Code § 23501). Police Department personnel generally refrain from law enforcement activity on UCBPD properties.
In an emergency or critical incident, the Police Department may submit, or participate in response to, a formal request for assistance pursuant to formal Mutual Aid protocols.
Rationale:
Developing and maintaining a single written agreement supports the law enforcement mission and promotion of public safety, as well as ensures compliance with statutory written agreement requirements. It improved the Police Department’s ability to function efficiently and effectively in the provision of law enforcement services in areas of concurrent jurisdiction.
Cost: Cost factor is neutral. No extraordinary fiscal commitment.
Recommendation: Continued Approval
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 1.15
Title:
LOCAL: SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SILICON VALLEY
INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 18, 2012 / Latest: May 27, 2026 Summary:
The Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (SVICAC) is committed to the protection of children from the sexually-oriented dangers posed by the internet. In an effort to create a networking group focused on internet crimes against children and to work in concert with the community of law enforcement agencies.
Rationale:
The Berkeley Police Department is committed to the investigation and prosecution of internet crimes against children and related offenses.
Cooperation with regional groups promotes successful prosecution through resource and information sharing.
Due to the nature of these crimes, they are often decentralized, and require specialized contacts, and investigators experienced in computer crimes to successfully resolve. Building the Police Department's expertise and network may lead to long-term reduction of these crimes.
Cost:
If Approved: Costs would be neutral. Participation in this task force does not require a full-time assignment to the task force therefore services with the Police Department are managed within its existing budget.
If Not Approved: Loss of resources, expertise, and potentially lower closure rate for internet crimes against children.
Recommendation: Continued approval
Updated 02.21.2023_1434N
Name/Title
Agency ORI
Mailing Address
Office Phone I Fax
Email
SILICON VALLEY INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHI LDREN TASK
FORCE AGENCY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
201 WestMission Street, SanJose, California 95110
I recognize the ___________________________________________________is within the geographic area served bythe Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against ChildrenTask Force (SVICAC), and therefore eligible to participate in the National Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force inalliance with the SVICAC. The SVICAC is coordinated by theCity of San José Police Department's Special Victims Unit (SVU) and partially funded by theDepartment of Justice. This TaskForce is committed to the protection ofchildren from the sexually-oriented dangers posed by the internet.
In aneffort to create anetworking group focused on internet crimes againstchildren andto work in concert with the communityof law enforcement agencies comprising SVICACarid the National ICAC Task Forcewith regard to these specialized investigations, this agency will:
Adopt and complywith the National ICAC Operation Guidelineand subsequent revisions, understanding these guidelines do not supersedemy department policy; Participate in trainingof our agency'stask force members as resources allow; Appoint one personto serveas the agency primarycontact for ICAC-related matters; Appoint at least one person to supervise ICAC investigations; Acknowledge that SVICAC is not obligatedto assume any financial responsibility for this agency or participation in the TaskForce;
Hold harmless the SiliconValley ICAC Task Force and the City of San José, its employees and officialsfrom any claim, suit, ordemand in any proceeding brought byothers based on theconduct of any empl oyee of our agency;
To notify inwriting the Task Force Coordinator upon withdrawal from ora change in personnel assigned;
This Participation Agreementshall be effective on the date of theapplication and may be cancelled by either party uponwritten notification.
Having read theoperational guidelines of ICAC, I request andagree to affiliation with the Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children TaskForce.
Signature_____________________________________ Date____________________ Affiliated Agency Head
Affiliated Agency Contact Information
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 1.21
Title: LOCAL: ALAMEDA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES AGENCY
Type: Memorandum of Understanding
Approvals: Initial: July 9, 2024 / Latest: No Change
Summary:
Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMS) has agreed to provide Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) to BPD to enhance readiness and response capabilities when a community member experiences cardiac arrest.
This is a pilot program to assess whether police response increases pre-hospital cardiac arrest survival.
Rationale:
The Berkeley Police Department and the EMS recognize the critical importance of AEDs in saving lives during cardiac emergencies.
The deployment of AEDs by BPD may significantly improve outcomes in cardiac arrest incidents.
Cost:
If Approved: Specific costs for these devices and maintenance are not incurred by the department. Potentially life saving emergency medical equipment may arrive to cardiac emergencies faster than it would without these AEDs being deployed.
If Not Approved: Fiscally neutral. There are no costs associated with this agreement.
Recommendation: Approval
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Between: City of Berkeley, on behalf of its
Berkeley Police Department, 2100 Martin Luther
King Jr. Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704 , hereinafter,
Law Enforcement Agency or Berkeley Police
Department
And: County of Alameda on behalf of its Alameda
County Emergency Medical Services Agency,
1000 San Leandro Blvd., Suite 200, San Leandro,
CA, 94577, hereinafter EMS
Subject: Memorandum of Understanding for the Usage of Avive AEDs Date: 7/4/2024
1. Purpose: This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes the terms and conditions between the Berkeley Police Department and Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMS) governing the usage of Avive Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) to enhance readiness and response capabilities when a community member experiences cardiac arrest.
This is a pilot program to assess whether police response increases pre-hospital cardiac arrest survival.
2. Background: The Berkeley Police Department and the EMS recognize the critical importance of AEDs in saving lives during cardiac emergencies. Avive AEDs offer advanced technology and features that can significantly improve outcomes in cardiac arrest incidents.
3. Terms and Conditions:
Equipment: Each Avive AED will be issued with a protective case and one set of pads.
Deployment and Maintenance: EMS shall provide Avive AEDs to the Berkeley Police Department. The Berkeley Police Departement shall deploy Avive AEDs at strategic locations determined jointly by the Berkeley Police Department and the EMS, considering high-traffic areas, events, and emergency response needs.
EMS shall be responsible for scheduling the regular maintenance, inspection, and replacement of Avive AEDs or pads as needed. The Berkeley Police Department shall cooperate with EMS regarding the scheduling of such regular maintenance, inspection, and replacement of Avive AEDs or pads. The Berkeley Police Department should promptly notify EMS in the event of damage, loss, or loss of function of any Avive AED or the need for replacement pads.
The Avive AEDs will remain the property of EMS, and Berkeley Police Department shall return the Avive AEDs to the EMS within thirty (30) days of the termination or expiration of this MOU. The Berkeley Police Department is not required to reimburse EMS in the event of accidental damage during the course of use or malfunction of an Avive AED due to a manufacturing issue.
The Berkeley Police Department shall store the Avive AEDs in their protective cases at all times when they are not in use to prevent excessive wear and tear. The Avive AEDs shall also be kept inside of a locked location to reduce the chance of theft. The Berkeley Police Department shall reimburse EMS in the event of misplacement or theft of an Avive AED unit; damage incurred outside of the intended use of the of an Avive AED unit; or loss of function that is not due to a manufacturing issue.
Training: EMS will work with Avive to ensure that Berkeley Police Department officers receive proper training in the operation and use of Avive AEDs, in accordance with guidelines established by the EMS.
The Berkeley Police Department shall only permit officers who have received proper training to use and operate the Avive AEDs.
Notification: In the event of a cardiac emergency, Berkeley Police Officers are encouraged to respond.
Notification of a cardiac emergency will be made through each law enforcement agency’s respective dispatch center.
Data Sharing: Subject to applicable laws and regulations, both parties agree to share relevant data and incident reports regarding the usage of Avive AEDs for evaluation and improvement purposes.
Indemnification: The Berkeley Police Department acknowledges that the County of Alameda, including without limitations EMS, is not a dealer in or manufacturer of AEDs and that the County of Alameda makes no warranty as to the fitness of any or all equipment provided under this MOU and makes no guarantee that any or all equipment is free of manufacturer defects or latent, hidden, or obvious defects.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Berkeley Police Department shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the County of Alameda, its Board of Supervisors, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from or under this MOU, provided that any such claim, loss, damage, liability or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, death or to injury to or destruction of property, including the loss therefrom, or to any violation of federal, state or municipal law or regulation, which arises out of or is any way connected with the performance of this MOU (collectively “Liabilities”) except where such Liabilities are caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of any indemnitee. The County of Alameda may participate in the defense of any such claim without relieving the Berkeley Police Department of any obligation hereunder. The obligations of this indemnity shall be for the full amount of all damage to County of Alameda, including defense costs, and shall not be limited by any insurance limits.
Term: This MOU shall commence on the date of signing and remain in effect for a period of June 30, 2028, subject to renewal by mutual written agreement of authorized representatives of both parties.
Termination: Either party may terminate this MOU with thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. Upon termination, all equipment will be returned to the EMS Agency within thirty (30) days.
Entire Agreement: This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the usage of Avive AEDs and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, relating to the same subject matter.
[Signature page to follow]
4. Signatures: This MOU shall be effective upon the signatures of authorized representatives from both parties.
For the City of Berkeley on behalf of its Berkeley Police Department:
Signature: _______________________ Name: Chief Jennifer Louis Title: Police Chief Date: _________
For the County of Alameda on behalf of its Alameda County EMS Agency:
Signature: _______________________ Name: Lauri McFadden Title: EMS Director Date: ___________
By signing above, the signatory warrants and represents that signatory executed this MOU in signatory's authorized capacity and that by signatory's signature on this MOU, signatory or the entity upon behalf of which signatory acted, executed this MOU.
Approved as to form:
Donna R. Ziegler, County Counsel
By:___________________________
K. Joon Oh, Deputy County Counsel
7/9/2024
7/9/2024
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 2.7
Title:
STATE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CAL PHOTO PROGRAM
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Current: March 8, 2024 Summary:
The CA Department of Justice (CADoJ) is responsible for the enforcement of State law and management of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI). Pursuant to common professional courtesy, the Police Department may assist, extend cooperation to, and share information with the CADoJ in the interest of criminal justice and public safety.
Via the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), CADoJ's Cal-Photo Program provides law enforcement CORI-classified driver license and image data obtained by the Department of Motor Vehicles. As such, Police Department agrees to conform to all laws, regulations, policies and audits associated with access to Cal-Photo Program CORI.
Rationale:
Police Department cooperation and information exchange with this State agency promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.
Maintenance of efficient access to CORI is valuable in crime prevention and essential for the successful investigation and prosecution of criminal acts.
Cost:
If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activities, funded in existing budget.
If Not Approved: Increased cost cannot be calculated. Staff time and resources for investigation will increase. The reduced access to CORI will hinder investigation, obstruct offender identification, and reduce the incidents of successful prosecution.
Recommendation: Approval
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 2.9
Title:
STATE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM (CLETS)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Current: June 23, 2025 Summary:
The CA Department of Justice (CADoJ) is responsible for the enforcement of State law and management of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI). Pursuant to common professional courtesy, the Police Department may assist, extend cooperation to, and share information with the CADoJ in the interest of criminal justice and public safety.
CADoJ manages CLETS, which provides access to state and federal CORI databases. In accordance with Government Code § 15164, the Police Department agrees to conform to all laws, regulations, policies, audits, and technological requirements associated with access to CLETS.
Rationale:
Police Department cooperation and information exchange with this State agency promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.
Maintenance of efficient access to CORI is valuable in crime prevention and essential for the successful investigation and prosecution of criminal acts.
Cost:
If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activities, funded in existing budget.
If Not Approved: Increased cost cannot be calculated. Staff time and resources for investigation will increase. The reduced access to CORI will hinder investigation, obstruct offender identification, and reduce the incidents of successful prosecution.
Recommendation: Approval
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 2.11
Title: STATE: CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (CHP)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Current: March 17, 2025 Summary:
The California Highway Patrol has responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of the Vehicle Code, investigation of traffic accidents on all freeways, investigation of incidents at state owned/leased properties, investigation involving student-occupied school buses, and mitigation of activities affecting safety upon Interstate 80.
In an emergency or critical incident, the Police Department may submit, or participate in response to, a formal request for assistance pursuant to formal Mutual Aid protocols.
Rationale:
Police Department cooperation and information exchange with this State agency promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.
Maintenance of effective relationships supports crime prevention and is essential for successful investigation and prosecution of criminal acts.
Cost:
If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activities, funded in the existing budget.
If Not Approved: Increased cost cannot be calculated. Staff time and resources for investigation will increase.
Recommendation: Approval
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 2.16
Title:
STATE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA SEX AND ARSON REGISTRY (CSAR)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: October 28, 2014 / Current: March 27, 2024 Summary:
The CA Department of Justice (CADoJ) is responsible for the enforcement of State law and management of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI). Pursuant to common professional courtesy, the Police Department may assist, extend cooperation to, and share information with the CADoJ in the interest of criminal justice and public safety.
CSAR provides law enforcement CORI-classified sex and arson registry information. As such, the Police Department agrees to conform to all laws, regulations, policies and audits associated with access to CSAR.
Rationale:
Police Department cooperation and information exchange with this State agency promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.
Maintenance of efficient access to CORI is valuable in crime prevention and essential for the successful investigation and prosecution of criminal acts.
Cost:
If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activities, funded in existing budget.
If Not Approved: Increased cost cannot be calculated. Staff time and resources for investigation will increase. The reduced access to CORI will hinder investigation, obstruct offender identification, and reduce the incidents of successful prosecution.
Recommendation: Approval
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 3.12
Title: FEDERAL: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER (NCRIC)
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: February 19, 2019 / Current: August 7, 2024 Summary:
Berkeley Police Department General Order N-17 previously governed the relationship between the Berkeley Police Department and NCRIC. In 2019, NCRIC and BPD entered into a more formalized written MOU agreement.
NCRIC facilitates the legal sharing of terrorism and criminal-oriented information. In this effort, NCRIC produces/disseminates intelligence, conducts training, and provides investigative and analytical case support to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. NCRIC strives to ensure the protection of privacy and civil liberties of citizens in its assistance to local, state and federal agencies with their mission of protecting the communities they serve from the threats and dangers of terrorist, gang, narcotics and organized criminal activities. Local Threat Liaison Officers (TLOs) facilitate information sharing and investigative collaboration.
The Police Department has a comprehensive policy regarding the provision of a Suspicious Activity Report to NCRIC, including several steps of review, and the reporting to City Council, in redacted form, of all SARs submitted to NCRIC.
The Police Department may receive and share confidential or law enforcement sensitive public safety-oriented information with NCRIC to facilitate criminal investigation or to promote the safety of the community and/or law enforcement. The Police Department has designated sworn employees to act as TLO's in addition to their normal assigned duties, as described within BPD Suspicious Activity Reporting Policy, #432.
Rationale:
Police Department interaction with NCRIC, previously governed by General Order N- 17, will now be governed by the NCRIC MOU. Interaction between NCRIC and BPD promotes public safety and serves the law enforcement mission.
Transparency of Suspicious Activity Reporting to NCRIC is accomplished through reporting redacted SARs to City Council.
Cost:
If Approved: Cost will be neutral. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activity, funded in existing budget.
If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated. Absence of or reduced interaction would inhibit investigations and impact successful prosecution. Public and employee safety would be adversely affected. Increased local enforcement responsibility would increase local costs.
Recommendation: Continued Approval
2024 Agreement
2024 Agreement
2024 Agreement
2024 Agreement
2024 Agreement
2024 Agreement
2024 Agreement
2024 Agreement
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 3.13
Title:
FEDERAL: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (USMS)
FUGITIVE TASK FORCE
Type: Written Agreement
Approvals: Initial: August 14, 2024 / Latest: No Change Summary:
The United States Marshals Service directs and coordinates a regional fugitive task force consisting of federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The mission of the task force is to investigate and arrest persons who have active warrants for their arrest. The Police Department will work with them to target crimes that primarily include violent crimes against persons, weapons offenses, felony drug offenses, failure to register as a sex offender, and crimes conducted by subjects who have a criminal history involving violent crimes, felony drug offenses and/or weapons offenses.
Cases that the Police Department seeks assistance on must be submitted to the task force and accepted at the discretion of the task force Chief Inspector/Chief Deputy.
Civil immigration enforcement is not a part of the mission of the task force.
Rationale:
As part of the Fugitive Task Force the Police Department gains valuable resources to apprehend violent fugitives. Involvement in this task force brings additional personnel and resources to locate and arrest persons with active felony warrants.
Cost:
If Approved: Cost will be neutral and may consist of overtime reimbursement.
Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activity, funded in the existing budget.
If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated. Absence of or reduced interaction would inhibit investigations and impact successful prosecution. Public and employee safety would be adversely affected. Increased local enforcement responsibility would increase local costs.
Recommendation: Approval
Sean LoPiccolo
8/15/24
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 4.1
Title: PRIVATE: CHILD ABUSE LISTENING, INTERVIEWING &
COORDINATION (CALICO)
Type: Written agreement
Approvals: Initial: April 20, 2010 / Current: November 12, 2024 Summary:
CALICO is a private organization that provides legal, medical, and therapeutic services to children and developmentally-delayed adults in Alameda County who are victims or witnesses of abuse and neglect.
CALICO provides similar services to effected families.
The Police Department and CALICO commit to a partnership toward mutually valued goals: facilitating a multidisciplinary team response to child abuse; accomplish forensic interviews with trained Child Interview Specialists in a safe, neutral, child-friendly environment; and, share relevant information as permitted by law.
Rationale:
Partnerships between the Police Department and public safety focused organizations like CALICO enhance the effectiveness of juvenile criminal investigation, promote prevention of child abuse and neglect, and facilitate supportive provision of services to juvenile victims and their families.
Cost:
If Approved: $5,400.00 donation (annual). While there is no contractual or statutory obligation to remit funds to CALICO for services rendered, the Police Department, on behalf of the City, has for many years responded to an annual request for donation to support CALICO operations. Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activity, funded in existing budget.
If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated. Absence of or reduced interaction would inhibit investigations and impact successful prosecution. Public safety would be adversely affected. Increased local enforcement responsibility would increase local costs.
Recommendation: Continued approval
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 4.2
Title: PRIVATE: CRITICAL REACH
Type: Terms of Use Agreement
Approvals: Initial: September 19, 2006 / Current: May, 2025 Summary:
Critical Reach is a private company that provides an Internet based communication system designed to facilitate effective communication between law enforcement agencies and other subscribing entities (i.e., news media).
The Police Department employs the Critical Reach system to disseminate important crime oriented information and public notifications, historically referred to as "Be-On-The-Lookout" announcements and "All Points Bulletins". The intent and value of Critical Reach communications is the rapid location of missing persons, recovery of stolen property, the furtherance of criminal investigations, and enhancement of public safety.
Rationale:
Rapid communication is a crucial component of providing effective public safety services. The absence of practical communication mechanisms provides opportunity for criminal offenders to evade justice. Partnerships between the Police Department and public safety-focused organizations like Critical Reach enhance the effectiveness of criminal investigation and promote public safety.
Cost:
If Approved: Software licensing for up to six computers and system maintenance by Critical Reach costs the Police Department $1350 per year; the Police Department maintains two computers for Critical Reach.
The City provides all computer hardware components. As needed, equipment replacement costs would be based on the component required (est. $30- $1000). Approval will continue to support current law enforcement activity, funded in existing budget.
If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated. Absence of this communication service would inhibit investigation and adversely affect public safety. Increased local enforcement responsibility woul d increase local costs.
Recommendation: Continued approval
25 Latham Ct.
Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
APBnet Terms of Use Agreement
APBnet Terms of Use Agreement
This Terms of Use agreement (“Agreement”) is a legal agreement between you and Critical Reach, Inc. (“us,” “we,” “our”) for the use of the APBnet law enforcement alert system. This Agreement governs access to and use of APBnet.
By using APBnet, you agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement and affirm that you have the authority to bind yourself and your employer to the Agreement. If you do not agree to the terms of this Agreement, you are not permitted to use APBnet.
Deployment of APBnet
You are entitled to unlimited deployment of APBnet (no limit on how many user numbers may be installed), unlimited use of APBnet, and unlimited support of APBnet users. The only cost for APBnet is an annual support fee paid to Critical Reach.
Acceptable Use
You agree to use APBnet only for its intended purpose. The intended purpose of APBnet is to help officers create photo bulletins for investigative and informational purposes and distribute them electronically to other officers, other agencies, and the public when appropriate; further, officers may search the database of previous bulletins based upon the data and images contained in those bulletins. Your officers, during their investigations, may upload data and images to APBnet and that information may be shared with other people and organizations at the bulletin creator’s discretion.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your use of APBnet, including the data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored by APBnet, conforms to all applicable laws and legal requirements. By using APBnet, you warrant that you have proper legal authority and standing to obtain, use, and hold any data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored.
You agree not to misuse APBnet in any way, including, but not limited to, (a) Uploading or otherwise inputting any data that you do not have the legal right, authority, or standing to obtain, hold, and use;
25 Latham Ct.
Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
(b) Sharing access to APBnet, including your username and password, with others; (c) Testing in any way the vulnerability of any component of APBnet;(d) Circumventing any security or authentication measures implemented by APBnet; (d) Interfering with any user, host, or network associated with APBnet; (e) Inputting malware to APBnet; (e) Sending promotions, advertisements, or spam to or from APBnet; (f) Using altered, deceptive, or false source-identifying information; (f) Violating the privacy of others, defaming others or violating the law in any way. Critical Reach reserves the right at its discretion to revoke access to APBnet for any misuse of APBnet.
You may not, without the prior written consent of Critical Reach, conduct, cause, or facilitate the: (a) use, copying, reproduction, modification, rental, lease, sublease, sublicense, public display, public performance, or transfer of APBnet except as expressly provided in this Agreement; (b) creation of any derivative works based on APBnet; (c) reverse engineering, disassembly, or decompiling of APBnet’s underlying computer code or software; (d) use of APBnet in connection with service bureau, facility management, timeshare, service provider, or like activity whereby you operate or use APBnet for the benefit of a third party that has not been licensed by Critical Reach to use APBnet; (e) use of APBnet by any third party under your user account or login for APBnet.
Any data or content that you input into APBnet is owned by you. Critical Reach expressly disclaims any legal liability for the data or content that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored by APBnet.
Privacy Statement
By using APBnet, you consent to the data practices described in this statement. Critical Reach is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content on websites outside of the Critical Reach.org or apbnet.net domains that may link to our pages.
APBnet will store data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into APBnet, and will process such data as needed to perform various functions of APBnet that you choose to use in conjunction with the data that you input. Critical Reach does not claim any right of ownership to any data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored by APBnet; you retain all rights of ownership to such data.
25 Latham Ct.
Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
Critical Reach collects personally identifiable information, such as your email address, name, home or work address or telephone number and general geographic location (e.g., by country or state). Critical Reach also automatically collects usage statistics for various functions offered by APBnet, as well as information about your computer hardware and software, including, but not limited to your IP address, browser type, domain names, access times and durations, and referring website addresses.
Critical Reach uses this information for the operation of APBnet, to maintain the quality of APBnet, and to provide for general statistical analysis regarding use of APBnet.
APBnet secures all data that you upload, submit, or otherwise input into or cause to be stored by APBnet, including your personally identifiable information, from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. When you upload data to APBnet, it is protected in transit through the use of encryption protocols, such as the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) protocol or the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol.
Critical Reach collects and uses your personally identifiable information to operate APBnet and to deliver the functionality to which you have requested access. Critical Reach may also use your personally identifiable information, from time to time, to inform you of other products or services available from or through Critical Reach. Critical Reach may also contact you via surveys to conduct research about your opinion of APBnet or of potential new services that may be offered. In the event that you are contacted for any of the forgoing reasons, you will be offered the opportunity to opt out of future contacts of the same nature.
Critical Reach does not sell, rent, or lease its customer lists, including personally identifiable information, to third parties. Critical Reach will disclose your personal information, without notice, to lawfully authorized recipients, only if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to (a) conform to the edicts of the law or comply with legal process served on Critical Reach, (b) protect and defend the rights or property of Critical Reach, and (c) act under exigent circumstances to protect the personal safety of users of APBnet or of the public.
Critical Reach may share data with trusted partners to help us perform statistical analysis, send you email or postal mail, provide customer support, or arrange for deliveries. All such third parties are
25 Latham Ct.
Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
prohibited from using your personally identifiable information except to provide these services to Critical Reach, and they are required to maintain the confidentiality of your information.
Superseding Provisions
Part or all of this Agreement may be superseded or augmented by one or more additional, legally binding contracts or provisions (collectively, “Provisions”) between the user or the purchasing agency associated with the user and Critical Reach. It is the user‘s responsibility to be aware of any such Provisions and of the terms and limitations specified by such Provisions. Any and all additional Provisions are subject to the terms of this Agreement unless otherwise explicitly specified in the Provisions and, except as otherwise expressly provided in the Provisions, in the event of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the terms of any Provisions, this Agreement shall control.
Limited Warranty
APBNET IS OFFERD AS IS. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, CRITICAL REACH DISCLAIMS
ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NONINFRINGEMENT, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF APBNET.
Critical Reach does not warrant or guarantee that the functions contained in or offered by APBnet will meet the User’s requirements or that the operation of or accessibility to APBnet will be uninterrupted or error free.
Limitations of Remedies and Liability
IN NO EVENT WILL CRITICAL REACH, ITS AFFILIATES, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, SUPPLIERS OR
LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOSS OF USE, DATA, BUSINESS, OR PROFITS, REGARDLESS
OF LEGAL THEORY, EVEN IF CRITICAL REACH HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES, AND EVEN IF A REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY.
25 Latham Ct.
Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
Indemnification
By using APBnet, you agree to hold harmless and indemnify Critical Reach against any and all claims and actions arising or resulting from your use of APBnet, including, without limitation, expenses, judgements, fines, settlements, and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred in connection with any liability, suit, action, loss, or damage arising or resulting from your use of APBnet.
Governing Law
This Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflicts of laws provisions. In the event of a dispute, the user agrees to first negotiate and mediate the dispute. If such efforts are unsuccessful within 90 days of written notice of the dispute, as a last resort, the user agrees to submit exclusively to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts of the State of California, and further agrees that any and all legal actions arising therefrom shall take place in such courts.
Severability
If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired and shall remain in force.
Term/Termination
Critical Reach invoices each organization using APBnet an annual support fee each December for the following calendar year’s use of APBnet. This is the only cost associated with use of APBnet. It is at the organization’s sole discretion to pay this invoice and renew use of APBnet for the following calendar year. If the organization terminates use of APBnet during that subscribed calendar year, they will have continued use of APBnet through that term. The organization will not be entitled to any refund or credit for support fees already paid.
General
25 Latham Ct.
Hillsborough, CA 94010
650.558.8081/www.apbnet.net
This Agreement creates no third-party beneficiary rights. Critical Reach’s failure to enforce any term or condition of this Agreement does not constitute or imply a waiver of its right to do so later, nor does it imply or permit any further waiver of that or any other term or condition. You may not assign any of your rights under this Agreement and any such attempt to do so is void, but Critical Reach may assign its rights under this Agreement to any of its affiliates or subsidiaries, or to any successor in interest of any business associated with APBnet.
Contact Information
Critical Reach welcomes your comments regarding this Agreement. You may contact us at [email protected].
Copyright
APBnet and other accompanying and supporting materials are the copyrighted intellectual property of Critical Reach, and are protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Critical Reach retains ownership of APBnet in all aspects and reserves all rights under copyright.
Notices of alleged copyright infringement should be reported to Critical Reach. We will respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement if they comply with the law and are properly provided to us.
We reserve the right to delete or disable content alleged to be infringing and to terminate access to APBnet by repeat infringers.
Berkeley Police Department MOU Compendium
Item # 4.3
Title: PRIVATE: A SAFE PLACE
Type: Memorandum of Understanding
Approvals: Initial: November 8, 2011 / Current: April 17, 2024 Summary:
A Safe Place provides counseling and shelter placement for victims of domestic violence. They maintain and 24-hour crisis hot-line, as well as crisis counselors who will assist victims in shelter admittance.
Rationale:
The Police Department strives to create positive outcomes for domestic violence survivors by breaking the cycle of violence and helping victims tap into resources outside of their current domestic situation. A Safe Place is the first step towards fostering this independence for victims and forging a secure space for victims to launch into a violence free existence.
The Police Department agrees to use A Safe Place as their single point of contact when attempting to locate emergency placement services for domestic violence victims.
Cost:
If Approved: None.
If Not Approved: Effect on cost cannot be calculated, but the loss of this single-point-of-contact system to our community’s domestic violence victims would be significant.
Recommendation: Continued Approval
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
Police Department Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Agencies, Police Departments or Private Security Organizations
Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on July 7, 2026 the Police Department is requesting a public hearing, and at the conclusion of the hearing, adoption of a Resolution approving agreements, understandings or policies between the Police Department and other local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, military and/or intelligence agencies, police departments and private security organizations, as required by Berkeley Municipal Code 2.04.150, et. seq. The hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. in the Berkeley Unified 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 www.berkeleyca.gov as of June 25, 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 Sgt. Darrin Rafferty at 510-981-4770.
Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or emailed to [email protected] in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6908 or [email protected] for further information.
If you challenge the above 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 City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.
Published: July 3, 2026 – The Berkeley Voice
Berkeley Municipal Code §2.04.170
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 Council Chambers, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well on the City’s website on June 25, 2026.
Berkeley Police Department
1 ATTACHMENT 3
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS – 2025
A Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) is a standardized report used to document behaviors that may indicate criminal or terrorist activity. Berkeley Police submit SARs through the NCRIC, a regional intelligence center where analysts review the information and route it to the appropriate agencies. Reports may also be shared with partner agencies when they are part of a broader trend, series, or serious incident. The goal is to identify early warning signs before a threat escalates, helping law enforcement agencies connect patterns and prevent harm. SAR submissions are governed by Policy 432, which outlines the categories of reportable activity.
02-07-2025 Case: 2025-06082; Category: Suspicious Activity or Trespassing A Berkeley-based group announced a restaurant disruption event in Berkeley on this date. The event was described as a protest at a restaurant that potentially served chicken that was processed by a national food and agriculture company.
02-16-2025 Case: 2025-07486; Category: Potential Hate Activity There was a protest on the University Ave. pedestrian bridge. The group on the pedestrian bridge was a pro-Israel group who were holding signs and flags in support of Israel. Two subjects, wearing masks, confronted the group and started to approach members of the group challenging them to fight. The subjects physically assaulted multiple members of the group. BPD Officers arrested the two subjects for assault.
02-23 to
02-24-2025
Case: 2025-08827; Category: Potential Hate Activity & Vandalism Various parked and unoccupied Tesla vehicles were vandalized with the word “NAZI” painted on them. Some of the victims were of Jewish decent. There are also reports of this in other Bay Area jurisdictions.
Berkeley Police Department
2 ATTACHMENT 3
03-01-2025 Case: 2025-09651; Category: Extremism & Vandalism A demonstration occurred in front of a west Berkeley automobile dealership, as part of weekly protests. During this demonstration, approximately 300 people were present and the group blocked the roadway and other business storefronts. Officers observed approximately 30 individuals who wore masks and dressed in black.
During the demonstration, this group marched with a banner containing markings consistent with the ANTIFA movement, based on markings on the banner. One of the subjects seen marching with the banner later threw paint on the front of the storefront. The suspect was apprehended.
03-01-2025 Case: 2025-09708; Category: Hate Incident & Vandalism A Muslim-owned business was vandalized by an unknown person who wrote offensive words on a window. This was a repeat victimization of the business.
03-22-2025 Case: 2025-13193; Category: Expressed or Implied Threat A demonstration occurred in front of a west Berkeley automobile dealership, as part of weekly protests. During this demonstration, a person rode a bicycle with an amplified sound system and was playing loud music. He later stopped on the street where several people were blocking his path. Officers saw the suspect attempt to use a stun gun and wave it around at people. One woman later told officers the suspect was trying to attack her, and she feared for her safety. The suspect was arrested.
06-27-2025 Case: 2025-28715; Category: Expressed or Implied Threat A person called with threats to conduct a mass shooting at a local hospital. The threats were targeted but deemed not credible. The following day, BPD responded to the hospital for a similar call. The suspect later made a bomb threat against the hospital. The suspect was identified.
Berkeley Police Department
3 ATTACHMENT 3
07-03-2025 Case: 2025-29592; Category: Sabotaging/Tampering/Vandalism & Potential Hate Activity
A large group of subjects wore masks and set off smoke bombs, and vandalized a military recruiting facility and a multinational bank. The vandalism consisted of spray painting of offensive words and phrases and symbology typically associated with the antifascist movement.
Four people were arrested for their involvement in the incident. 08-28-2025 Case: 2025-38369; Category: Expressed or Implied Threat A Berkeley school received an email threat of rape and murder of students. This was determined to be a hoax email.
08-30-2025 Case: 2025-38742; Category: Expressed or Implied Threat A tip was given to BPD about a bomb threat at a residence in south Berkeley. This matter was investigated and determined to be safe at the time.
09-13-2025 Case: 2025-44859; Category: Theft/Loss/Diversion & Sabotage/Tampering/Vandalism
Copper wiring was stolen from a utility pole in northwest Berkeley. The telecommunications technician estimated the loss at approximately $5000. The suspect was not identified.
10-12-2025 Case: 2025-46633; Category: Theft & Potential Hate Activity A subject stole an Israeli flag from the front exterior of central Berkeley residence. The two suspects were not identified.
Berkeley Police Department
1 ATTACHMENT 4
Law Enforcement Mutual Aid (LEMA) Requests Berkeley PD (1/2025 – 12/2025) A mutual aid request is a formal request for outside law enforcement resources when an incident such as a natural disaster or civil unrest exceeds a jurisdiction's capacity.
Berkeley is located in Region II of the Law Enforcement Mutual Aid (LEMA) system, California's statewide framework for coordinating assistance across jurisdictions. The Alameda County Sheriff's Office serves as the Region II coordinator, managing the activation of mutual aid resources within the region. Requests follow an established chain; first drawing from neighboring agencies, then escalating to the regional and state level as needed. LEMA's effectiveness depends on strong partnerships built on a mutual commitment to public safety.
In 2025 there were no formal LEMA requests made by our Region II coordinator and the Berkeley Police did not request any LEMA resources.
ACTION CALENDAR
JULY 7, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin (Author), Councilmember Blackaby, Councilmember Humbert (Co-Sponsors)
Subject: Large Vehicle Parking Regulations in the Public Right-of-Way
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Refer to the City Attorney and City Manager a Review of Amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) 12.98 to ensure the language authorizes the abatement of abandoned vehicles creating public health and safety nuisances in the public right-of-way, clarify the definition of "abandoned" vehicle, and increase the City Manager's discretion in the establishment of abatement timelines.
2. Refer to the City Manager the study of recently adopted legislation across the nine- county Bay Area regarding the management of long-term large vehicle parking in the public right-of-way. Based on this study, staff shall return to the City Council with draft policy and enforcement recommendations that are:
a. Regionally consistent;
b. Aligned with the City of Berkeley’s environmental, housing, and transportation priorities;
c. Reflective of the City’s ability to enhance the impact and scale of its coordinated alternative housing initiatives via participation in a county-wide RV parking program or joining a comparable program maintained in a neighboring jurisdiction; and
d. Operationally feasible given available outreach, enforcement, financial constraints, and site capacity. Including an examination of geographically targeted parking restrictions in high-sensitivity areas such as:
a. Manufacturing and industrial zones designated by an “M” zoning classification; and
b. Environmentally sensitive water resources, including but not limited to open lagoons, riparian corridors, and critical stormwater infrastructure,
3. Request that the City Attorney and City Manager provide clarity and guidance on how the city’s encampment resolution policy intersects with the Berkeley Municipal Code in the absence of shelter availability.
4. Refer to the City Manager the drafting of an ordinance amending BMC Chapter 7.18.010 to authorize City Manager approval of contracts up to $250,000 for the abatement of abandoned, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles pursuant to BMC 12.98.040(A).
POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On February 11, 2026, the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (O’Keefe/Taplin) to send item to Council with a qualified positive recommendation to more clearly articulate guidance on the intersection of the proposed amendments with applicable State law. Vote: All Ayes.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley continues to experience persistent long-term parking and habitation of oversized vehicles—particularly recreational vehicles (RVs)—in commercial, industrial, and residential rights-of-way. While often used as shelter in response to regional housing pressures, these vehicles frequently lack proper waste containment and maintenance, creating recurring public health, safety, and environmental hazards. Their sustained presence in proximity to sensitive infrastructure—such as storm drains, riparian corridors, freight routes, and schools— has revealed critical limitations in the City’s existing regulatory framework, particularly under BMC Chapters 12.98 and 12.96.
Chapter 12.98
Chapter 12.98 is intended to authorize the abatement of abandoned, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles as public nuisances. However, two key structural issues constrain its effectiveness in addressing large vehicles in the public right-of-way:
● Definitional Gap (§12.98.010):
The current definition of “abandoned vehicle” applies only to those located on private property. As written, it excludes vehicles in the public right-of-way—precisely where the most acute nuisances now occur. This omission restricts the City’s ability to proactively classify and abate abandoned vehicles that obstruct emergency access, block industrial loading areas, or degrade environmental corridors. Amending the definition to include vehicles left in the public right-of-way, in alignment with State Vehicle Code provisions, would better reflect urban land use conditions and enforcement needs. ● Procedural Delay (§12.98.040(F)):
California Vehicle Code §§ 22660–22669
BMC Chapter 17.20
BMC Chapter 17.20 prohibits the discharge of non-stormwater waste—including sewage, graywater, trash, and automotive fluids—into the City’s storm drain system, which ultimately flows untreated into San Francisco Bay. Long-term RV encampments often generate such discharges, resulting in violations that directly compromise the integrity of Berkeley’s stormwater infrastructure and ecological assets. Field observations have documented:
● Graywater and blackwater dumped into gutters and curbs; ● Oil and fuel leaks from inoperable vehicles;
● Accumulated trash and biohazardous waste near storm drains and creek edges.
These violations threaten the health of downstream environments such as Aquatic Park Lagoon, Codornices and Strawberry Creeks, and the Bay shoreline, and pose compliance risks under the City’s NPDES permit administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Enforcement Fragmentation and Strategic Limitations
In the absence of zoning-based parking regulations for oversized vehicles, enforcement remains largely reactive and complaint-driven, rather than anticipatory or risk-based. This patchwork response undermines the City’s ability to address overlapping concerns of public health, infrastructure degradation, and environmental compliance.
To effectively manage the externalities of long-term vehicular habitation in the public right-of- way, Berkeley requires a modernized vehicle enforcement protocol that:
● Recognizes the public right-of-way as a valid enforcement domain; ● Enables timely abatement based on environmental and safety risk; ● Complements stormwater protections under Chapter 17.20;
● And supports integrated policy responses that balance environmental justice, housing services, and infrastructure stewardship.
Encampment Impacts and the City’s Resolution Framework
Berkeley continues to experience substantial overnight and long-term RV parking in mixed-use and residential districts, often adjacent to critical public infrastructure and ecological resources.
While many individuals and families turn to RVs as a shelter in response to housing insecurity and market pressures, the vehicles' unregulated and prolonged presence in sensitive areas has triggered significant concern from residents, public health professionals, emergency responders, environmental advocates, and local business communities. Key impacts identified include environmental degradation from illegal waste disposal, obstruction of fire and emergency access routes, impeded access to schools, parks, and recreational areas, and unpermitted habitation adjacent to vulnerable ecological zones such as creeks, wetlands, and the shoreline.
Resolution No. 71,513-N.S.
● The Fire Department has determined that an encampment poses a fire hazard or emergency condition as referenced in the Berkeley Fire Code, BMC Chapter 19.48; or ● The Environmental Health Division of the Health, Housing and Community Services Department has determined that the encampment poses an imminent health hazard as defined in BMC section 11.36.030; or
● The City has determined that a situation constitutes a public nuisance as defined in the BMC and is subject to an abatement pursuant to the BMC; or
● The encampment is located on a City street median, in the roadway, or otherwise in dangerous proximity to traffic pursuant to BMC section 14.32.040; or ● The encampment is located in an area where the City has authorized work (such as for construction, major or minor encroachments, etc.) pursuant to BMC section 13.36.045; or ● The encampment interferes with or impedes city or utility companies’ construction or maintenance activities in the public right-of-way, street lighting installation or repair, street tree maintenance, or utilities maintenance or repair
Economic Profile of West Berkeley’s Industrial and Commercial Sectors The West Berkeley Plan Area remains one of Berkeley’s most economically productive districts, home to a unique concentration of industrial, maker, commercial, and innovation-oriented uses.
This area has long served as a critical node for middle-wage employment, regional goods movement, and tax revenue generation—functions increasingly rare in the urban core of high- cost cities.
Recent trends in business activity and real estate markets reaffirm the strategic value of the West Berkeley economic ecosystem. According to the City of Berkeley’s FY 2023–24 Adopted Budget, the manufacturing and commercial sectors in West Berkeley contributed over $6.2 million in business license tax revenues and more than $9 million in direct and indirect sales tax.
These figures represent a substantial share of the city’s general fund revenue, underscoring the fiscal importance of maintaining a viable industrial and commercial base. Furthermore, the area’s industrial real estate continues to exhibit high occupancy rates and steady demand across key sectors—including advanced manufacturing, logistics, and food production—despite volatility in the broader regional office market.
Zoning designations such as Mixed Use Light Industrial (MULI), Mixed Manufacturing (MM), Mixed Use Residential (MUR), and Commercial West Berkeley (C-W) support a dense and productive co-location of diverse economic activities. This regulatory framework has enabled a synergistic environment in which clean-tech firms, construction suppliers, artisan manufacturers, and logistics operators coexist with limited conflict. Comparative analysis of analogous industrial zones in nearby East Bay cities—including Emeryville, Richmond, and Fremont— reveals that Berkeley’s West Berkeley Plan Area remains one of the few urbanized industrial nodes that still integrates light manufacturing with residential proximity and multimodal infrastructure. However, these advantages are increasingly jeopardized by inconsistent public space management and emerging logistical barriers.
One of the most pressing threats to the vitality of West Berkeley’s economy stems from the proliferation of unmanaged, long-term RV encampments in the public right-of-way. These encampments compromise the area’s foundational infrastructure by obstructing freight access, diminishing the safety and cleanliness of commercial corridors, and deterring both workforce retention and customer access. Public health and environmental hazards—including uncontained waste, vector risks, and fire incidents—further compound the operational challenges facing businesses.
If unaddressed, these conditions are likely to catalyze disinvestment, commercial tenant attrition, and the relocation of growth industries to nearby municipalities with more stable and predictable industrial environments. As the East Bay’s life sciences and clean manufacturing sectors expand—with cities such as Richmond and Alameda actively courting firms through infrastructure investment and incentive alignment—Berkeley risks losing its competitive foothold in precisely those industries that align with its equity, sustainability, and climate goals.
From a policy perspective, the economic imperative is clear: to maintain and grow its commercial tax base, the City of Berkeley must ensure that industrial corridors remain
accessible, safe, and operationally viable. Addressing hazards in the public right-of-way is not merely a quality-of-life issue—it is a core requirement for sustaining economic development, protecting municipal revenue, and preserving employment opportunities for a diverse resident workforce.
Risks and Threats to Economic Activity in West Berkeley: Structural Impacts of Long- Term RV Encampments
The protracted presence of long-term recreational vehicle (RV) encampments within West Berkeley’s public rights-of-way introduces a complex array of structural threats to the region’s manufacturing and commercial sectors. These hazards not only impede day-to-day business operations but also undermine Berkeley’s regional economic competitiveness and fiscal sustainability.
1. Logistical Disruptions and Functional Erosion of the Public Right-of-Way The spatial configuration of West Berkeley’s industrial zones—characterized by wide arterials, freight access corridors, and industrial loading infrastructure—was intentionally designed to support high-throughput logistical operations. Key economic sectors relying on this infrastructure include:
● Advanced manufacturing and clean-tech enterprises require predictable access for the movement of large-scale equipment and precision components. ● Construction suppliers, warehousing operations, and logistics firms, whose profitability hinges on just-in-time delivery and curbside loading efficiency; ● Small- and medium-scale food producers and specialty manufacturers, which are especially sensitive to last-mile delivery challenges.
Observed Impacts:
● Encroachment on Freight and Loading Zones: The occupation of curb space and loading areas by RVs, trailers, and associated structures has materially disrupted freight scheduling and operations, resulting in costly delays and rerouted deliveries. ● Circulation Constraints: Industrial vehicles face increased difficulty navigating narrowed lanes and compromised turning radii, particularly on arterials such as Ashby Avenue and Sixth Street.
● Deterioration of Business Accessibility: Employees, customers, and suppliers report decreased willingness to travel through or work in areas perceived as unsafe or congested.
These disruptions incrementally diminish the functional capacity of West Berkeley’s industrial ecosystem, eroding a critical competitive advantage in the East Bay’s economic geography.
2. Public Health and Environmental Degradation
The absence of sanitation infrastructure and regulatory oversight for long-term vehicle dwellings has precipitated a range of environmental and public health risks with direct spillover effects on commercial and manufacturing uses.
● Sanitation and Waste Management Failures: Illicit discharge of human waste, greywater, and solid refuse into the right-of-way has been frequently reported by adjacent businesses, exacerbating public health liabilities.
● Fire and Vector Hazards: Improvised power supplies, open-flame cooking, and uncontained waste create significant risks of fire and disease vectors. Fire department records have documented multiple incidents originating in or proximate to encampments, with some requiring industrial business evacuation.
● Occupational and Traffic Safety Compromises: Narrowed rights-of-way and unpredictable foot traffic patterns introduce elevated risk for industrial vehicle operators, particularly in facilities utilizing forklifts, cranes, and heavy-duty trucks.
The cumulative effect of these environmental hazards not only jeopardizes worker health and safety but also complicates compliance with occupational safety regulations and insurance underwriting standards.
3. Economic Displacement and Commercial Tenant Attrition The prolonged visibility and unmanaged nature of encampments have materially affected market perception of the area’s stability, diminishing the attractiveness of West Berkeley for new investment and business retention.
● Tenant Flight and Lease Non-Renewals: Property owners report increased vacancy rates and prospective tenant withdrawals linked explicitly to concerns over access, sanitation, and employee security.
● Suppressed Capital Investment: Several businesses have shelved capital improvements or expansion initiatives due to concerns about persistent public safety risks in the
surrounding area.
● Depreciation of Asset Values: The proximity of high-visibility encampments has demonstrably undermined commercial real estate valuations, with implications for both private investment returns and municipal property tax revenue.
These dynamics significantly impair the area’s ability to compete with peer cities such as Emeryville and Richmond, both of which are actively investing in the stabilization and enhancement of their industrial districts.
4. Fiscal and Strategic Opportunity Costs
West Berkeley constitutes one of the few remaining zones in the city capable of supporting high- value industrial and commercial activities that are aligned with Berkeley’s climate resilience and economic equity goals. These include:
● Green technology manufacturers and firms in the circular economy; ● Food innovation and production enterprises;
● Craft and light manufacturing businesses that generate stable, middle-wage employment.
The inability to safeguard the operational viability of these sectors entails steep opportunity costs, including:
● Revenue Foregone: Decreases in business license tax, sales tax, and property tax contributions from this area weaken the city’s overall fiscal health. West Berkeley’s commercial and manufacturing businesses generated over $6.2 million in business license tax revenue and over $9 million in direct and indirect sales tax contributions in FY 2023– 24, representing a critical component of the general fund. ● Employment Displacement: Declining job stability in middle-skill, non-degreed career paths undermines citywide equity objectives.
● Loss of Economic Multipliers: Ancillary services, suppliers, and innovation networks suffer collateral impacts, further eroding the city’s economic resilience.
Comparative Market Dynamics in the East Bay
West Berkeley faces intensifying competition from nearby municipalities—such as Emeryville, Richmond, and Fremont—that are actively cultivating high-value industrial uses, particularly in
the life sciences, green tech, and advanced manufacturing sectors. These cities have made targeted infrastructural investments and streamlined permitting pathways to attract firms engaged in R&D-intensive or logistics-heavy operations.
For example, Emeryville has successfully repositioned former industrial parcels for biotech and life sciences uses, offering stable utilities, enhanced public realm amenities, and predictable regulatory frameworks. Richmond’s South Shoreline Specific Plan explicitly promotes clean tech and blue economy clusters, complemented by strategic infrastructure upgrades. By contrast, Berkeley’s lack of coordinated right-of-way management in industrial corridors may increasingly function as a disincentive to new and retained investment.
Infrastructure, Safety, and Access as Competitive Determinants A central policy implication is the inextricable linkage between physical infrastructure maintenance—including the condition and accessibility of the public right-of-way—and economic competitiveness. Industrial enterprises require predictable and secure access for freight delivery, workforce commuting, and client interaction. The proliferation of long-term recreational vehicle (RV) encampments—absent sufficient regulation, enforcement, or service provision—has degraded these conditions in West Berkeley, producing significant spatial, logistical, and safety conflicts.
The resultant degradation in logistical efficiency and occupational safety exposes firms to heightened insurance costs, regulatory compliance challenges, and increased turnover risk.
Moreover, perceived instability in the public realm discourages private sector capital investment, driving business migration to better-managed jurisdictions.
New Legislative and Regional Policy Context
In addition to local trends, emerging state and regional policies underscore the need for Berkeley to establish a consistent, enforceable framework governing long-term vehicular habitation in sensitive urban areas.
San Francisco: Mayor Lurie’s Executive Policy on RV Parking (2025):
Mayor Daniel Lurie announced a new set of RV parking restrictions in May 2025 aimed at curbing long-term vehicular encampments near schools, parks, hospitals, and critical infrastructure. Under San Francisco’s policy, RVs may not remain parked for more than 72 consecutive hours in designated sensitive zones, with signage and outreach teams deployed in advance of enforcement. In coordination with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH), RV residents are offered relocation to designated safe parking lots operated by community-based organizations. The program emphasizes behavioral standards, vehicle operability, and compliance with public health guidelines. The City also expanded its vehicle
triage capacity to support relocation and case management. San Francisco’s approach mirrors many of Berkeley/s current policy approaches and affirms the legal and practical viability of a layered, service-first enforcement model.
In addition to San Francisco’s policy, recent municipal laws in neighboring East Bay cities demonstrate a regional trend toward regulated RV parking and associated encampment management:
San Jose
● In 2024,
San Jose adopted ordinances prohibiting RV parking and unsheltered encampments within 150 feet of K–12 schools, formally designating these areas as “School Clearance Zones.” The policy authorizes enforcement actions, including towing, following prior outreach and service offers by the City’s Housing Department and contracted outreach teams. This ordinance was part of a broader municipal strategy to mitigate health and safety impacts near educational institutions and aligns with San Jose’s citywide encampment management protocol
● In June 2025, the San José City Council adopted a “vanlording” ordinance prohibiting the rental or subleasing of unregistered, non-operational, or unsafe recreational vehicles to unhoused individuals. Under the ordinance, recreational vehicles used as dwellings may not be parked or inhabited on public streets or private property, regardless of lease arrangements. The law, codified as Ordinance No. 31226, will take effect in August 2025, and is designed to combat predatory rental practices and mitigate associated health and safety hazards.
● As part of its broader vehicle habitation response strategy, San José operates a $3.3 million pilot enforcement program that establishes rotating tow-away zones and permanent no-parking areas in high-impact corridors. This program is coupled with the provision of 128 safe parking spaces, dispersed across municipal and nonprofit-managed lots.
Fremont
● In late 2024, the
Fremont City Council adopted an ordinance imposing a 72-hour parking limit for all vehicles citywide, coupled with a categorical ban on RV parking in residential neighborhoods and within proximity to schools and places of worship. Upon reaching the 72-hour threshold, vehicles must relocate a minimum of 1,000 feet to comply with the ordinance.
● Fremont has enacted one of the Bay Area’s most stringent anti-camping ordinancesinances, which criminalizes unauthorized public camping and imposes penalties on third parties who facilitate or support encampments. While enforcement is
framed as a measure of last resort, it is preceded by documented outreach and service offers in alignment with the City’s stated policy of compassionate compliance.
Oakland
➢ In November 2021, the Oakland City Council enacted Ordinance No. E‑13‑011, ingrained in Chapter 5.72 of the Oakland Municipal Code. The ordinance authorizes the occupancy of one recreational vehicle (RV) on private undeveloped residential property, provided the property owner grants permission and the occupant obtains a Temporary RV Occupancy Permit:
■ The RV must be located in a zoning district that permits residential use and comply with residential setback requirements (e.g. typically 6 feet from structures and property lines).
https://mcclibraryfunctions.azurewebsites.us/api/ordinanceDownload/1630 8/1037956/pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
■ Only one RV per parcel is allowed.
https://mcclibraryfunctions.azurewebsites.us/api/ordinanceDownload/1630 8/1037956/pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
■ Residential safety, sanitation, and utility standards must be met: evidence of water supply and sewage disposal (e.g. a sewer hookup or regular sanitary pump service), electrical access (solar preferred), structural integrity, smoke detectors, and clean maintenance compliant with Oakland’s blight code.
https://mcclibraryfunctions.azurewebsites.us/api/ordinanceDownload/1630 8/1037956/pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
■ Permits are valid for up to 12 months, renewable, and not considered permanent land-use entitlements.
■ At the same time, Oakland continues structured safe parking and managed encampment programs, enforcing restrictions near schools, parks, and hospitals through its Encampment Management Team.
San Leandro
● In San Leandro, Municipal Code § 6‑1‑430 establishes a strict prohibition on overnight street parking of oversized motor vehicles—defined as those exceeding 20 feet in length, 7 feet in height, or 10,000 lb gross vehicle weight—within residential zoning districts from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.. Off‑street parking restrictions require oversized vehicles to be located at least 20 feet from front or street‑side yards and fully clear of the public sidewalk, with no portion extending over the public way. Only one oversized vehicle is
allowed per parcel. The City may grant limited hardship exemptions (maximally 72 hours per instance), subject to annual caps, as authorized by the City Manager.
Policy Implications for Berkeley
Collectively, these municipal ordinances reflect a growing regional consensus on best practices for managing vehicle habitation in the public right-of-way. Core elements include:
● Acknowledging impacts to sensitive zones around schools, parks, and environmentally sensitive infrastructure;
● Implementing time-limited parking regulations with enforceable relocation and towing provisions;
● Prohibiting predatory rental or subletting of unsafe or non-compliant vehicles to unhoused individuals; and
● Pairing enforcement with structured safe parking programs and service-linked outreach.
For Berkeley, alignment with these regionally validated frameworks would enhance legal defensibility, operational consistency, and interjurisdictional coordination. A calibrated policy that blends environmental protection, economic stewardship, and compassionate enforcement can ensure both the ethical integrity and functional viability of the City’s response
BACKGROUND
Berkeley’s Evolving Program and Service Landscape
Berkeley’s homelessness response system has undergone significant transformation over the past five years, marked by sustained investment, program diversification, and institutional coordination with county and state systems. According to the July 29, 2025 City Council Worksession report titled Comprehensive Summary of Berkeley’s Homeless Response, the City’s homeless services network has significantly expanded its housing placement infrastructure, outreach capacity, and behavioral health partnerships.
Key highlights from the report include:
● Housing Placements and Retention: In FY 2024–25, the City supported permanent housing placements for over 610 individuals, a 19% increase from the prior year. Among those placed, 85% remained housed after six months, suggesting durable support services
and appropriate housing matches.
● Outreach and Coordinated Entry: The Homeless Response Team (HRT) increased field engagement efforts, conducting more than 3,400 contacts with unhoused individuals. Of these, 1,120 individuals were assessed through the Coordinated Entry System (CES), resulting in targeted referrals to housing, medical respite, and substance use treatment programs.
● Shelter and Non-Congregate Housing: As of mid-2025, Berkeley maintains more than 400 shelter and interim housing beds, including non-congregate units created through Project Homekey acquisitions (e.g., Rodeway Inn, Golden Bear Inn). These units operate at near full capacity, with most residents receiving on-site case management. ● Behavioral Health and Substance Use Services: The City’s expanded partnership with Alameda County Behavioral Health has enabled embedded clinical staff within outreach teams and launched pilot initiatives connecting high-needs RV dwellers with substance use treatment.
● Encampment Resolution Outcomes: Under the City’s Encampment Resolution Policy (Resolution No. 71,513-N.S.), the City facilitated the closure or stabilization of 11 encampments between July 2024 and July 2025, with more than half of the residents offered services or shelter.
The work session report emphasized the importance of strategic enforcement that prioritizes harm reduction and housing connection. It also recommended improved data integration across City departments and greater regional coordination with Alameda County, particularly in the context of growing vehicle habitation.
Taken together, these developments signal both the capacity and institutional will to implement a more structured RV management framework that incorporates housing-first principles, targeted enforcement, and coordinated intake.
Unit Acquisition
From 2021 to 2025, the City of Berkeley has executed a targeted strategy to expand non- congregate interim and permanent housing through the acquisition and conversion of motel properties. These projects are central to the City’s encampment resolution and vehicle habitation response, combining state funds—principally through Project Homekey and the Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF)—with local investments from Measure P, Measure U1, and institutional partnerships such as UC Berkeley.
Collectively, these projects account for 168 units of interim and permanent housing, with all sites integrated into the Alameda County Coordinated Entry System (CES) and supported by 24/7 case management, behavioral health access, and housing navigation services.
Summary of Housing Acquisition Projects
Site Name Address Year Housing
Type
Units State Funding
Source
State
Amount
Local/Other
Source
Local
Amount
Golden Bear
Inn
1620 San
Pablo Ave
2021 Permanent 44 Project
Homekey
(Round 1)
$16.2M Measure P $7.3M
Rodeway Inn
(Interim)
1001
University
Ave
2022 Interim 43 Encampment
Resolution
Fund (ERF)
$4.7M UC Berkeley $2.2M
Berkeley Inn
(Beyond the
Horizon)
1720 San
Pablo Ave
2023 Interim 29 — — Measure P $9.3M
Campus
Motel
(Address
not
specified)
2023 Interim 23 ERF $4.9M Measure P $5.0M
Rodeway Inn
(Permanent
Conversion)
1001
University
Ave
2024 Permanent
Supportive
31 Project
Homekey
(Round 3)
$14.1M Measure U1 $8.5M
Capri Motel 1512
University
Ave
2024 Interim 21 ERF $5.4M Measure P $5.2M
Cumulative Impact
● Total Units Created: 191
● Total State Investment: $45.3 million
● Total Local/Institutional Investment: $37.5 million
These projects provide a spectrum of non-congregate housing interventions aligned with Berkeley’s Encampment Resolution Policy (Resolution No. 71,513-N.S.) and California’s housing-first mandates. Interim sites—Berkeley Inn, Rodeway (initial phase), Campus Motel, and Capri—prioritize rapid stabilization and decampment. Permanent supportive conversions— Golden Bear and the second phase of Rodeway—ensure long-term tenancy with embedded services.
Each site supports case-managed reentry into housing, employment, and health systems, contributing directly to the City’s reduction in unsheltered homelessness and its broader coordinated strategy for public space management.
Concurrently, the City's Homeless Response Team (HRT) has expanded operational capacity.
The team now conducts field-based assessments that directly interface with the Alameda County Coordinated Entry System (CES), enabling real-time placement into housing and services. In the preceding year, over 600 unsheltered individuals were engaged, with 34% successfully transitioning into shelter or permanent housing. Integrating behavioral health expertise, outreach navigation, and coordinated housing referrals has enhanced the city's capability to stabilize encampments and mitigate street-level homelessness.
However, the city remains a party to active litigation brought by advocacy organizations representing unhoused individuals and local property owners. These legal challenges invoke constitutional claims—including those under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments—as well as demands for more rigorous municipal enforcement of nuisance and safety codes. These parallel proceedings exemplify the broader legal and ethical tensions confronting municipalities throughout California as they attempt to enforce public space regulations in a manner that withstands judicial scrutiny.
The City of Berkeley dedicates over $40 million annually to homelessness programs. Funding sources include voter-approved tax measures (P and U1), federal and state housing programs, and targeted local initiatives. These resources support emergency shelter operations, transitional housing, outreach and case management services, behavioral health initiatives, and permanent supportive housing. According to 2023 performance data, the city's homelessness response network achieved a 27% rate of permanent housing placements, with service users
predominantly identifying as chronically homeless, over 45 years old, and disproportionately from Black and Latino populations. These demographic insights underscore the intersectional challenges of race, aging, and health status in local homelessness policy.
Legal and Policy Context
The legal landscape for municipal encampment enforcement has shifted significantly following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2025). In a 6–3 ruling, the Court held that enforcement of local anti-camping ordinances—even in the absence of adequate shelter capacity—does not, in itself, violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision effectively overturned precedent set by the Ninth Circuit in Martin v. Boise (2018) and grants municipalities broader authority to regulate the use of public space, including encampment abatement and vehicle habitation enforcement.
While Grants Pass clarified the constitutional permissibility of enforcement as it relates to the Eighth Amendment, it did not mandate any particular approach, nor did it exempt cities from potential liability under other legal doctrines, such as due process, equal protection, or state-level protections. As a result, California jurisdictions continue to navigate a complex policy environment—balancing enforcement discretion with service provision, environmental mandates, and public health responsibilities.
In this evolving context, municipalities have adopted a range of responses:
● Fremont operates a Vehicle Encampment Relocation Program alongside two designated safe parking sites. These are supported by coordinated entry pathways, sanitation services, case management, and structured compliance protocols. ● San José maintains a dedicated Encampment Management Team within its Housing Department. The team implements structured closure protocols, manages a real-time online dashboard of encampment conditions, and prioritizes enforcement near sensitive public infrastructure and waterways. The city also partners with Caltrans and VTA to manage encampments along state rights-of-way.
● Oakland enforces a “High Sensitivity Areas” framework, which restricts encampments near schools, parks, and hospitals. Its Encampment Management Team conducts proactive outreach, facilitates voluntary relocation, and oversees sanitation and waste removal efforts.
These models demonstrate varying degrees of integration between enforcement and housing-first principles, and provide important reference points as Berkeley calibrates its own approach in light of the Grants Pass decision.
Comparative Regional Models
Across the Bay Area, counties including Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara administer safe RV parking programs supported by a blend of state grant funding, local tax revenue, and philanthropic investment. These programs generally offer sanitation facilities, on-site security, case management, and clearly defined time limits. Intake prioritizes high-vulnerability populations—such as seniors, families, and individuals with chronic medical or behavioral health conditions—and typically operates within the Coordinated Entry System (CES) to ensure equitable distribution of housing resources.
A number of cities within these counties have adopted structured regulatory and service-based frameworks to address the complex challenges of RV habitation in the public right-of-way.
These municipal models offer instructive precedents for Berkeley’s ongoing policy development:
● Alameda County operates a centralized Safe Parking Program located on the Fairmont Campus in San Leandro, designed to support community members experiencing homelessness who live in their vehicles. This program offers 24-hour access to designated parking areas both overnight and during the day, providing a safer alternative to roadway parking, especially in sensitive ecological and residential areas.
Participants are connected to critical services, including housing navigation, outreach engagement, and community re‑integration support, through county-run channels like the Coordinated Entry System. Registration is required, and individuals can begin the process by calling the county’s dedicated line or visiting the program website. Key features include:
● Location & Accessibility: 24-hour program located at the Fairmont Campus in San Leandro.
● Support Services: Participants are linked to case management, housing referrals, coordinated entry, and other supportive services via county intake staff. ● Registration Process: Enrollees begin through telephone or online contact; intake protocols prioritize individualized support and fair access. ● Santa Rosa administers a Safe Parking Program that accommodates up to 50 RVs, operated in partnership with Catholic Charities. Services include intake assessment, case management, restrooms, handwashing stations, and waste disposal. Eligibility criteria
require vehicle registration and the absence of outstanding warrants. Participants must sign a code of conduct. The program operates at an estimated annual cost of $1.2 million, funded through a combination of General Fund, Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds. Parking enforcement is guided by a graduated response protocol that emphasizes outreach and voluntary compliance before issuing citations.
● Mountain View employs a dual approach combining a Safe Parking with active enforcement of oversized vehicle restrictions. The City provides approximately 80 parking spaces distributed across city-owned and nonprofit-operated lots, with contracted services delivered by MOVE MV, a local outreach provider. Services include sanitation, intake assessment, and case management. Program costs approach $1.5 million annually.
Enforcement efforts include a ban on oversized vehicle parking across 447 designated corridors, accompanied by signage and the authority to issue civil citations. To mitigate legal exposure, the City ensures the availability of alternative parking options and support services.
● San Leandro operates a permit-based Safe Parking Program supporting roughly 20 RVs, located on a city-owned lot adjacent to the Public Works Department. The program offers sanitation, electrical hookups, and regular outreach and is coordinated through a local nonprofit partner. Annual costs are approximately $600,000. The City supplements its program with targeted parking restrictions near schools and in industrial zones, enforced by traffic officers in coordination with outreach teams. ● Fremont integrates its safe parking services within its Human Services Department and the Fremont Family Resource Center. The program provides rotating safe parking across municipal and faith-based lots, with intake conducted by Abode Services. Participants receive wraparound services, including mental health care and housing navigation. The City allocates approximately $900,000 per year, drawing on Measure A1, HHAP, and other local funds. Fremont follows a "Compassionate Enforcement" model, prioritizing voluntary compliance and relocation assistance before issuing citations. ● Oakland manages RV habitation through a combination of managed encampment sites, a sanctioned “LakePoint” RV community pilot, and operations led by the Encampment Management Team (EMT). Services include sanitation, waste removal, enforcement, and service referrals. Oakland’s enforcement practices have faced litigation and public scrutiny, prompting the development of more structured and transparent alternatives. The City spends more than $4 million annually on RV site management, funded by the Encampment Resolution Fund, general fund revenues, and Measure Q. Abatement in environmentally sensitive areas is conducted only after multiple outreach attempts, in accordance with city policy.
These regional models underscore the importance of integrating enforceable parking regulation with safe parking infrastructure and service coordination, offering actionable frameworks for Berkeley’s evolving approach to vehicle habitation and public space management.
RATIONALE
This recommendation advances multiple priorities articulated in the City of Berkeley Strategic Plan, directly supporting the City’s commitments to:
● Environmental stewardship and climate resilience can be achieved by curbing illicit discharges into the stormwater system, preserving riparian and shoreline ecosystems, and mitigating public health risks associated with unregulated vehicular habitation. ● Housing equity and service delivery, by strengthening the City’s homelessness response infrastructure and expanding pathways to transitional and supportive housing; ● Transparent and timely public service, through improved interdepartmental coordination, legal clarity, and access to clean, navigable public rights-of-way; ● Sustainable local economic development, by safeguarding West Berkeley’s industrial corridors from logistical, environmental, and reputational degradation.
By concentrating enforcement efforts in geographically sensitive areas—such as near schools, parks, water bodies, and industrial freight corridors—the City can uphold public safety, ecological integrity, and economic functionality without defaulting to punitive or indiscriminate strategies. The proposed framework supports a targeted, service-oriented approach, ensuring that interventions remain both operationally feasible and legally defensible, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass ruling.
Failure to act risks accelerating the deterioration of public infrastructure, undermining regulatory compliance under the Clean Water Act and NPDES, and weakening public trust in municipal capacity. The prolonged presence of unmanaged RV encampments has already contributed to increased emergency response costs, impeded business operations, and eroded the habitability of adjacent residential neighborhoods.
At the same time, the proposal affirms Berkeley’s commitment to upholding the dignity and rights of unhoused residents by embedding enforcement within a broader ecosystem of safe parking, outreach, and housing-first strategies. It avoids criminalization in favor of trauma- informed engagement, offering pathways toward stabilization while preserving equitable access to the public realm for all.
Ultimately, this recommendation reflects a necessary recalibration of policy—one that balances compassion with accountability, and equity with functionality. Without coordinated intervention, Berkeley risks disinvestment, declining tax revenues, and the loss of precisely those industrial and innovation sectors that align with its long-term climate and equity goals.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed recommendation does not authorize immediate implementation of parking restrictions or new programmatic enforcement, and thus carries no direct fiscal impact at this time. However, referring this item to the City Manager and City Attorney for a legal analysis and regional policy study will require moderate staff time across multiple departments, including the City Attorney’s Office, Public Works, Transportation, and the City Manager’s Office.
Preliminary analysis and interdepartmental coordination may be accommodated within existing operational budgets. However, should the Council act on future recommendations resulting from this study—such as enacting targeted RV parking restrictions, launching a permit program, or developing local safe parking infrastructure—substantial future allocations may be required.
These may include:
● Enforcement and signage (Public Works & Parking Enforcement); ● Civilian outreach staffing and case management;
● Safe parking facility acquisition or operations;
● Legal and administrative costs for permit or appeal frameworks.
Any future budgetary proposals would return to Council for consideration as part of subsequent action items or during the FY 2026–27 biennial or mid-cycle budget processes. Potential funding sources for implementation could include:
● Measure P (homeless services and outreach),
● Measure U1 (affordable and transitional housing),
● Alameda County Measure W (homeless response infrastructure), ● State grant programs, such as HHAP and the Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF).
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Adopting the proposed ordinance is projected to reduce the incidence of ecological degradation stemming from unregulated RV habitation. Specifically, it is expected to curtail pollutants entering stormwater systems and enhance the environmental resilience of the Berkeley watershed and adjacent shoreline ecosystems.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
● Maintaining the current regulatory and service framework, ● Implementing a citywide RV parking ban without locational differentiation, ● Establishing municipally operated safe parking zones exclusively within Berkeley, ● Augmenting law enforcement activity in the absence of additional safe parking infrastructure.
● Adopting a resolution clarifying that City Manager discretion and authority under City Council Resolution No. 71,155-N.S., "Extension of Declaration of Homeless Shelter Crisis," extends to the procurement of contracts pursuant to BMC 12.98.040(A) for vehicles formerly used as shelter by people experiencing homelessness who have moved indoors or who have otherwise discontinued using the vehicle as shelter.
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Terry Taplin District 2 Email: [email protected] Phone: (510) 981-7120
ATTACHMENTS
1. BMC Chapter 12.98 Revisions
2. BMC Chapter 7.18 Revisions
Internal
ATTACHMENT 1
BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12.98.010 TO ALLOW CITY MANAGER APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT PURSUANT TO BMC 12.98 BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. That section 12.98.010 be amended to read as follows:
As used in this chapter.
A. "Vehicle" means a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a roadway, except a device moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. Vehicle includes "part(s) thereof." B. "Abandoned vehicle" means any vehicle which has been left unoccupied and stationary on public or private property for more than seventy-two hours, in such neglected fashion as to suggest its relinquishment on property that is neither open to the public for parking nor part of the public right of way, and without the consent of the person or entity that lawfully owns, controls or occupies that property.
C. "Inoperative vehicle" means any vehicle in such condition, as a result of mechanical and/or structural defects, however caused, that it cannot be driven under its own power.
D. "Dismantled vehicle" means a vehicle that has had, intentionally or unintentionally, one or more critical parts removed for sixty days or more. A critical part is any part that is needed to safely operate the vehicle, including but not limited to a wheel or tire, windshield, door, side quarter panel, trunk, hood, roof, steering wheel or transmission. A vehicle can be "dismantled" whether or not it is in a operative condition.
E. "Property owner" means the owner of the nonpublic land on which the vehicle is located, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll.
F. "Vehicle owner" means the last registered and legal owners of record, as shown by Department of Motor Vehicles records.
Section 2. That section 12.98.040(F) be amended to read as follows:
F. Removal of the vehicle. Fifteen days aAt any time after the ten day notice to abate or remove expires without a request for a hearing, or, if a hearing is requested and an order for the removal of a vehicle as a public nuisance is made pursuant to a hearing, after a period of time deemed reasonable by the administrative hearing officer, thirty days after an order for the removal of a vehicle as a public nuisance is made pursuant to a hearing, if one is requested, the vehicle shall be disposed of by removal to a scrap yard or automobile dismantler’s yard.
If the property owner or any lawful occupant of the property objects to the City’s authorized
Internal
agent entering upon the property to remove the vehicle, the hearing officer or their agent shall obtain a warrant from the municipal court to authorize entry onto the property for the purpose of removing the vehicle.
Following removal, no vehicle that is dismantled or inoperative shall thereafter be resold, reconstructed, or made operable, unless it is a vehicle which qualifies for either horseless carriage license plates or historical vehicle license plates, pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 5004.
Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
ATTACHMENT 2
BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 7.18.010 TO ALLOW CITY MANAGER APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT PURSUANT TO BMC 12.98
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. That section 7.18.010 be amended to read as follows:
A. Except as otherwise provided in this Title, expenditures pursuant to Article XI, Sections 67 and 67.5 of the Charter of the City of Berkeley, which exceed the amount of $50,000 shall require Council approval.
B. Expenditures for specific improvements (public projects), including play area improvements and equipment in public parks which exceed the amount of $200,000 shall require Council approval pursuant to Article XI, Section 67 of the Charter of the City of Berkeley.
C. Expenditures for Community Development Block Grant funded Community Facility Improvement Projects which exceed the amount of $200,000 shall require Council approval pursuant to Article XI, Section 67 of the Charter of the City of Berkeley.
D. Expenditures for the purchase of supplies, equipment, and materials which exceed the amount of $100,000 shall require Council approval.
E. Expenditures for the acquisition and renovation of small multifamily rental properties through the Small Sites Program shall not require Council approval, but shall be approved by the City Manager. Expenditures will comply with the Small Sites Program guidelines, adopted by Resolution.
F. Expenditures up to $250,000 for the abatement of abandoned, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles pursuant to BMC 12.98.040 shall not require Council approval, but shall be approved by the City Manager.
Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Terry Taplin, District 2
Subject: Waterfront Specific Plan Environmental Review Authorization and Near-Term Priority Adjustments
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Manager to initiate environmental review of the Waterfront Specific Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), using Scenario 1 (Highest Buildout, approximately 1,215,000 gross square feet) as the maximum development alternative for purposes of the EIR’s environmental analysis and Project Description. As staff noted in the November 18, 2024 Worksession Report, analyzing Scenario 1 for CEQA purposes preserves the Council’s full flexibility to scale the final plan to Scenario 2 or Scenario 3 at adoption, while ensuring no additional cost or delay would be incurred if the Council later wishes to pursue higher-density development.
2. Defer and hold in abeyance the November 18, 2024 Council direction to prepare a standalone nature-and-recreation-based conceptual plan for César E. Chávez Park, consistent with the ongoing administrative hold on that work pending resolution of environmental compliance obligations at the former landfill (City Manager Off-Agenda Memorandum, June 5, 2025). Incorporate the park’s long-term improvement priorities into the Waterfront Park (WP) zone provisions of the Waterfront Specific Plan as part of the EIR scoping process.
3. Refer $310,000 to the November 2026 AOO1 process to conduct the EIR.
4. Request that the City Manager return to Council with a certified EIR, a Final Waterfront Specific Plan, and companion Berkeley Municipal Code and General Plan amendments for adoption.
BACKGROUND
About the Waterfront and the Specific Plan
The Berkeley Waterfront encompasses approximately 100 acres of public tidelands west of Eastshore State Park. It contains the 1,000-berth Berkeley Marina, the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, four restaurants, a boatyard, the Adventure Playground, Shorebird Nature Center, and César E. Chávez Park.
As entirely public land governed by the California Public Trust doctrine, all uses must be consistent with public trust purposes and are subject to oversight by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the State Lands Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The Waterfront is currently zoned “Unclassified” in the Berkeley Municipal Code, requiring a lengthy, project-by-project discretionary approval process for any new use.
In 2019, the City Council allocated $1.101 million to develop a long-term Waterfront Specific Plan providing a vision for the next 25 to 50 years. Work commenced in 2020 with studies on existing conditions and economic demand, followed by six community workshops (430+ participants), 28 focus groups (285 participants), three questionnaires (1,821 responses), two Council work sessions (February 2021, March 2023), and two Off-Agenda Reports (June 2022, January 2024). The draft WSP was published September 8, 2023, and most recently updated November 8, 2024.
On November 18, 2024, the City Council gave direction to: (1) complete the parking and transportation demand management study; (2) prepare a nature-and-recreation-based conceptual plan for César Chávez Park; (3) proceed with the EIR with the highest development scenario; and (4) return to Council with the revised Specific Plan and certification of the EIR. See November 18, 2024, Worksession Report. This referral advances items 1 and 3, and formalizes the ongoing hold on item 2.
The Fiscal Emergency
The WSP was authorized in direct response to a worsening fiscal crisis. The Marina Fund carries a structural operating deficit that has required annual General Fund transfers for several years. As of February 2026, the total unfunded Waterfront capital and major maintenance backlog stands at $168,984,000, including $163,344,000 in existing infrastructure needs, a figure that has grown substantially from the $94 million (non-Pier) estimate cited in the November 2024 Worksession Report, reflecting updated cost estimates and newly identified needs (PRW Unfunded Capital & Major Maintenance Needs (February 2026), presented to the Environment & Climate Commission, February 25, 2026).
The following summarizes the current status of each capital project referenced in the November 2024 Worksession Report:
● South Cove Sailing Basin Dredging: design phase funded and underway (General Fund). Full construction project remains unfunded: $15,230,000. The design study will determine final dredge volumes, costs, and permitting strategy in coordination with the Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO).
● South Cove Seawall Replacement: design phase funded and underway (General Fund).
Construction remains unfunded: $5,780,000 per the March 2025 PRW CIP Update. ● J, L, M Dock Replacements: entirely unfunded. Per the February 2026 PRW Unfunded Capital Report: J-Dock full replacement, $11,500,000; L-Dock major maintenance (floats, decking, waler), $1,690,000; M-Dock major maintenance, $1,630,000. Combined unfunded need:
$14,820,000. (For context: D&E Dock Replacement, which was under construction using $10M in grants and capital funds, is anticipated to be complete early 2026.) ● F&G Dock Re-Decking: completed March 2026. Weathered original wooden decking on F and G docks (constructed late 1990s) was replaced with composite decking. With D&E replacement also complete, F and G were the last remaining docks with original wooden decking.
● Parking Lot Reconstruction (FGHI area and others): entirely unfunded. Per the February 2026 PRW Unfunded Capital Report: F&G Lot Reconstruction, $1,000,000; L&M Lot Reconstruction, $1,390,000; O Lot Reconstruction, $1,070,000; 199 Seawall Parking Lot, $8,600,000; Marina Blvd On-Street Parking (South of Virginia Street Extension), $2,210,000; Launch Ramp Lots Reconstruction and Amenity Improvements, $2,490,000. Total parking lots unfunded: $17,290,000.
● Seawall Drive Reconstruction: entirely unfunded. Per the February 2026 PRW Unfunded Capital Report: Seawall Drive Reconstruction (North of University Avenue, including Bay Trail), $4,500,000; Seawall Drive Improvements (South of University Avenue, including Bay Trail), $3,200,000; University Avenue between Marina Blvd and Seawall Drive, $8,000,000. Total streets unfunded: $15,700,000.
● Bay Trail Improvements: partially funded, partially unfunded. In September 2025, the City Council re-allocated $1.7M in unspent State Coastal Conservancy grant funds to the Bay Trail Segment at Shorebird Park (design phase) and recreation improvements at the Gateway Pier and J&K Parking Lot. The broader Bay Trail network remains largely unfunded: Bay Trail Improvements (Adventure Playground to 199 Seawall), $1,890,000; Marina Blvd Resilient Shoreline & Public Access Improvements (Trail from César Chávez Park to Roundabout), $4,200,000 per the February 2026 PRW Unfunded Capital Report. ● César Chávez Park Pathway Improvements — Design complete, construction paused. The Perimeter Pathway Project was paused at the design phase in Spring 2025 due to former landfill compliance requirements. The $1.7M in previously allocated SCC grant funds was re-allocated to the Bay Trail and Gateway Pier improvements in September 2025. Per the February 2026 PRW Unfunded Capital Report: Phase 1 (Perimeter Pathways Improvements and Amenities), $4,250,000; Phase 2 (Interior Pathways Improvements and Amenities), $3,200,000. Both phases remain entirely unfunded.
Two recent developments have provided partial operating relief. First, the 2024 voter-approved Parks Tax increase shifted more than $1.5 million in costs for Waterfront parks and landscaped areas off the Marina Fund. Second, the City Council adopted targeted Marina fee increases in January 2026, generating an estimated additional $247,500 per year. See also the Marina Fund Update presented to the Budget & Finance Policy Committee, October 28, 2025.
These measures are meaningful steps, but they are not structural solutions. The Marina Fund’s single largest revenue source is the DoubleTree Hotel, and its weak recovery in the post-COVID regional hotel market continues to create significant budget uncertainty. Berth fees represent 46% of all Marina Fund revenue, leaving the fund highly concentrated in a single category. As staff noted in the January 2026 fee increase report, the measures adopted thus far are “one part of the City’s strategy” with the WSP’s commercial development framework as the long-term structural instrument for achieving Marina Fund self-sufficiency.
Development Scenarios
The November 2024 Worksession Report presented three development scenarios for Council consideration:
Scenario 1: Highest Buildout: 1,215,000 GSF total, adding approximately 835,000 GSF of new development, including two new hotels (+535K GSF), four to five food-and-beverage establishments (+100K GSF), and additional marine, recreation, and community uses (+200K GSF).
Scenario 2: Moderate Buildout: 985,000 GSF total, adding approximately 605,000 GSF of new development, including two new hotels (+415K GSF), four to five food-and-beverage establishments (+75K GSF), and additional uses (+115K GSF). Projected to generate approximately $3.5M/year in additional revenue.
Scenario 3: Low Buildout: 760,000 GSF total, adding approximately 380,000 GSF of new development, including one hotel (+220K GSF), three to four restaurants (+60K GSF), and additional uses (+100K GSF). Projected to generate approximately $2.2M/year in additional revenue.
Staff recommended Scenario 2 for the Plan description, while noting that Scenario 1 should be studied under CEQA because there is no additional cost to studying the maximum scenario first, but there would be cost and delay if a lower scenario were studied and the Council later wished to pursue higher-density development. Council directed staff on November 18, 2024, to proceed with the EIR using the highest development scenario (Scenario 1), which this referral reaffirms.
Completed: Waterfront Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study Pursuant to item 1 of the November 18, 2024 Council direction, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. has completed the Water Transportation Pier-Ferry Project Parking and Transportation Demand Management Plan (Final Draft, March 7, 2025) and Revised Draft Addendum (May 7, 2025). The Addendum incorporated additional Waterfront Monitor data collected April–August 2024 and responded to public comments raised at the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission meeting of March 12, 2025. This work follows and builds upon the earlier Parking & Mobility Framework prepared by Nelson\Nygaard in January 2022 as part of the then-named Berkeley Marina Area Specific Plan process.
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase established existing conditions through hourly parking counts collected by Quality Counts on five days in 2024 (April 6, April 11, August 1, August 22, and August 24), supplemented by a Waterfront Monitors dataset collected over 554 days from May 2021 through February 2024. The second phase developed a suite of TDM and parking management strategies to respond to increased demand from the Pier Ferry project and WSP commercial development, using Scenario 1 as the planning horizon.
Key findings of the completed study include:
● Total public parking capacity: 1,541 spaces across 13 lots. On weekdays, peak demand occurs at 2 PM with approximately 560 spaces occupied (36% utilization). On weekends, peak occurs at 2 PM with approximately 717 spaces occupied (47% utilization). ● Even on the single busiest Saturday in the dataset (April 1, 2023), overall Waterfront public parking was 75% occupied with 306 spaces remaining. Certain lots reached higher utilization, but system-wide capacity was not exhausted.
● For Pier Ferry operations, the study designates the Seawall Drive Lot (250 dedicated spaces) as the primary ferry rider lot, with Marina Blvd and Skates/N Lot as overflow. At weekday peak, 83 spaces remain available at Marina Blvd and 74 at Skates/N Lot. On weekends, 59 spaces remain at Marina Blvd and 73 at Skates/N Lot: sufficient to accommodate overflow without impacting recreational users.
● Without TDM measures, weekday ferry rider parking demand is projected at 421 spaces. With TDM strategies in place, demand drops by 65 spaces to 356, well within the available capacity of the designated lots.
● TDM strategies recommended in the study build on the 2022 Nelson\Nygaard framework:
demand-based paid parking implemented waterfront-wide, a Parking Benefit District to manage and reinvest revenue, valet parking on high-demand days, improved bicycle and pedestrian access via University Avenue, expanded transit, and Waterfront-wide wayfinding with dynamic signage. Nottate bene: the aforementioned TDM strategy recommendations are present in the Nelson/Nygaard framework however, this council item makes no recommendations regarding TDM measures.
The completed study satisfies the November 2024 Council directive and provides the transportation demand management analysis for the Final WSP (Section 2.5.3). The City already charges $1/hour and $6/day for Waterfront parking, establishing an operational precedent for the demand-based pricing strategies the study recommends.
César E. Chávez Park: Administrative Hold
The City Manager’s June 5, 2025 Off-Agenda Memorandum reported that the standalone conceptual plan for César Chávez Park is on hold pending resolution of ongoing environmental compliance obligations at the former landfill underlying the park. In 2025, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a regulatory compliance letter requiring the City to initiate a comprehensive work plan of environmental testing and reporting; for any excavation work of one foot or deeper below the surface, worker safety protocols and equipment requirements have raised project costs beyond existing funding. For further context, see the César Chávez Park Closed Landfill Improvement Project page. This referral formalizes the administrative hold and incorporates park improvement priorities into the WP zone provisions of the Waterfront Specific Plan through the EIR scoping process.
REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES AND LAWS
Berkeley General Plan (Open Space and Recreation Element): Supports preservation of public access and recreational uses while ensuring fiscal responsibility for public infrastructure.
Marina Enterprise Fund: City financial policy requires the Marina Fund to operate on a cost- recovery basis. The January 2026 fee increases (+$247,500/year) and the Parks Tax cost-shift ($1.5M+) are stabilizing measures; the WSP is the long-term structural solution.
Vision 2050 (Climate Action Plan): Revenue generated under the WSP funds sea-level rise adaptation, habitat restoration, and green infrastructure investment across the 100-acre plan area.
Public Trust Doctrine / California Tidelands Law: All uses must be consistent with public trust purposes. The WSP Allowable Land Use matrix was developed in consultation with BCDC and State Lands Commission staff.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The WSP will be subject to a Program EIR per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. Studying Scenario 1 provides a legally defensible maximum-impact ceiling for environmental analysis while preserving the full range of plan- adoption options.
Berkeley Municipal Code / Zoning Ordinance: Adoption of the WSP and companion zoning amendments will replace the “Unclassified” designation with a Waterfront District, streamlining revenue-generating project approvals.
ACTIONS / ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Maintain all November 2024 direction without modification: Rejected in part. The parking study is complete; its directive has been fulfilled. The César Chávez Park standalone plan is already on administrative hold due to former landfill compliance; formalizing this hold removes resource ambiguity. EIR authorization and Scenario 1 direction are reaffirmed.
2. Substitute Scenario 2 as the EIR study basis: Rejected. Staff explicitly noted in November 2024 that studying Scenario 1 first costs nothing extra and preserves the City Council’s options.
Studying a lower scenario and later revising upward would incur additional cost and delay.
3. Discontinue the Waterfront Specific Plan: Rejected. The Marina Fund’s structural deficit demands a revenue solution, and the WSP is five years and $1.1 million in the making.
Abandonment would leave the Waterfront in “Unclassified” zoning indefinitely.
4. Pause for additional community engagement on César Chávez Park: Rejected. Extensive community engagement has already occurred over four years. Park priorities will be carried through the EIR scoping process at no additional delay or cost.
RATIONALE
Why Scenario 1 for the EIR
The November 18, 2024 Council direction was clear: proceed with the EIR using the highest development scenario. That direction was correct, and this referral reaffirms it. As staff stated in the November 2024 Worksession Report, if the maximum scenario is analyzed and found to have manageable impacts, Council retains full authority to scale the final plan to Scenario 2 or Scenario 3 at the time of adoption. The reverse is not true: if a lower scenario were studied and the Council later wished to pursue higher density, a supplemental environmental review would be required, adding cost and delay. Studying Scenario 1 now is not a commitment to Scenario 1. It is the fiscally responsible and legally sound way to keep options open.
The February 2026 unfunded capital report confirms that the capital backlog is not shrinking, but has grown. The total unfunded Waterfront infrastructure need now stands at $168,984,000, including $15.7M in unfunded streets (Seawall Drive alone), $17.3M in unfunded parking lots, $14.8M in
unfunded dock work (J, L, M), and $21M in South Cove dredging and seawall work. The F&G re- decking was recently completed, and the D&E dock replacement is nearing completion, but these were funded through grants and one-time capital appropriations that are not recurring. The targeted fee increases adopted in January 2026 are necessary and appropriate interim measures, but at $247,500 per year, they represent a fraction of what is needed. Scenario 1 represents the full revenue-generating potential of the Waterfront. Council should have that complete picture before making a final plan decision.
Parking Study: The Concern Has Been Answered
The most frequently raised objection to the Waterfront Specific Plan has been parking. The completed Kittelson study, supplemented by the May 2025 addendum, answers that objection with data. Even at peak Saturday demand ( the busiest day in three years of monitoring), the Waterfront’s 1,541 public spaces were 75% occupied with 306 spaces remaining. Weekday utilization at peak is 36%. The study’s TDM modeling, run against Scenario 1, projects that demand-based pricing, overflow lot designation at Marina Blvd and Skates/N Lot, and multimodal access improvements can absorb ferry rider demand without impacting existing recreational users.
César Chávez Park
The administrative hold on the standalone park conceptual plan is the right outcome, and not only because of the former landfill compliance obligations. As the February 2026 unfunded capital report makes clear, César Chávez Park’s pathway improvement program alone, two phases, $7.45M combined, is entirely unfunded. That funding will not materialize without a financially healthy Marina Fund. The park is not being abandoned; it is being secured by the same revenue-generating plan that makes every other Waterfront capital investment possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The Waterfront Specific Plan is, at its core, an environmental investment. The revenues generated by commercial development in the Waterfront Commercial (WC) subareas will fund sea-level rise adaptation infrastructure, habitat restoration in the Waterfront Park (WP) zone, upgrades to Shorebird Nature Center, Bay Trail improvements, and implementation of the multimodal access and TDM improvements identified in the Kittelson study.
The Program EIR will subject all development scenarios to full CEQA analysis, including biological resources, sea-level rise vulnerability, water quality (BCDC/USACE), air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic. The transportation demand management analysis, calibrated to Scenario 1, will inform EIR mitigation measures, which will become binding conditions of project approval for any future lease or entitlement.
The Berkeley Waterfront is public tidelands. Its ecological health and its fiscal health are not competing values. Both depend on the same outcome: a well-funded, well-managed Waterfront with the resources to invest in the habitat, infrastructure, and public amenities that make this one of the great urban waterfronts in the Bay Area.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Financial Element Impact / Status
EIR Preparation Covered by existing WSP budget appropriation ($1.101M, 2019).
Potential scope amendment to project consultant contract; no new General Fund appropriation anticipated at this time.
Marina Fund —
Current Deficit
Structural operating deficit requiring annual General Fund transfers for several years. Partially offset by: (1) 2024 Parks Tax shifting $1.5M+ in costs off the Marina Fund; and (2) January 2026 Marina fee increases generating an estimated additional $247,500/year.
Doubletree Hotel post-COVID recovery remains uncertain. See Marina Fund B&F Policy Committee presentation, October 28, 2025.
Capital Infrastructure
Backlog
Per the February 2026 PRW Unfunded Capital Report: Total unfunded Waterfront needs, $168,984,000. Key components: docks (J, L, M) $14.82M; South Cove dredging and seawall $21.01M; parking lots $17.29M; streets/Seawall Drive $15.7M; Bay Trail and shoreline improvements $15.23M; César Chávez Park pathways (two phases) $7.45M. Note: F&G dock re-decking was completed March 2026; D&E dock replacement nearing completion.
Marina Fund — WSP
Revenue Potential
Scenario 1 at full buildout represents the maximum revenue- generating capacity of the Waterfront. Scenario 2 alone was projected to generate $3.5M/year in additional lease and TOT revenue. Scenario 1 represents a higher ceiling that Council can evaluate through the EIR process before making a final plan decision.
Parking & TDM Kittelson study complete; no additional appropriation required.
TDM implementation costs to be identified in the WSP
implementation plan. Existing paid parking ($1/hour, $6/day) provides a revenue foundation for TDM program self-funding.
César Chávez Park Standalone conceptual plan deferred per June 5, 2025 Off-Agenda Memorandum. Pathway improvements (Phase 1: $4.25M; Phase 2:
$3.2M) fully unfunded per February 2026 PRW Unfunded Capital Report. Park improvements incorporated into WP zone provisions of the adopted WSP.
CONTACT
Councilmember Terry Taplin, District 2, (510) 981-7120, [email protected]
Office of the City Manager
ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works Subject: Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution adopting the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 and the Measure FF 5-Year CIP Plan for Fiscal Years 2027-2031.
SUMMARY
Public Works is bringing forward an integrated five-year street infrastructure program that aligns the City’s ongoing street rehabilitation funding with the voter-approved Measure FF SAFE STREETS investment. Together, these coordinated programs will improve pavement conditions and repair long-deferred streets while creating a significant opportunity to reduce fatal and severe crashes and make Berkeley’s transportation network safer and more accessible for people walking, bicycling, rolling, using mobility devices, and other vulnerable road users. Measure FF will allow the City to pair paving work with safety improvements consistent with the adopted Vision Zero, Bicycle, and Pedestrian plans, including traffic calming, improved crossings, accessible curb ramps, bikeway improvements, and other treatments where appropriate.
The Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan establishes the City’s baseline paving investment, while the Measure FF Five-Year Plan provides additional and complementary funding to accelerate street, sidewalk, pathway, safety, and environmental improvements.
The two programs are being coordinated to avoid duplication, advance the City’s dig-once approach, and incorporate multimodal safety improvements as streets are repaired. Staff are especially enthusiastic about the opportunity not only to deliver smoother, more durable streets, but also to use these investments to create safer, more comfortable streets for people who are most vulnerable when traveling in Berkeley.
The action before Council adopts two related components of this integrated program:
(1) the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY 2027-2031, required by the City's Street Rehabilitation and Maintenance Policy; and
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
(2) the Measure FF Five-Year CIP Plan for FY 2027-2031, which identifies the first five years of Measure FF investments and establishes the framework for ongoing engagement, oversight, and performance reporting.
The proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan includes 353 street sections totaling
55.15 centerline miles at an estimated cost of $88.6 million. The Measure FF Five-Year CIP Plan adds 54 street sections totaling 9.51 centerline miles, while also funding sidewalk and pedestrian path accessibility improvements, safety projects, and environmental enhancements. Public Works will coordinate these investments through a network-level planning approach that considers pavement condition, equity, utility coordination, dig-once opportunities, Vision Zero priorities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, ADA/PROWAG accessibility, and stormwater requirements together rather than as separate work programs.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Five-Year CIP project budget for streets, including the Five- Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and Measure FF 5-Year plan, totals over $139 million. The Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan (“Five-Year Paving Plan”) is funded by seven sources: State Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) transportation taxes- Fund 127, Alameda County Transportation Sales Tax Measure BB- Fund 134, County Vehicle Registration Fee Measure F- Fund 133, Zero Waste- Fund 601; Clean Storm- Fund 616; and the City of Berkeley’s General Fund (Capital Improvement Program)- Fund 501. These funding sources and their estimated annual amounts are listed in Table 1A and 1B (see below).
Table 1A: Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Funding Source Allocations by Year
Fund Description FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
SB 1 $2,195,303 $2,195,303 $2,195,303
Measure BB – Local Streets &
Roads
$2,980,000 $2,980,000 $2,980,000
Measure F Vehicle Registration
Fee
$155,000 $155,000 $155,000
Capital Improvement (CIP) Fund $1,925,000 $1,925,000 $1,925,000 CIP Fund / Council Policy on
Adequate Street Maintenance
$8,487,200 $8,741,816 $9,004,070
Zero Waste Fund $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Clean Storm Fund $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
TOTAL $18,742,503 $18,997,119 $19,259,373
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
Table 1B: Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Program Funding Source Allocations by Year (cont’d)
Fund Description FY 2030 FY 2031 5-Year Total
SB 1 $2,195,303 $2,195,303 $10,976,515
Measure BB – Local Streets &
Roads
$2,980,000 $2,980,000 $14,900,000
Measure F Vehicle Registration
Fee
$155,000 $155,000 $775,000
Capital Improvement (CIP) Fund $1,925,000 $1,925,000 $9,625,000 CIP Fund / Council Policy on
Adequate Street Maintenance
$9,274,193 $9,552,418 $45,059,697
Zero Waste Fund $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000
Clean Storm Fund $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000
TOTAL $19,529,496 $19,807,721 $96,336,212
On July 26, 2022, City Council adopted the policy Adequate General Fund Contribution for Street Maintenance to Prevent Deterioration of Pavement Condition (Resolution No. 70,456-N.S.), which committed an additional $8 million annually in General Funds for paving, adjusted annually for inflation. This source is listed in Table 1A and 1B as “CIP Fund / Council Policy on Adequate Street Maintenance” and accounts for the largest share of the program’s funding.
The Zero Waste Fund contributes $2 million annually to offset the impact of Zero Waste collection vehicles on the City’s pavement.
The Clean Storm Fund contributes $1 million annually toward the installation and replacement of cross drains at intersections within the paving project footprint. These are drainage structures that convey surface water across intersections and are installed in conjunction with curb ramp construction. Green infrastructure improvements required under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) Provision C.3 are addressed through separate projects funded outside of this plan.
Of the $96.3 million in total program funding, approximately $91.3 million is available for street rehabilitation (excluding the $5 million in Clean Storm Fund allocations dedicated to drainage infrastructure). The Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan selects approximately $88.6 million in street rehabilitation projects, maintaining a roughly 3% programmatic reserve against potential construction cost escalation in asphalt materials, which remain subject to price volatility due to current conditions in global oil markets.
Measure FF, or SAFE STREETS, is a special parcel tax generating approximately $15 million annually for 14 years. This measure provides funding to be allocated as follows:
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
60 percent for streets and sidewalks, of which roughly three quarters (45 percent) is for streets and one quarter (15 percent) is for sidewalks and pedestrian paths until backlog eliminated;
30 percent for safety improvements; and,
10 percent for environmental enhancements, required fees to the County, and any permitted uses as specified in BMC Chapter 7.11.
Table 1C: Five-Year FF Program Project Funding Allocations by Year The Measure FF 5-year plan and the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan in their entirety are part of the proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. The Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and the Measure FF 5-year plan are independent but complementary programs. Public Works used a coordinated planning approach so that baseline paving funds, Measure FF funds, utility coordination, Vision Zero priorities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, equity considerations, and stormwater requirements were evaluated together across the City’s entire street network. This network-level planning approach is a dynamic, iterative process. Staff regularly evaluate the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and the Measure FF 5-year plan to reflect new information, risks, or priorities not identified at the time of adoption. Staff present updates to Council as part of its biennial budget process.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City Council adopted a Street Rehabilitation and Maintenance Policy (Street Maintenance Policy), Resolution No. 70,204-N.S., on January 25, 2022. The policy requires a Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan be adopted by Council biennially in line with the City’s budgeting process, and that it do so after staff presents it to the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission (TIC).
Upon City Council approval of these plans, Public Works will be on track to design, bid, and award the construction contract to begin paving FY 2027 streets in the summer of 2027, well ahead of less favorable weather conditions. Approval of the proposed Five- Year Street Rehabilitation Plan also ensures proper coordination with utilities and related projects and delivers on the commitment to longer planning horizons in the Street Maintenance Policy and Vision 2050 Framework. If future changes are needed in the Project type FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031
Streets &
sidewalks
$15,669,266 $ 8,808,515 $10,513,835 $8,816,579 $11,517,933 Safety
improvements
$8,870,000 $ 8,172,000 $5,325,000 $4,275,000 $1,450,000 Environmental
Enhancements
$1,150,000 $ 2,650,000 $1,100,000 $1,750,000 $2,214,688 TOTAL $25,689,266 $19,630,515 $16,938,835 $14,841,579 $15,182,621
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
adopted Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan, those changes would be made in September – December 2027 as staff develop the next five-year plan.
Status of the FY 2024-2028 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Council adopted the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY 2024-2028 on November 28, 2023. Table 2 (following page) shows the centerline miles paved by fiscal year.
Table 2: Centerline Miles Paved
Fiscal Year Centerline Miles Paved
FY 2019 (includes FY 2018) 5.3 (avg 2.7 annually)
FY 2020 2.6
FY 2021 1.9
FY 2022 2.6
FY 2023 7.0
FY 2024 10.7
FY 2025 8.4
FY 2026 (projected) 10.3
Public Works paved approximately 29.4 centerline miles during FY 2024 through FY 2026, a substantial increase over the historical average of approximately 2 to 3 miles per year. This acceleration was made possible by the commitment of additional General Fund resources in 2022.
Several streets from the FY 2024-2028 plan have been deferred due to coordination with planned capital projects, including Claremont Avenue (Claremont Complete Streets), Oxford Street (Oxford for All), and Telegraph Avenue (CAR FREE Telegraph referral). as noted below in the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission Recommendation section, the Commission voted to recommend the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan with the addition of Measure FF-funded safety improvements on Claremont, Oxford and Telegraph. Staff response to the Commission is included in the Commission Recommendation section. In addition, some street segments designated for reconstruction from the prior Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan were deferred to manage the City's annual green infrastructure obligations under MRP Provision C.3, as described in the Stormwater section below.
These corridors are not being removed. They are being sequenced through separate corridor-level capital projects because repaving them before the scope, geometry, utility conflicts, and complete-streets design are resolved could either waste public funds or lock in an unsafe/obsolete configuration for another pavement cycle. Staff will return these corridors to the paving program once the corridor scope, funding, and construction timing are sufficiently defined to support dig-once delivery.
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
Developing the Proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and Measure FF 5-Year CIP Plan for FY 2027-2031
The Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan’s street selection is built on the Weighted Effectiveness Ratio (WER), a cost-effectiveness metric generated by the pavement management software StreetSaver. WER ranks every street section and treatment option by the amount of pavement life gained per dollar spent. The core strategy is “critical point management” delivering the right treatment at the right time. Pavement treatments fall into distinct tiers based on a street’s condition; missing the window to treat a street before it drops into a lower tier results in a non-linear, often exponential, increase in repair costs.
WER targets streets approaching the bottom of each tier, intervening before they cross into the next, more expensive treatment category. This approach directs limited funding towards the treatments that produce the greatest network-wide improvement per dollar.
Streets that have already deteriorated to the point where full reconstruction is the only option rank lower under WER because they are substantially more expensive to repair for the same gain in pavement life. The distinction between WER-driven selection and the Measure FF program’s approach is discussed later in this section.
For the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan staff began with the last two years of the existing FY 2024-2028 plan (FY 2027 and FY 2028). The City inspects its street network on a biennial cycle, assigning a PCI score to each street section based on observed surface distresses. These condition scores feed directly into StreetSaver, which calculates a WER for every section. Staff used the WER results to validate the street selections carried forward from the prior plan and identify additional streets for the remaining plan years, then applied the priorities in the adopted Street Maintenance Policy, including Equity Zone, bikeway network coverage, bus routes, and contiguity, and further adjusted the street selection to coordinate with known utility work (e.g., East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and other capital improvement projects, and to stay within the annual MRP C.3 reconstruct constraint described below. The proposed plan includes 353 street sections totaling 55.15 centerline miles at an estimated cost of $88.6 million over five years.
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
Table 3: Proposed Plan Summary by Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Sections Centerline Miles Estimated Cost
FY 2027 60 9.97 $17,360,697
FY 2028 67 9.84 $17,051,650
FY 2029 63 8.28 $17,870,774
FY 2030 66 11.33 $17,957,460
FY 2031 97 15.72 $18,380,381
Total 353 55.15 $88,620,962
Fiscal year 2027 is the first year staff will scope, plan, and deliver projects under Measure FF1. In alignment with measure language and to reflect public input for the projects and priorities funded by this measure, staff reviewed community requests and related City Council adopted plans2. This approach benefited from community member input and the robust public engagement process reflected in plans adopted by the City Council. By utilizing these existing resources, staff accelerated Measure FF program development to align with the development of the citywide CIP by efficiently identifying and prioritizing projects for implementation in its first five years. Moving forward, in accordance with the measure language, future Measure FF program work will include at least three workshops every three years, beginning in 2027. These planned workshops, in addition to regular TIC meetings, will provide community members additional opportunities to share their input and insights for projects and priorities funded by Measure FF (BMC 7.11.050 (A)).
The Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and Measure FF use different but complementary approaches to select streets. As stated, the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan uses StreetSaver's WER. This approach maximizes the pavement life gained per dollar invested and prioritizes streets at the optimal point in their deterioration curve, typically streets in fair condition where a timely treatment can prevent more costly rehabilitation later.
The Measure FF program takes a different approach, consistent with the Measure's stated intent to "allow long-deferred repairs to be made so that the overall condition of the roads and sidewalks will be made acceptable and safe within 14 years" (BMC Section
7.11, Section 2(G)), with the goal of raising the citywide PCI to 70 "ideally with no streets having a PCI below 50" (BMC Section 7.11.010(K)(1)). Measure FF prioritizes streets with a PCI below 50, which represents the long-deferred segments that most directly affect 1 In FY25-26, Public Works staff used Measure FF funds to implement Daylighting, a 2023 California law prohibiting parking within the 20 feet of curb space approaching an intersection. 2 Any project funded by proceeds of the tax which includes safety improvements must be consistent with one or more of the following plans and policies: Vision Zero Action Plan; Pedestrian Plan; Berkeley Bicycle Plan; Complete Streets Policy; Safe Routes to Schools Safety Assessment and/or Improvement Plan (BMC 7.11.60)
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
community members’ daily quality of life. These are streets that a pure cost-effectiveness algorithm would deprioritize because the cost per unit of pavement life gained is higher on severely deteriorated pavement. These are also the streets where community members experience the most immediate impacts: poor ride quality, bicycle and vehicle damage, accessibility barriers, and safety hazards. Additionally, by providing stable funding for Vision Zero implementation, traffic calming, safer crossings, bikeway improvements, and safety treatments incorporated into paving projects, the Measure FF program is expected to accelerate implementation of adopted safety plans and contribute to reducing fatal and severe crashes, particularly for people walking, bicycling, rolling, and using mobility devices. Progress will be evaluated through annual reporting on completed projects, collision trends, fatalities, and severe injuries.
The complementary Measure FF 5-Year CIP Plan includes 54 street sections totaling over 9 centerline miles at an estimated cost of $42.1 million over five years.
Table 4: Proposed FF Plan Summary by Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Sections Centerline Miles Estimated Cost
FY 2027 20 3.80 $13,198,842
FY 2028 6 1.05 $6,822,998
FY 2029 11 1.42 $7,805,256
FY 2030 9 1.19 $5,524,906
FY 2031 8 2.05 $8,767,933
Total 54 9.51 $42,119,935
The FF plan’s sidewalk projects include remediation of non-compliant ADA conditions in the public right of way alongside Measure FF-funded street rehabilitation projects. This approach follows measure language that “any project funded by the proceeds of the tax which includes street repair, repaving, and/or reconstruction shall implement safety improvements concurrently, unless the City Council adopts a written finding based on substantial evidence that there are no improvements which would materially increase safety and are consistent with an adopted City plan or policy.” (BMC Section 7.11.060(B)).
For the full list of Measure FF projects, including sidewalk projects, refer to Attachment 2.
Staff reviewed adopted plans and updates, community requests, and Council referrals to identify safety improvement projects corresponding to Measure FF street rehabilitation projects and standalone safety projects to be delivered in FY27-31. We expect these safety improvements to reduce harm and enhance joy for people traversing the city.
These projects include:
4 safety projects expected to result in constructed improvements related to proposed street rehabilitation projects (e.g. Cedar Street median crossing to support Grant Street Bike Boulevard crossing). Note: These identified projects do
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
not reflect all accessibility and safety improvements considered or to be implemented in areas related to proposed street rehabilitation projects 14 site-specific projects, ten of which are expected to result in constructed improvements (e.g. Cedar Street Pedestrian Safety Crossing Improvement, Claremont Eton rectangular rapid flashing beacon)
Stable funding for high demand/high visibility programs that historically have been implemented using single or limited term sources (e.g. Vision Zero Quick Build Program and Implementation, Citywide Traffic Calming Program). The intent of these allocations is to allow for rapid response to incidents on high injury streets and implementation of pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements alongside routine paving treatments.
For the full list of Measure FF projects, including safety projects, refer to Attachment 2.
Note: Examples of project types listed are not mutually exclusive and may be referenced more than once (e.g., Vision Zero Quick Build Program is a citywide program that has historically been implemented using single or limited term sources).
Dig Once and Stormwater Management
These plans incorporate several features that advance the City’s efforts in our Dig Once approach, stormwater management, and long-term planning.
Dig Once. The Street Maintenance Policy requires a "dig once" approach to street rehabilitation, coordinating paving with sewer, water, electrical, telecom, and undergrounding work to minimize repeated disturbance of the street surface. The proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and proposed Measure FF Five-Year CIP Plan coordinate with external utilities (e.g. East Bay MUD and PG&E) the City's own non- paving related capital improvement programs and with other agencies whose projects affect City streets, such as the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. Streets with active or near- term utility or capital project conflicts are scheduled to follow project completion. Later- year assignments carry more uncertainty, as firm capital project schedules typically extend only two to three years into the future.
Clean Storm Fund. As described under Fiscal Impacts, the Clean Storm Fund contributes $1 million annually toward cross drains at intersections, installed in conjunction with curb ramp construction.
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Provision C.3. Pavement reconstruction projects can trigger green infrastructure requirements under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), Provision C.3. To keep the City’s green infrastructure obligations sustainable within available physical space and budget, staff have limited the proposed reconstruction areas to approximately 24,200 square yards over the five year street rehabilitation plan period. The plan identifies street sections proposed for reconstruction that trigger MRP requirements in the MRP REQT column. Green infrastructure projects
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
required under C.3 will be addressed through separate projects funded outside of this plan. One such funding source is Measure FF. Per the measure language, Measure FF allocates 10 percent of the tax proceeds to environmental enhancements, including green infrastructure projects. For the full list of Measure FF projects, including environmental enhancement projects, refer to Attachment 2.
The Proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF 5-Year CIP plan’s Compliance with the Street Maintenance Policy
Maps of the street rehabilitation plans are included as Exhibit B, showing each street segment color-coded by proposed fiscal year, with Council district boundaries and Equity Zone boundaries.
Table 5: FY 2027-2031 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan Totals by Policy Category
Category Mileage Estimated
Cost
% of Plan
Cost
% of Plan
Mileage
Arterials 5.87 $13,404,978 15% 11%
Collectors 8.93 $15,313,159 17% 16%
Residentials 40.35 $59,902,827 68% 73%
Bikeways* 24.00 $45,081,067 51% 44%
Bus Routes 13.04 $26,595,767 30% 24%
High-Injury
Streets
12.52 $23,376,183 26% 23%
Equity Zone 11.79 $28,762,650 32% 21%
*Bikeways include streets with existing and proposed bicycle facilities per the 2026 Bicycle Plan.
Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive. A street segment may be counted under multiple categories (e.g., an arterial that is also a bus route in the Equity Zone).
The Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan prioritizes funding consistent with the Policy's goals. Arterials and collectors are prioritized consistent with the Policy's emphasis on maintaining the primary transportation network. The plan treats 11.79 miles of streets in the Equity Zone, accounting for 21% of the plan's mileage and consistent with the Policy's direction to prioritize Equity Zone streets. The plan also includes 12.52 miles of streets on the City's High-Injury Network (2020), representing 23% of the plan's mileage.
For streets selected in the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan, the Engineering and Transportation Divisions coordinate to incorporate transportation and safety improvements recommended in the City's adopted Vision Zero Action Plan, Pedestrian Plan, and Bicycle Plan. Some improvements, such as striping modifications, signage, quick-build safety elements, and traffic calming measures are incorporated directly into the annual paving project. Recent examples of this coordination include a traffic diverter
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
at Virginia Street and Acton Street, constructed as part of the FY 2025 paving project, and traffic circles and speed cushions along Addison Street between 6th Street and San Pablo Avenue and quick-build median refuges at Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Virginia Street, both planned for implementation as part of the FY 2026 paving project. Measure FF funds allocated to the Citywide Traffic Calming and Vision Zero Implementation programs are anticipated to increase the number of safety improvements implemented within the scope of these annual paving projects. When improvements require a more robust planning and design effort, they are programmed as independent capital projects.
PCI Projections
The City modeled 12-year PCI projections under multiple funding scenarios, shown in Figure 1. The current citywide PCI is 57 as of the most recent condition assessment (2025). After completion of the FY 2026 paving project, the projected citywide PCI is 59.
Figure 1: 12-Year PCI Projections After FY 2026 Planned Work Under the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan baseline scenario (Figure 1, purple line), which reflects only the funding in the proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan at an average of approximately $20.3 million per year3, the citywide PCI is projected to decline 3 Annual funding figures are 12-year averages that account for projected revenue growth over the planning period, not flat annual amounts
70 70
59 62 62
56 56
50 55
60 65
70 75
2026
after
plan
ned
work
2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038
Reach
70 in 2036
then Maintain
Five-Year
Plan
+ FF
Five-Year
Plan
12 Year
Projections After 2026 Planned Work (with 3% inflation
with Revenue Growth)
PCI Range
Year
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
modestly, from 59 to approximately 56 by 2038, as construction cost escalation outpaces growth in existing revenue. Under a combined scenario that adds Measure FF funding (Figure 1, blue line), total average investment increases to approximately $29.6 million per year 3, and the citywide PCI is projected to improve to approximately 62 by 2038.
Measure FF accounts for the difference between these trajectories and materially improves the City's pavement condition over the planning period.
Neither scenario reaches a PCI of 70 within the 12-year projection period4. The City also modeled a third scenario to estimate the level of investment that would be needed to reach a PCI of 70 by 2036 and maintain a PCI of 70 through 2038 (Figure 1, red line).
This scenario requires an estimated $37.6 million per year3, approximately $8 million per year more than the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and Measure FF currently provide, underscoring that inflation and construction cost escalation remain significant risks, and additional funding or scope adjustments may be necessary if costs continue to outpace revenue growth.
The projections account for both rising construction costs and growth in the City's funding sources. Construction costs are escalated at three percent per year, reflecting recent price trends in asphalt and related paving materials. Funding is escalated consistent with the terms of the applicable Council fiscal policy (Resolution No. 70,456-N.S.) and the Measure FF ordinance, each of which provides for annual increases based on the greater of the cost of living in the San Francisco Bay Area or per capita personal income growth in the state. The net effect is a modest real increase in construction costs relative to available funding over the projection period.
Figure 2 (next page) compares 12-year PCI projections of two approaches for selecting streets to pave with Measure FF funds. The "Critical Point" scenario (Figure 2, purple line) selects Measure FF streets using the same WER-driven methodology as the Five-Year Plan. The "PCI Under 50" scenario (Figure 2, blue line) selects Measure FF streets by targeting streets with a PCI below 50, consistent with the measure's goals of addressing long-deferred repairs. The difference in citywide PCI outcome is approximately one point:
63 under the WER-driven approach versus 62 under the under-50 approach by 2038. 4 One goal of the Measure FF parcel tax is to raise the City PCI to or above 70, ideally with no streets having a PCI below 50 by December 31, 2036 (BMC 7.11.010. (K))
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
Figure 2: Comparing Two Approaches for Street Selection with FF Funds This analysis demonstrates that the citywide PCI outcome is not materially different between the two selection methods. Using the complementary Measure FF funds to target long-deferred streets comes at a modest cost to the aggregate PCI trajectory while directly addressing the condition of streets that have been overlooked for decades. This result is likely driven by a combination of network size, the magnitude of available funding, and the existing distribution of pavement conditions within the network. The two-pronged approach, using WER for the Five-Year Plan and focusing Measure FF on long-deferred streets, honors the intent of the measure, delivers visible improvements to the communities most affected by poor pavement conditions, and still achieves meaningful citywide PCI improvement.
Transportation and Infrastructure Commission Recommendation The Transportation and Infrastructure Commission reviewed the proposed FY 2027-2031 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation plan and maps identifying Measure FF street rehabilitation projects at its May 21, 2026, meeting and took the following action:
59 62 62
63 63
50 55
60 65
70 75
2026
after
planned
work
2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038
Five-Year
Plan (Critical Point)
+ FF (PCI Under 50)
Five-Year
Plan (Critical Point)
+ FF (Critical Point)
12 Year
Projections After 2026 Planned Work (with 3% inflation
with Revenue Growth)
PCI Range
Year
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
It was moved/seconded (Zaro/Fike) to recommend the Five-Year Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Plan for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 with amendments that integrate Measure FF and paving dollars and include Claremont Avenue, Oxford Street, and northern Telegraph Avenue for paving and multimodal safety improvements.
Vote:
Ayes: Budimir, Fike, Hothi, Gattu, Leung, Lutzker, Zaro; Noes: None;
Abstain: None;
Absent: Walton;
Excused: Scheider.
Motion passed: 7-0-0-1-1
Staff's response to the TIC's recommendation is as follows:
Regarding Measure FF integration: the Measure FF program was developed on a separate but complementary track, as described in this report. The Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and Measure FF 5-Year CIP Plan will be coordinated to maximize the combined investment and avoid duplication.
Regarding Claremont Avenue: this corridor was scheduled for paving in FY 2027 under the prior Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan and is identified as a high-injury street in the Vision Zero Action Plan. A fatal collision on the corridor in 2025 prompted the City to implement interim safety measures through a quick-build project while long-term plans are developed. Separately, the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District’s Line A-1 bypass project, projected to begin by the end of 2026, will trench the Claremont roadway to install approximately 3,700 linear feet of 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe between Tanglewood Road and Mystic Street, with completion estimated in 2031. Paving ahead of that work would violate the City's dig-once practice. Claremont paving will be programmed in the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan once the Complete Streets corridor study and flood control work are completed.
Regarding Oxford Street: this corridor is on the City's High-Injury Network and is identified in the 2026 Bicycle Plans as a candidate for a Class IV cycle track. On June 3, 2025, Council approved the Oxford for All referral (Tregub/Lunaparra) at $400,000 for quick- build Class IV bike facilities and pedestrian safety improvements on Oxford/Fulton between Bancroft Way and Hearst Avenue. On December 2, 2025, Council approved an amended referral (Tregub) at $2.5 million for full design, engineering, and construction.
The corridor was in the FY 2024-2028 plan for FY 2028 and has been deferred from the FY 2027-2031 plan pending the capital project to avoid dig-once conflicts as the project scope develops. Staff recommend deferring Oxford Street from the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan pending further development of the Oxford for All project scope. Staff
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
will evaluate the corridor for inclusion in the paving program as the project's scope, funding, and timeline are determined.
Regarding Telegraph Avenue (Bancroft Way to Dwight Way): this segment has been the subject of pedestrianization proposals for years. On February 22, 2022, Council adopted Resolution No. 70,241-N.S. approving the Southside Complete Streets Project conceptual designs. As part of that action, Council also adopted a supplemental referral (Robinson) directing the City Manager to explore limits on private automobiles on Telegraph Avenue between Bancroft Way and Dwight Way. Telegraph was removed from the Southside Complete Streets Project scope so as to not preclude that direction. On January 27, 2026, Council approved a $1.325 million budget referral (Lunaparra) for CAR FREE Telegraph, seeking LRDP and Measure FF funds for feasibility, CEQA/NEPA, public outreach, and conceptual design, with construction estimated at $12 to $17 million in later phases. Staff recommend deferring Telegraph Avenue from the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan pending resolution of the corridor's future configuration.
Performance Measures and New Technologies
The Street Maintenance Policy requires the use of performance measures. Public Works tracks measures on pavement condition, mileage treated by functional class and policy category, treatment type distribution, and other metrics.
Measure FF requires staff to prepare and submit to City Council and SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee (SSCOC) an annual report of the following performance metrics:
Streets paved, cost per mile, changes to the citywide average PCI, the PCI of all streets, and a schedule that estimates which streets will be paved in the next 5 years; and
Progress on sidewalks and pedestrian paths; and
Safety projects implemented, and fatal and severe injuries over time; and Progress on green infrastructure, tree planting, climate resiliency measures, and changes in trip modality; and
Awarded and in-progress grants
The SSCOC will also prepare an annual independent report of Measure FF progress and performance. The SSCOC’s first annual report is anticipated in fall 2026.
The Street Maintenance Policy also encourages evaluation of new technologies that may offer greater durability, lower cost, or environmental benefits. Since the last Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan, Public Works has deployed two new treatment methods on appropriate candidate streets. Rubberized cape seal combines a rubberized emulsion membrane with a slurry seal or micro-surfacing wearing course, extending pavement life on streets in fair condition at a lower cost per square yard than traditional mill-and-overlay.
Staff have also deployed fiberglass-reinforced paving mat interlayers (GlasPave 50, Tensar) on select overlay sections, including Derby Street between College Avenue and
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
Sacramento Street as part of the FY 2024 paving project. These interlayers are installed between the leveling and surface courses to delay reflective cracking and limit moisture infiltration into the pavement structure, with the goal of extending overlay service life.
Performance of the GlasPave interlayer will be monitored over the coming years. Staff continue to evaluate preservation and rehabilitation treatments that maximize the return on the City’s paving investment.
BACKGROUND
The City maintains 213 centerline miles of streets with a total replacement value in excess of $1.2 billion. The citywide Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 57, placing the network in the 'at risk' category. The City's 2024 Pavement Management Program Update projected a deferred maintenance backlog of over $330 million as of 2025, growing to over $406 million by 2029. As shown in Figure 3, the cost of treating a street increases significantly as its condition declines, making timely investment essential to avoiding far higher costs in the future.
Figure 3: Pavement Deterioration and Life Cycle Costs
More information on the condition of Berkeley’s streets can be found in the City Auditor’s November 19, 2020, report, Rocky Road: Berkeley Streets at Risk and Significantly Underfunded, and in the City’s 2024 Pavement Management Program Update (PTAP25).
Pavement Quality
Time
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Pavement Performance Curve
Costs $8 if delayed
$1 spent now
15% drop in quality
in 40% of life
40% drop in
quality in
15% of life
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
The Street Maintenance Policy and Vision 2050 Framework both encourage integrated planning. Public Works continues to incorporate features such as ADA-compliant curb ramps, high-visibility crosswalks, speed tables and cushions and, improvements recommended by the City’s adopted Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans. After Council adoption of this proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan, the Engineering and Transportation Divisions will coordinate to identify specific transportation improvements from Council’s adopted plans that could be incorporated into the approved street repair projects.
In response to not only the deferred street maintenance backlog but also the estimated backlog of sidewalk repairs and delayed implementation of the Vision Zero Action Plan, community members voted to establish a Sustainable and Accountable Funding for Equitable Street Transformation, Revitalization, Enhancements, and Essential Traffic Safety (SAFE STREETS) Tax. SAFE STREETS also known as Measure FF, establishes funding for streets and sidewalks, safety improvements, and environmental enhancements. The intent of this measure is to augment current city funding for paving and sidewalk repair for a temporary period and allow long-deferred repairs to be made so that the overall condition of the roads and sidewalks will be made acceptable and safe within 14 years, and maintenance costs will be reduced (BMC 7.11This will accelerate delivering safety improvements in adopted safety plans and contribute to reducing fatal and severe crashes, particularly for people walking, bicycling, rolling, and using mobility devices.
Adoption of a Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Paving and Measure FF Five-Year CIP plans advances the City’s Strategic Plan Priority goals to provide well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities and to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Streets in good condition provide a smoother, safer surface for people who bike, walk, or use public transit, promoting non-automobile trips and reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan and Climate Emergency Declaration. The Measure FF parcel tax provides funding to accelerate Vision Zero Action, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Plan implementation. These safety improvements are anticipated to increase pedestrian and bicyclist confidence and further spur changes in travel modality away from single-occupancy vehicles. Measure FF also provides funds for environmental enhancements, that are anticipated to increase green infrastructure to reduce flooding incidents, improve water quality, and recharge groundwater. The majority of pavement material removed from streets is returned to the material supplier for processing and recycling as aggregate base or pavement aggregate.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed action advances one coordinated Public Works street infrastructure program for FY 2027-2031. Adoption allows Public Works to maintain the City's accelerated paving delivery schedule, begin the first five years of Measure FF
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
implementation, coordinate street rehabilitation with sidewalks, ADA/PROWAG accessibility, safety, stormwater, and utility work, and provide Council, SSCOC, and the public with a transparent framework for annual reporting and future refinement. The Five- Year Street Rehabilitation Plan is complemented by the Measure FF program, which will supplement baseline investments with additional dedicated funding. Together, the baseline paving program and Measure FF are projected to improve the citywide PCI from 59 to approximately 62 by 2038. While the combined investment does not reach a PCI of 70 within the 12-year projection period, Measure FF materially improves the City's pavement trajectory, and staff will continue to evaluate additional funding sources and scope adjustments to close the remaining gap.
Measure FF’s dedicated investments in sidewalks and pathways, safety improvements, and environmental enhancements will deliver meaningful community benefits both alongside street rehabilitation projects and through stand-alone projects. Staff are especially enthusiastic about using these resources not only to reduce long-standing maintenance backlogs, but also to accelerate improvements that make it safer and easier for people to walk, bicycle, roll, and use mobility devices. By advancing adopted Vision Zero, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Plan priorities -- particularly where people face the greatest risk -- these investments will help reduce fatal and severe crashes, improve accessibility, and create safer, more comfortable streets while supporting the City’s environmental and stormwater objectives.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered. The Street Maintenance Policy requires Council to update the Five-Year Plan biennially and Measure FF is required to estimate the streets to be paved in a five-year period (BMC 7.11.050 (B)). If these plans are not approved, Public Works will have no streets to design for summer 2027 and no paving will occur. If only a portion of the years are approved, that will conflict with the Policy and Vision 2050 Framework, which both encourage longer-term planning horizons.
CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Public Works Interim Director, 510-981-6396 Pejman Mehrfar, Manager of Engineering, 510-981-6439
Terrence Salonga, Supervising Civil Engineer, 510-981-6447 Manoj Madhavan, Principal Program Manager, 510-542-6153 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: Proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for FY 2027 to FY 2031
Exhibit B: Proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans Maps 2: Proposed Measure FF Five-Year Plan project list for FY 2027 to FY 2031
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
ADOPTION OF THE FIVE-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION AND MEASURE FF PLANS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2027 TO 2031
WHEREAS, the Street Rehabilitation and Maintenance Policy, Resolution No. 70,204- N.S., approved on January 25, 2022, requires a Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for the entire City to be adopted by the City Council on a biennial basis, in line with the City’s budgeting process; and
WHEREAS, Measure FF, the Sidewalk and Street Repairs Parcel Tax, approved by Berkeley voters in November 2024, established the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee to review expenditures and progress reports from the City Manager and City Auditor to ensure compliance with the intent of Measure FF, evaluating the impacts and outcomes of tax expenditures on stated goals and prepare public reports on the Committee’s findings; and,
WHEREAS, the previously adopted Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan covered Fiscal Years 2024 through 2028 and was adopted by City Council on November 28, 2023; and WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 70,2040-N.S, the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan is required to be reviewed and updated by the City Council, with advice from the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission reviewed the proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF plans for FY 2027-2031 at its May 21, 2026, meeting and recommended approval of the plans with amendments; and WHEREAS, the SAFE STREETS Citizen Oversight Committee reviewed the Measure FF plans and proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation Plan for FY 2027-2031 at its meeting on June 10, 2026; and
WHEREAS, Public Works may reorder the timing of approved pavement segments for operational reasons, including utility coordination, weather, or construction sequencing; and
WHEREAS, Public Works recommends City Council adopt the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for FY 2027 to FY 2031.
July 7, 2026 Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for Fiscal Years 2027-2031 ACTION CALENDAR
July 7, 2026
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF plans for FY 2027 to FY 2031, attached here as Exhibit A with full maps of the plans as Exhibit B, are hereby adopted.
Exhibits
A: Proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans for FY 2027 to FY 2031
B: Proposed Five-Year Street Rehabilitation and Measure FF Plans Maps
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2027 60 Sections | $17,360,697 | 9.97 miles
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
10TH ST HARRISON ST CAMELIA ST 81 0.24
Light
Mtce $40,640
10TH ST
NORTH CITY
LIMIT
HARRISON
ST 87 0.09
Light
Mtce $14,400
8TH ST CAMELIA ST PAGE ST 32 0.08
Heavy
Rehab $272,049
8TH ST GILMAN ST CAMELIA ST 28 0.12
Heavy
Rehab $397,500
8TH ST JONES ST VIRGINIA ST 18 0.21
Recons
truct $1,132,628
8TH ST PAGE ST JONES ST 13 0.09
Recons
truct $475,608
8TH ST VIRGINIA ST
UNIVERSITY
AVE 17 0.31
Recons
truct $1,729,000
ACTON ST CEDAR ST
UNIVERSITY
AVE 34 0.43
Heavy
Rehab $1,437,360
AMADOR AVE SUTTER ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 50 0.17
Heavy
Rehab $520,089
BATAAN AVE 7TH ST 8TH ST 11 0.06
Recons
truct $214,573
PAGE 1 OF 37
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2027 60 Sections | $17,360,697 | 9.97 miles
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
BELROSE AVE DERBY ST
CLAREMONT
BLVD/
GARBER ST 87 0.12
Light
Mtce $34,656
BOYNTON AVE
COLORADO
AVE
FLORIDA
AVE 45 0.05
Heavy
Rehab $128,472
BOYNTON AVE
(NB)
ARLINGTON
AVE
COLORADO
AVE 41 0.29
Heavy
Rehab $435,183
CATALINA AVE COLUSA AVE
THE
ALAMEDA 92 0.19
Light
Mtce $20,904
COLLEGE AVE
BANCROFT
WAY
DWIGHT
WAY 83 0.23
Light
Mtce $57,600
COLUMBIA
CIRCLE
COLUMBIA
PATH
FAIRLAWN
DR 75 0.04
Light
Rehab $66,464
COWPER ST
SAN PABLO
AVE BYRON ST 80 0.07
Light
Mtce $9,864
DELAWARE ST
DEAD END
WEST OF
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
ST 82 0.07
Light
Mtce $12,000
ENCINA PL THE PLAZA DR
THE
UPLANDS 79 0.07
Light
Mtce $12,440
PAGE 2 OF 37
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2027 60 Sections | $17,360,697 | 9.97 miles
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
EUCLID AVE
CRAGMONT
AVE
BEG OF
DIVIDED
ROAD 67 0.12
Heavy
Mtce $177,667
FAIRLAWN DR AVENIDA DR
OLYMPUS
DR 36 0.10
Heavy
Rehab $223,395
FAIRLAWN DR QUEENS RD AVENIDA DR 86 0.49
Light
Mtce $48,064
FRANCISCO ST CHESTNUT ST DEAD END 23 0.20
Recons
truct $1,001,756
FRANCISCO ST
SAN PABLO
AVE
CHESTNUT
ST 16 0.26
Recons
truct $1,214,556
GRIZZLY PEAK
BLVD ARCADE AVE HILL RD 76 0.15
Light
Rehab $346,084
GRIZZLY PEAK
BLVD SHASTA RD (S)
ARCADE
AVE 69 0.20
Heavy
Mtce $227,200
HEARST AVE CALIFORNIA ST MC GEE AVE 58 0.13
Heavy
Mtce $158,400
HEARST AVE MC GEE AVE
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR
WAY 58 0.26
Heavy
Mtce $325,200
HENRY ST ROSE ST VINE ST 90 0.13
Light
Mtce $21,120
PAGE 3 OF 37
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2027 60 Sections | $17,360,697 | 9.97 miles
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
HENRY ST VINE ST CEDAR ST 90 0.12
Light
Mtce $20,960
KEELER AVE
GRIZZLY PEAK
BLVD MARIN AVE 84 0.26
Light
Mtce $24,000
LE ROY AVE RIDGE RD HEARST AVE 87 0.07
Light
Mtce $11,504
LINCOLN ST MILVIA ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 73 0.13
Light
Rehab $293,136
MASONIC AVE
NORTH CITY
LIMIT
SANTA FE
AVE 76 0.09
Light
Mtce $12,800
MURRAY ST 7TH ST
SAN PABLO
AVE 87 0.25
Light
Mtce $34,072
NOGALES ST THE PLAZA DR
PARKSIDE
DR 76 0.05
Light
Mtce $10,128
PARKSIDE DR ENCINA PL
THE PLAZA
DR 75 0.32
Light
Mtce $42,304
PRINCE ST ACTON ST STANTON ST 85 0.10
Light
Mtce $11,152
PAGE 4 OF 37
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2027 60 Sections | $17,360,697 | 9.97 miles
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
ROBLE RD TUNNEL RD
SOUTH CITY
LIMIT
(ROBLE CT) 84 0.17
Light
Mtce $19,624
ROSE ST CHESTNUT ST ORDWAY ST 86 0.12
Light
Mtce $20,960
ROSE ST HOPKINS ST
CHESTNUT
ST 84 0.13
Light
Mtce $22,496
ROSE ST ORDWAY ST
SACRAMENT
O ST 85 0.24
Light
Mtce $40,000
RUGBY AVE
NORTH CITY
LIMIT
(VERMONT)
VERMONT
AVE 82 0.04
Light
Mtce $4,664
RUSSELL ST ADELINE ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 40 0.09
Heavy
Rehab $295,740
RUSSELL ST
CLAREMONT
BLVD
EAST CITY
LIMIT
(DOMINGO
AVE) 98 0.06
Light
Mtce $10,720
RUSSELL ST MILVIA ST ADELINE ST 93 0.02
Light
Mtce $3,680
SHATTUCK AVE ALLSTON WAY
DWIGHT
WAY 45 0.38
Heavy
Rehab $2,273,700
PAGE 5 OF 37
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2027 60 Sections | $17,360,697 | 9.97 miles
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
SHATTUCK AVE DWIGHT WAY WARD ST 44 0.32
Heavy
Rehab $1,420,400
SHATTUCK AVE
LOS ANGELES
AVE EUNICE ST 69 0.30
Heavy
Mtce $318,000
SHATTUCK AVE MARIN AVE
LOS
ANGELES
AVE 76 0.18
Light
Mtce $20,264
SONOMA AVE
WEST CITY
LIMIT (TULARE
AVE)
JOSEPHINE
ST 69 0.37
Heavy
Mtce $474,000
TACOMA AVE COLUSA AVE
THE
ALAMEDA 51 0.19
Heavy
Rehab $463,803
THE PLAZA DR ENCINA PL
PARKSIDE
DR 76 0.26
Light
Mtce $49,064
VASSAR AVE
(NB)
NORTH CITY
LIMIT
(KENTUCKY)
KENTUCKY
AVE 73 0.07
Heavy
Mtce $47,460
VERMONT AVE
NORTH WEST
DEAD END
(RUGBY)
MARYLAND
AVE 93 0.15
Light
Mtce $15,736
VIRGINIA ST
MARTIN
LUTHER KING
JR WAY MILVIA ST 64 0.13
Heavy
Mtce $163,200
PAGE 6 OF 37
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2027 60 Sections | $17,360,697 | 9.97 miles
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
WOOLSEY ST ADELINE ST
TREMONT
ST 82 0.11
Light
Mtce $22,400
WOOLSEY ST TREMONT ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 51 0.11
Heavy
Rehab $429,618
YOLO AVE MILVIA ST SUTTER ST 85 0.07
Light
Mtce $12,000
YOLO AVE THE ALAMEDA MILVIA ST 85 0.11
Light
Mtce $18,240
TOTAL 9.97 $17,360,697
PAGE 7 OF 37
60 Sections | $17,360,697 | 9.97 miles
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2027 Functional
Class Cost %
Cost Miles %
Miles
Arterials $3,694,100 21% 0.69 7%
Collectors $1,149,140 7% 1.08 11%
Residentials $12,517,457 72% 8.20 82%
Policy Category Cost %
Cost Miles %
Miles
Equity Zone $3,844,874 22% 0.92 9%
Bikeways $8,164,586 47% 3.91 39%
Bus Route $4,760,702 27% 1.62 16%
High-Injury
Streets $5,080,427 29% 2.33 23%
District Cost %
Cost Miles %
Miles
District 1 $8,521,926 49% 3.12 31%
District 2 $55,088 0% 0.42 4%
District 3 $2,171,838 13% 0.65 7%
District 4 $2,730,036 16% 0.63 6%
District 5 $2,520,895 15% 2.44 24%
District 6 $1,124,378 6% 1.43 14%
District 7 $57,600 0% 0.23 2%
District 8 $178,936 1% 1.06 11%
PAGE 8 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5TH ST
HARRISON
ST CAMELIA ST 77 0.25 Light Mtce $41,760
5TH ST
NORTH CITY
LIMIT
HARRISON
ST 74 0.08 Heavy Mtce $109,320
63RD ST
WEST CITY
LIMIT
(CALIFORNIA
) ADELINE ST 35 0.19
Heavy
Rehab $636,000
6TH ST
ALLSTON
WAY
DWIGHT
WAY 86 0.37 Light Mtce $125,112
6TH ST CAMELIA ST CEDAR ST 71 0.25 Heavy Mtce $422,400
6TH ST CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 50 0.13
Heavy
Rehab $703,575
6TH ST GILMAN ST CAMELIA ST 79 0.12 Light Mtce $40,956
6TH ST
NORTH CITY
LIMIT GILMAN ST 76 0.22 Light Mtce $42,560
6TH ST
UNIVERSITY
AVE
ALLSTON
WAY 75 0.19 Light Mtce $64,000
6TH ST VIRGINIA ST
UNIVERSITY
AVE 57 0.31
Light
Rehab $1,320,848
8TH ST
CARLETON
ST PARDEE ST 35 0.06
Heavy
Rehab $182,532
8TH ST
DWIGHT
WAY PARKER ST 82 0.13 Light Mtce $21,120
8TH ST PARDEE ST HEINZ AVE 76 0.18 Light Mtce $30,784
8TH ST PARKER ST
CARLETON
ST 69 0.10
Light
Rehab $247,752
BERRYMAN ST
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR
WAY MILVIA ST 75 0.12 Light Mtce $20,480
BONITA AVE VINE ST CEDAR ST 77 0.12 Light Mtce $20,960
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2028 67 Sections | $17,051,650 | 9.84 miles
PAGE 9 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2028 67 Sections | $17,051,650 | 9.84 miles
BROOKSIDE AVE
CLAREMONT
AVE
DEAD END
(CLAREMON
T AVE) 88 0.08 Light Mtce $9,816
BURNETT ST MABEL ST ACTON ST 69 0.13 Light $349,184
CAMPUS DR AVENIDA DR
PARNASSUS
RD 83 0.10 Light Mtce $11,520
CAMPUS DR
PARNASSUS
RD
DEAD END,
U C PLOT 82 83 0.14 Light Mtce $12,832
CEDAR ST
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR
WAY MILVIA ST 83 0.13 Light Mtce $31,920
CEDAR ST MILVIA ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 83 0.13 Light Mtce $31,680
CEDAR ST OXFORD ST SPRUCE ST 80 0.06 Light Mtce $16,080
CEDAR ST
SHATTUCK
AVE OXFORD ST 80 0.12 Light Mtce $32,172
CLAREMONT
CRESCENT
CLAREMONT
AVE ASHBY AVE 81 0.08 Light Mtce $8,744
CORNELL AVE CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 91 0.13 Light Mtce $17,600 CORNELL AVE HOPKINS ST CEDAR ST 91 0.07 Light Mtce $8,888 CORNELL AVE PAGE ST HOPKINS ST 67 0.12
Light
Rehab $258,292
CRAGMONT AVE EUCLID AVE
BRET HARTE
RD 77 0.27 Light Mtce $25,240
CRAGMONT AVE
SANTA
BARBARA
RD EUCLID AVE 81 0.16 Light Mtce $16,224
DELAWARE ST 6TH ST 9TH ST 67 0.18 Heavy Mtce $305,580
DELAWARE ST 9TH ST
SAN PABLO
AVE 67 0.13 Heavy Mtce $214,400
PAGE 10 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2028 67 Sections | $17,051,650 | 9.84 miles
DWIGHT
CRESCENT 6TH ST 7TH ST 91 0.08 Light Mtce $25,200
EAST
PARNASSUS CT
PARNASSUS
RD
DEAD END
(PARNASSU
S RD) 79 0.04 Light Mtce $4,104
ETON AVE
WOOLSEY
ST
CLAREMONT
AVE 78 0.14 Light Mtce $24,000
GLEN AVE OAK ST EUNICE ST 83 0.10 Light Mtce $12,688
HILGARD AVE EUCLID AVE
LA LOMA
AVE 77 0.20 Light Mtce $32,664
HILGARD AVE
LA LOMA
AVE
LA VEREDA
RD 85 0.09 Light Mtce $12,032
HILGARD AVE
LA VEREDA
RD DEAD END 87 0.04 Light Mtce $4,688
HOPKINS ST
CARLOTTA
AVE
JOSEPHINE
ST 34 0.29
Heavy
Rehab $1,212,375
HOPKINS ST GILMAN ST
SACRAMENT
O ST 19 0.10
Reconstruc
t $563,920
HOPKINS ST HOPKINS CT
MONTEREY
AVE 40 0.05
Heavy
Rehab $159,000
HOPKINS ST
JOSEPHINE
ST
THE
ALAMEDA 39 0.06
Heavy
Rehab $355,047
HOPKINS ST MC GEE AVE
CARLOTTA
AVE 33 0.06
Heavy
Rehab $254,400
HOPKINS ST
MONTEREY
AVE MC GEE AVE 38 0.05
Heavy
Rehab $176,649
HOPKINS ST
NORTHSIDE
AVE
PERALTA
AVE 66 0.08 Heavy Mtce $127,140
HOPKINS ST
PERALTA
AVE GILMAN ST 43 0.25
Heavy
Rehab $842,700
HOPKINS ST
SACRAMENT
O ST HOPKINS CT 39 0.04
Heavy
Rehab $127,200
PAGE 11 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2028 67 Sections | $17,051,650 | 9.84 miles
HOPKINS ST
SAN PABLO
AVE
STANNAGE
AVE 46 0.09
Heavy
Rehab $353,298
HOPKINS ST
STANNAGE
AVE
NORTHSIDE
AVE 61 0.17 Heavy Mtce $244,020
HOPKINS ST
THE
ALAMEDA SUTTER ST 39 0.26
Reconstruc
t $2,438,422
MENLO PL
THOUSAND
OAKS BLVD
SANTA
ROSA AVE 82 0.09 Light Mtce $10,448
PARNASSUS RD
DEL MAR
AVE CAMPUS DR 83 0.22 Light Mtce $24,424
RIDGE RD EUCLID AVE
LA LOMA
AVE 83 0.18 Light Mtce $31,200
RIDGE RD
LA LOMA
AVE
HIGHLAND
PL 81 0.06 Light Mtce $9,664
RIDGE RD SCENIC AVE EUCLID AVE 76 0.13 Light Mtce $21,440
ROSE ST
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR
WAY MILVIA ST 85 0.13 Light Mtce $35,460
RUSSELL ST
COLLEGE
AVE
PIEDMONT
AVE 52 0.11
Heavy
Rehab $372,060
THE ALAMEDA
TACOMA
AVE
SOLANO
AVE 86 0.24 Light Mtce $40,000
UNIVERSITY AVE 6TH ST
SAN PABLO
AVE 65 0.31 Heavy Mtce $677,040
VIRGINIA ST 2ND ST 6TH ST 33 0.25
Heavy
Rehab $842,700
VIRGINIA ST 6TH ST
SAN PABLO
AVE 28 0.31
Heavy
Rehab $1,049,400
VIRGINIA ST ARCH ST EUCLID AVE 64 0.20 Heavy Mtce $254,400 PAGE 12 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2028 67 Sections | $17,051,650 | 9.84 miles
VIRGINIA ST MILVIA ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 66 0.12 Light Mtce $22,140
VIRGINIA ST
SHATTUCK
AVE SPRUCE ST 58 0.19
Light
Rehab $496,000
WEST
PARNASSUS CT
PARNASSUS
PATH
PARNASSUS
RD 78 0.04 Light Mtce $4,496
WOOLSEY ST
SACRAMENT
O ST KING ST 46 0.24
Heavy
Rehab $810,900
TOTAL 9.84 $17,051,650
PAGE 13 OF 37
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2028 67 Sections | $17,051,650 | 9.84 miles
Functional
Class Cost %
Cost Miles % Miles
Arterials $804,240 5% 0.35 4%
Collectors $7,965,276 47% 3.08 31%
Residentials $8,282,134 49% 6.41 65%
Policy
Category Cost %
Cost Miles % Miles
Equity Zone $8,028,527 47% 3.54 36%
Bikeways $12,233,084 72% 4.20 43%
Bus Route $6,227,722 37% 2.40 24%
High-Injury
Streets $6,310,326 37% 2.78 28%
District Cost %
Cost Miles % Miles
District 1 $7,911,477 46% 3.40 35%
District 2 $1,384,204 8% 1.40 14%
District 3 $1,446,900 8% 0.43 4%
District 4 $318,026 2% 0.40 4%
District 5 $4,842,767 28% 1.71 17%
District 6 $733,656 4% 2.11 21%
District 8 $414,620 2% 0.41 4%
PAGE 14 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
4TH ST CAMELIA ST CEDAR ST 64 0.25 Light $659,680
4TH ST CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 50 0.13
Heavy
Rehab $422,940
4TH ST
CHANNING
WAY
DWIGHT
WAY 61 0.12
Heavy
Rehab $391,140
4TH ST VIRGINIA ST
DELAWARE
ST 80 0.13
Light
Mtce $21,280
5TH ST CEDAR ST VIRGINIA ST 64 0.13 Light $409,200
5TH ST
UNIVERSITY
AVE
DWIGHT
WAY 23 0.57
Reconst
ruct $3,004,470
5TH ST VIRGINIA ST
UNIVERSITY
AVE 64 0.29
Heavy
Mtce $454,667
ALCATRAZ AVE
WEST CITY
LIMIT
SACRAMENT
O ST 80 0.19
Light
Mtce $54,660
AVENIDA DR CAMPUS DR QUEENS RD 71 0.08 Light $405,604
AVENIDA DR QUEENS RD
GRIZZLY
PEAK BLVD 37 0.25
Heavy
Rehab $557,454
BRIDGE RD
ALVARADO
RD TUNNEL RD 81 0.09
Light
Mtce $9,600
BUENA AVE
WEST DEAD
END (HOLLY
ST) MCGEE AVE 81 0.17
Light
Mtce $29,728
CAMPUS DR QUAIL AVE
GLENDALE
AVE 41 0.09
Heavy
Rehab $190,800
CAMPUS DR SHASTA RD QUAIL AVE 38 0.07
Heavy
Rehab $143,736
CARLETON ST
SAN PABLO
AVE
MATHEWS
ST 68 0.09
Light
Rehab $248,000
CHANNING WAY 10TH ST
SAN PABLO
AVE 42 0.06
Heavy
Rehab $209,880
CODORNICES
RD
DEAD END
(EUCLID
AVE) EUCLID AVE 66 0.11
Light
Rehab $124,000
EUCLID AVE
(NB)
BEG OF
DIVIDED
ROAD
END OF
DIVIDED
ROAD 70 0.16
Heavy
Mtce $102,000
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2029 63 Sections | $17,870,774 | 8.28 miles
PAGE 15 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2029 63 Sections | $17,870,774 | 8.28 miles
EUCLID AVE
(SB)
BEG OF
DIVIDED
ROAD
END OF
DIVIDED
ROAD 64 0.16
Light
Rehab $360,840
FOLGER AVE WEST END HOLLIS ST 90 0.07 Light $13,624
FRANCISCO ST
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR MILVIA ST 24 0.13
Reconst
ruct $712,880
FRANCISCO ST MILVIA ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 23 0.13
Reconst
ruct $712,880
GRANT ST ADDISON ST
ALLSTON
WAY 29 0.13
Heavy
Rehab $493,377
GRANT ST
ALLSTON
WAY
BANCROFT
WAY 81 0.13
Light
Mtce $28,134
GRANT ST
BANCROFT
WAY
CHANNING
WAY 36 0.13
Heavy
Rehab $497,034
GRANT ST CEDAR ST LINCOLN ST 45 0.06 Light $157,728
GRANT ST
CHANNING
WAY
DWIGHT
WAY 71 0.13
Light
Mtce $27,927
GRANT ST
DWIGHT
WAY OREGON ST 29 0.43
Heavy
Rehab $1,441,176
GRANT ST
FRANCISCO
ST
OHLONE
PARK 95 0.10
Light
Mtce $18,900
GRANT ST HEARST AVE
UNIVERSITY
AVE 64 0.11
Heavy
Mtce $144,000
GRANT ST LINCOLN ST VIRGINIA ST 41 0.06
Heavy
Rehab $203,520
GRANT ST NORTH END ROSE ST 42 0.06
Heavy
Rehab $197,160
GRANT ST
NORTH END
(GROVE
PARK) RUSSELL ST 37 0.04
Heavy
Rehab $124,656
GRANT ST ROSE ST CEDAR ST 57 0.25 Heavy $318,000
GRANT ST
UNIVERSITY
AVE ADDISON ST 87 0.06
Light
Mtce $14,067
GRANT ST VIRGINIA ST
FRANCISCO
ST 22 0.06
Reconst
ruct $338,352
HAWTHORNE
TERRACE EUCLID AVE CEDAR ST 76 0.28
Light
Mtce $31,248
PAGE 16 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2029 63 Sections | $17,870,774 | 8.28 miles
HEARST AVE HENRY ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 85 0.06
Light
Mtce $26,208
HEARST AVE
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR MILVIA ST 42 0.13
Heavy
Rehab $402,447
HEARST AVE MILVIA ST HENRY ST 90 0.06 Light $23,218
HEARST AVE OXFORD ST SPRUCE ST 89 0.05 Light $20,943
HEARST AVE
SACRAMENT
O ST
CALIFORNIA
ST 56 0.11
Heavy
Mtce $144,000
HEARST AVE
SHATTUCK
AVE WALNUT ST 85 0.06
Light
Mtce $26,754
HEARST AVE SPRUCE ST ARCH ST 84 0.08 Light $34,372
HEARST AVE WALNUT ST OXFORD ST 80 0.07 Light $29,224
JONES ST
EASTSHORE
HWY 2ND ST 90 0.05
Light
Mtce $12,192
KEELER AVE
STERLING
AVE
BRET HARTE
RD 36 0.08
Heavy
Rehab $141,192
KING ST
FAIRVIEW
ST
SOUTH CITY
LIMIT (62ND
ST) 72 0.28
Heavy
Mtce $369,960
LOS ANGELES
AVE
CONTRA
COSTA AVE THE CIRCLE 66 0.16
Light
Rehab $279,372
MENLO PL
SANTA
ROSA AVE
THE
ALAMEDA 86 0.09
Light
Mtce $9,600
NORTHGATE
AVE
DEAD END
(NORTHGAT
E PATH) SHASTA RD 85 0.17
Light
Mtce $16,424
PORTLAND AVE
WEST CITY
LIMIT
(NEILSON) COLUSA AVE 50 0.24
Heavy
Rehab $795,000
ROSE ST MILVIA ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 82 0.13
Light
Mtce $36,000
RUSSELL ST
BENVENUE
AVE
COLLEGE
AVE 85 0.07
Light
Mtce $11,200
SHATTUCK AVE WARD ST ASHBY AVE 41 0.29
Heavy
Mtce $463,020
STANTON ST RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 69 0.11 Heavy $97,020
PAGE 17 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2029 63 Sections | $17,870,774 | 8.28 miles
THE CIRCLE
INTERSECTI
ON MARIN
AVE, ETC.
INTERSECTI
ON
ARLINGTON
AVE 70 0.05
Light
Rehab $169,384
UNIVERSITY
AVE 3RD ST 5TH ST 64 0.10
Light
Rehab $651,000
UNIVERSITY
AVE 5TH ST 6TH ST 63 0.04
Heavy
Mtce $123,200
VIRGINIA ST EUCLID AVE
LA LOMA
AVE 43 0.19
Heavy
Rehab $600,543
VIRGINIA ST
LA LOMA
AVE
DEAD END
(AT LA
VEREDA) 80 0.04
Light
Mtce $3,320
VIRGINIA ST SPRUCE ST ARCH ST 59 0.09 Heavy $108,000
WEBSTER ST REGENT ST DEAD END 77 0.03 Light $2,840
TOTAL 8.28 $17,870,774
PAGE 18 OF 37
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2029 63 Sections | $17,870,774 | 8.28 miles
Functional
Class Cost %
Cost Miles % Miles
Arterials $1,506,750 8% 0.70 8%
Collectors $1,088,820 6% 0.83 10%
Residentials $15,275,205 85% 6.75 82%
Policy
Category Cost %
Cost Miles % Miles
Equity Zone $6,413,689 36% 2.19 26%
Bikeways $9,183,510 51% 4.38 53%
Bus Route $3,278,331 18% 1.54 19%
High-Injury
Streets $1,792,226 10% 1.40 17%
District Cost %
Cost Miles % Miles
District 1 $3,373,559 19% 1.56 19%
District 2 $4,405,894 25% 1.28 15%
District 3 $2,398,812 13% 1.04 13%
District 4 $2,994,150 17% 1.20 15%
District 5 $1,936,244 11% 1.30 16%
District 6 $2,710,819 15% 1.66 20%
District 7 $27,658 0% 0.06 1%
District 8 $23,640 0% 0.18 2%
PAGE 19 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
10TH ST
DWIGHT
WAY PARKER ST 17 0.13
Reconstr
uct $702,240
10TH ST
UNIVERSITY
AVE
DWIGHT
WAY 84 0.57
Light
Mtce $96,160
4TH ST
HARRISON
ST GILMAN ST 73 0.13
Light
Rehab $327,360
7TH ST
BANCROFT
WAY
DWIGHT
WAY 35 0.25
Heavy
Rehab $845,880
7TH ST
DWIGHT
WAY
GRAYSON
ST 63 0.35
Heavy
Mtce $504,000
7TH ST
GRAYSON
ST HEINZ AVE 65 0.13
Heavy
Mtce $188,580
7TH ST HEINZ AVE ASHBY AVE 69 0.19
Light
Mtce $61,944
7TH ST
UNIVERSITY
AVE
BANCROFT
WAY 22 0.32
Reconstr
uct $1,776,880
9TH ST
BANCROFT
WAY
CHANNING
WAY 75 0.13
Light
Mtce $30,080
9TH ST
CHANNING
WAY
DWIGHT
WAY 84 0.13
Light
Mtce $28,368
ALVARADO RD BRIDGE RD
NORTH CITY
LIMIT AB
WILLOW WK 38 0.36
Heavy
Rehab $801,360
ALVARADO RD
NORTH CITY
LIMIT BRIDGE RD 85 0.09
Light
Mtce $9,600
ALVARADO RD TUNNEL RD
NORTH CITY
LIMIT 84 0.15
Light
Mtce $15,056
BATEMAN ST
108 N/O
PRINCE ST
WOOLSEY
ST 79 0.06
Light
Mtce $5,736
BATEMAN ST NORTH END
108 N/O
PRINCE ST 79 0.09
Light
Mtce $7,600
BAY ST
ASHYBY AVE
OVERPASS POTTER ST 87 0.11
Light
Mtce $21,021
BOWDITCH ST
BANCROFT
WAY
DURANT
AVE 25 0.06
Reconstr
uct $351,120
BOWDITCH ST DURANT HASTE ST 17 0.11 Reconstr $702,240
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2030 66 Sections | $17,957,460 | 11.33 miles
PAGE 20 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2030 66 Sections | $17,957,460 | 11.33 miles
BOWDITCH ST HASTE ST
DWIGHT
WAY 40 0.06
Heavy
Rehab $209,880
CAMELIA ST
SAN PABLO
AVE
SANTA FE
AVE 81 0.20
Light
Mtce $33,600
CENTER ST
KALA BAGAI
WAY OXFORD ST 78 0.09
Light
Mtce $20,888
CLAREMONT
BLVD
BELROSE
AVE
CLAREMONT
AVE 89 0.17
Light
Mtce $43,164
CONTRA COSTA
AVE
SOLANO
AVE
LOS
ANGELES
AVE 88 0.04
Light
Mtce $4,104
CONTRA COSTA
AVE
YOSEMITE
RD
SOLANO
AVE 82 0.45
Light
Mtce $42,216
DURANT AVE
BOWDITCH
ST
COLLEGE
AVE 61 0.13
Heavy
Rehab $568,107
DURANT AVE FULTON ST
BOWDITCH
ST 52 0.50
Heavy
Rehab $2,247,200
DWIGHT WAY
SAN PABLO
AVE
SACRAMENT
O ST 51 0.46
Heavy
Rehab $1,545,480
ELLIS ST RUSSELL ST ASHBY AVE 38 0.12
Heavy
Rehab $424,848
EUCALYPTUS
RD
HILLCREST
RD
SOUTH CITY
LIMIT 51 0.08
Heavy
Rehab $194,298
FULTON ST PARKER ST STUART ST 94 0.25 Light $42,176
FULTON ST STUART ST ASHBY AVE 78 0.22 Light $37,312
HARPER ST ASHBY AVE
WOOLSEY
ST 51 0.18
Heavy
Rehab $594,660
HARRISON ST 8TH ST
SAN PABLO
AVE 74 0.19
Heavy
Mtce $231,000
HARRISON ST
SAN PABLO
AVE
STANNAGE
AVE 73 0.09
Heavy
Mtce $118,800
HOPKINS CT ALBINA AVE HOPKINS ST 79 0.09 Light $11,104
JONES ST 4TH ST 6TH ST 93 0.13 Light $21,920
JONES ST 6TH ST
SAN PABLO
AVE 65 0.31
Light
Rehab $818,400
KITTREDGE ST MILVIA ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 40 0.13
Heavy
Rehab $448,380
PAGE 21 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2030 66 Sections | $17,957,460 | 11.33 miles
LA VEREDA RD CEDAR ST
DEAD END
ABOVE
VIRGINIA ST 70 0.14
Light
Rehab $203,360
LA VEREDA RD
LA LOMA
AVE CEDAR ST 71 0.10
Light
Rehab $136,400
LE ROY AVE CEDAR ST
HILGARD
AVE 75 0.06
Light
Mtce $8,000
LE ROY AVE
HAWTHORN
E TERRACE CEDAR ST 82 0.23
Light
Mtce $32,928
LINCOLN ST
SACRAMENT
O ST GRANT ST 78 0.37
Light
Mtce $61,920
MILVIA ST HOPKINS ST YOLO AVE 80 0.08 Light $12,368
PAGE ST 10TH ST
SAN PABLO
AVE 48 0.06
Heavy
Rehab $177,444
PAGE ST
SAN PABLO
AVE
CORNELL
AVE 36 0.14
Heavy
Rehab $486,540
PARKER ST
374' E/O
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR MILVIA ST 76 0.06
Light
Mtce $12,222
PARKER ST
COLLEGE
AVE
PIEDMONT
AVE 87 0.13
Light
Mtce $21,280
PARKER ST
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR
WAY
374' E/O
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR 60 0.07
Light
Rehab $216,421
PARKER ST MILVIA ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 77 0.14
Light
Mtce $26,800
PARKER ST
PIEDMONT
AVE
WARRING
ST 84 0.06
Light
Mtce $10,400
POTTER ST
3RD ST
(WEST END) 9TH ST 80 0.32
Light
Mtce $51,376
POTTER ST BAY ST
I-80
FREEWAY
RAMP 85 0.13
Light
Mtce $26,286
QUAIL AVE
NORTHGATE
AVE CAMPUS DR 80 0.06
Light
Mtce $6,344
PAGE 22 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2030 66 Sections | $17,957,460 | 11.33 miles
SANTA ROSA
AVE
MENLO
PLACE
THOUSAND
OAKS BLVD 78 0.09
Light
Mtce $8,896
SANTA ROSA
AVE
THOUSAND
OAKS BLVD
SAN
LORENZO
AVE 78 0.24
Light
Mtce $27,304
SOMERSET PL
SOUTHAMPT
ON AVE
DEAD END
(JOHN
HINKEL
PARK) 78 0.08
Light
Mtce $8,304
STANNAGE AVE GILMAN ST HOPKINS ST 73 0.34
Heavy
Mtce $360,000
STANNAGE AVE HOPKINS ST CEDAR ST 50 0.04
Heavy
Rehab $111,300
STANNAGE AVE
NORTH CITY
LIMIT GILMAN ST 79 0.13
Light
Mtce $18,664
THE UPLANDS
CLAREMONT
AVE ENCINA PL 38 0.06
Heavy
Rehab $316,569
TULARE AVE
SOLANO
AVE
SONOMA
AVE 93 0.32
Light
Mtce $54,880
WARRING ST DWIGHT DERBY ST 88 0.24 Light $73,092
WEBSTER ST DEAKIN ST
TELEGRAPH
AVE 77 0.13
Light
Mtce $21,440
WHITNEY ST
WOOLSEY
ST
SOUTH CITY
LIMIT 96 0.02
Light
Mtce $4,160
WOOLSEY ST
COLLEGE
AVE
CLAREMONT
AVE 28 0.24
Reconstr
uct $1,330,000
TOTAL 11.33 $17,957,460
PAGE 23 OF 37
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2030 66 Sections | $17,957,460 | 11.33 miles
Functional
Class Cost %
Cost Miles % Miles
Arterials $1,592,787 9% 0.70 6%
Collectors $3,686,087 21% 1.71 15%
Residentials $12,678,586 71% 8.93 79%
Policy
Category Cost %
Cost Miles % Miles
Equity Zone $7,062,360 39% 2.79 25%
Bikeways $6,313,558 35% 3.45 30%
Bus Route $5,252,455 29% 2.26 20%
High-Injury
Streets $2,858,471 16% 0.79 7%
District Cost %
Cost Miles % Miles
District 1 $2,778,052 15% 2.23 20%
District 2 $5,878,295 33% 3.21 28%
District 3 $1,358,599 8% 1.06 9%
District 4 $469,268 3% 0.23 2%
District 5 $158,072 1% 1.30 11%
District 6 $387,032 2% 0.60 5%
District 7 $4,078,547 23% 0.86 8%
District 8 $2,849,595 16% 1.84 16%
PAGE 24 OF 37
Street Name From To PCI Mile
age
Treat
ment
Estimated
Cost
ADDISON ST
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR MILVIA ST 43 0.13
Heavy
Rehab $437,886
ADDISON ST MILVIA ST
SHATTUCK
AVE 44 0.13
Heavy
Mtce $144,667
ALLSTON WAY
SACRAMENT
O ST
MARTIN
LUTHER
KING JR 79 0.46 Light Mtce $77,600
ASHBY PL
ASHBY AVE
& ELMWOOD
AVE
ASHBY AVE
& PIEDMONT
AVE 83 0.07 Light Mtce $11,328
BROOKSIDE CT
DEAD END
NR
BROOKSIDE
DR
BROOKSIDE
DR 92 0.02 Light Mtce $2,344
BROOKSIDE DR
CLAREMONT
AVE (N)
CLAREMONT
AVE (S) 88 0.10 Light Mtce $11,408
CEDAR ST ACTON ST
SACRAMENT
O ST 86 0.13 Light Mtce $30,144
CEDAR ST
CHESTNUT
ST ACTON ST 83 0.22 Light Mtce $56,232
CEDAR ST
SAN PABLO
AVE
CHESTNUT
ST 74 0.28
Light
Rehab $757,020
CHABOLYN
TERRACE
SOUTH CITY
LIMIT (W)
SOUTH CITY
LIMIT (E) 79 0.08 Light Mtce $9,704
CHANNING WAY
BOWDITCH
ST
COLLEGE
AVE 64 0.13
Heavy
Mtce $165,240
CHANNING WAY
COLLEGE
AVE
PIEDMONT
AVE 54 0.12
Heavy
Mtce $151,200
CHANNING WAY DANA ST
BOWDITCH
ST 67 0.25 Light Mtce $53,595
CHANNING WAY FULTON ST DANA ST 72 0.25 Light Mtce $48,240
CHANNING WAY
SHATTUCK
AVE FULTON ST 85 0.11 Light Mtce $20,160
DEL NORTE ST THE CIRCLE SUTTER ST 85 0.13 Light Mtce $25,752
DERBY ST
COLLEGE
AVE
PIEDMONT
AVE 25 0.12
Heavy
Rehab $426,756
5-YEAR STREET REHABILITATION PLAN: FY 2027-2031 | Fiscal Year 2031 97 Sections | $18,380,381 | 15.72 miles
PAGE 25 OF 37