Berkeley City Council
January 20, 2026

DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED [100 - 681] ( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. ) 295.5.

VEHICLE CODE - VEH

A “disabled person” is any of the following:
(a) Any person who has lost, or has lost the use of, one or more lower extremities or both hands, or who has significant limitation in the use of lower extremities, or who has a diagnosed disease or disorder which substantially impairs or interferes with mobility, or who is so severely disabled as to be unable to move without the aid of an assistant device. (b) Any person who is blind to the extent that the person’s central visual acuity does not exceed 20/200 in the better eye, with corrective lenses, as measured by the Snellen test, or visual acuity that is greater than 20/200, but with a limitation in the field of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle not greater than 20 degrees. (c) Any person who suffers from lung disease to the extent of any of the following:
(1) The person’s forced (respiratory) expiratory volume for one second when measured by spirometry is less than one liter. (2) The person’s arterial oxygen tension (pO2) is less than 60 mm/Hg on room air while the person is at rest. (d) Any person who is impaired by cardiovascular disease to the extent that the person’s functional limitations are classified in severity as class III or class IV based upon standards accepted by the American Heart Association. (Added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 554, Sec. 1.)

The Fines and Fees Report:

Advancing Equity in Berkeley, California

Daniel V. Muñoz MPP 2025
Goldman School of Public Policy
University of California Berkeley

This document was prepared for the City of Berkeley’s Fines and Fees Steering Committee and the Berkeley City Council

The author conducted this study as part of the program of professional education at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree. The judgments and conclusions are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Goldman School of Public Policy, by the University of California, or by any other agency.

Table of Contents
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Positionality.....................................................................................................4 Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction.............................................................................................................................4 Criteria Used to Evaluate....................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings and Challenges.................................................................................................5 Recommendations..................................................................................................................6 Implementation Considerations...........................................................................................7 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 8 Project Scope........................................................................................................................... 8 Limitations...............................................................................................................................9 Background..............................................................................................................................9 Problem Statement...............................................................................................................11 Methodology..........................................................................................................................13 Analytical Framework.................................................................................................................14 The preferred package of six recommendations:............................................................14 Criteria Matrix..............................................................................................................................15 Considerations:..................................................................................................................... 16 Implementation Considerations...............................................................................................16 Community Service Considerations......................................................................................... 17 Exemption Considerations........................................................................................................ 18 Recommendations................................................................................................................ 18 Status Quo:.......................................................................................................................18 Current State of City of Berkeley’s Fines and Fees...........................................................18 Current City Statute..............................................................................................................19 Departmental Practices and Informal Flexibility........................................................20 Evaluation of the Status Quo Based on Criteria...............................................................20 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................21 Recommendation 1: Develop a Clear Fines and Fees Communication Strategy..... 21 Current State......................................................................................................................... 21 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 21 Improving Access and Compliance.............................................................................. 22 Public Trust and Clear and Consistent Communications......................................... 23 Evaluation of Recommendation 1 based on Criteria.......................................................24 1

Financial Implications...........................................................................................................24 Recommendation 2: Amend BMC 14.40.100 to align with federal and state standards on
disability parking standards and accommodations............................25 Current State......................................................................................................................... 25 CA Department of Motor Vehicle Guidelines and Supportive Persons.................. 25 Evaluation of Recommendation 2 Based on Criteria.......................................................26 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................26 Recommendation 3: Amend BMC 14.68 that requires an individual to license and register
their bicycles annually to be optional............................................................27 Current State......................................................................................................................... 27 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 27 Reinforcing Berkeley’s Climate-friendly Mobility Efforts...........................................27 Low-Income Options Carry Compliance Difficulties..................................................27 Evaluation of Recommendation 3 Based on Criteria.......................................................28 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................28 Recommendation 4: Establish a Centralized Platform for Fines and Fees Management.......................................................... ..........................................................28 Current State......................................................................................................................... 28 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 29 How Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software Works...................................... 29 How Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Software Works........................................ 29 ERP and RPA Can Work Together.................................................................................30 Broader Opportunity..................................................................................................... 30 Insights from Department of Labor Website............................................................. 30 San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project as a Model..............................................................31 Software Impact on San Francisco.....................................................................................31 Evaluation of Recommendation 4 Based on Criteria.......................................................33 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................33 Cost/Benefit.....................................................................................................................34 Recommendation 5: Expand the Indigent Payment Plan to Other Areas of the BMC 35 Current Framework.............................................................................................................. 35 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 35 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................35 Insights from the 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update...................................................... 36 Evaluation of Recommendation 5 Based on Criteria.......................................................36 2

Recommendation 6: Explore Automatic Fines and Fees Payment Plans Available to Anyone..............................................................................................................................37 Current Framework.............................................................................................................. 37 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 37 Comprehensive Social Impacts.................................................................................... 38 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................38 Reducing Administrative Costs and Default Rates.................................................... 39 Evaluation of Recommendation 6 Based on Criteria.......................................................39 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................40 Appendix I.................................................................................................................................. 41 Addit
ional BMC to be Eligible for Payment Plans............................................................ 41 Appendix II................................................................................................................................. 42 Public Safety Defined.......................................................................................................42

3

Statement of Positionality
My engagement throughout this Capstone and Berkeley’s Fines & Fees system is inseparable from my lived experience. I am a multi-racial Hispanic male who grew up—and, for much of my adult life, remained—in low‑income circumstances, living paycheck‑to‑paycheck. I am formerly incarcerated and have personally carried the weight of punitive
fines and fees that compounded economic insecurity for me and my family.

Having navigated the criminal legal system from the inside, I understand how cumulative financial penalties can trap people in cycles of debt, surveillance, and marginalization. This perspective grounds my insistence that policy proposals be evaluated not only for fiscal efficiency but also for their capacity to restore dignity, promote due process access, and reduce racial‑ and socio-economic disparities. Equity is not an abstract goal for me—it is a tangible necessity tied to survival and self‑determination.

At the same time, I recognize that my proximity to the issue may introduce bias toward favoring reforms that reduce or eliminate
fines altogether. To mitigate that bias, I rely on
rigorous empirical evidence, dialogue with stakeholders of varied backgrounds, and transparent methodology. I strive to balance the urgency of lived experience with the discipline of data‑driven public policy analysis.

Ultimately, my position in this project is both scholar‑advocate and community voice. I leverage personal insight to spotlight systemic harms that might otherwise remain hidden, while committing to rigorous standards that make our recommendations credible to policymakers. My aim is to ensure that Berkeley’s
fines and fees framework advances fiscal
responsibility and justice—so that no one’s ability to meet basic needs is derailed by punitive costs.

Executive Summary
Introduction
Berkeley’s multi-department fines
and fees framework, while designed to meet diverse
operational needs, has led to challenges around consistent communication, administrative efficiency,
and equitable enforcement for low‑income residents. In the first half of Fiscal Year 2025, parking citation volume rose by 12.9 percent while related revenues fell by 9.9 percent, indicating a growing disparity between enforcement actions and actual collections.1 This gap highlights the limits of relying on punitive, lump-sum charges and underscores the need to realign the City’s approach to promote both fiscal stability and
equitable access for all residents.
1 “Fiscal Year 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update.” City Budget. City of Berkeley, March 25, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03-25%20Item%2011%20FY%202025%20Mid-Year%20Budget%20Updat e%20Report.pdf.
4

This report examines Berkeley’s multilingual, multi-department fines and fees framework to identify opportunities for improving fiscal stability, administrative efficiency, and equitable access. It assesses how reliance on punitive, lump-sum penalties can exacerbate financial hardships for low-income residents and strain public trust, setting the stage for targeted reforms to realign policy with broader equity and transparency goals.

Criteria Used to Evaluate
This study evaluates six targeted interventions using a mixed-methods approach: mapping departmental fee schedules, analyzing budget and revenue data, conducting semi-structured interviews with sta
ff from multiple City departments, and benchmarking
against other Bay Area jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, Alameda, and Oakland, as well as other jurisdictions across the U.S.

To ensure a transparent and data-driven assessment of each reform, a criteria matrix was developed that quanti
fies their performance across five key dimensions. The study’s criteria matrix assigns each proposed reform a score from 1 to 10 across each dimension—political feasibility, implementation cost, anticipated e ffectiveness, long-term
sustainability, and potential externalities—to facilitate an objective, side-by-side comparison of policy options. By quantifying each recommendation against these standardized measures, the matrix highlights top-scoring interventions and illuminates trade-o
ffs, enabling decision makers to prioritize actions that balance impact with practicality and equity.

Key Findings and Challenges
The disproportionate burden that fines and fees impose on low-income individuals and communities of color has been documented across California. A UCLA Summer Programs for Undergraduate Research (SPUR) study in 2021 found that nearly half of Californians with outstanding
fines or fees were unable to pay other essential bills, with 40 percent skipping utilities and 37 percent missing grocery payments.2 Concurrently, a 2023 analysis by the California Budget and Policy Center revealed that 63 percent of households earning under $35,000, 46 percent earning $35,000–$74,999, and 30 percent earning $75,000–$149,999 reported di
fficulty meeting basic expenses.3 These findings illustrate how unexpected municipal charges can exacerbate financial fragility and erode trust in local governance.

Recognition of these harms has grown alongside broader public safety reforms. Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety Task Force called for non-punitive interventions and restorative 3 California Budget and Policy Center. “Millions of Californians Are Struggling to Make Ends Meet.” Accessed April 13, 2025. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/millions-of-californians-are-struggling-to-make-ends-meet/. 2 Denney, Jacob. “More Harm Than Good: Building a More Just Fine and Fee System in California,” June 2021. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/SPUR_More_Harm_Than_Good_0.pdf 5

approaches to reduce reliance on traditional enforcement,4 while the City Council’s Care First, Jails Last resolution shifted focus toward prevention and community-centered support.5 Yet, without targeted reforms to the fines and fees framework, efforts to advance equity risk being strained by financial barriers that may contribute to financial hardship for vulnerable residents.

Although some City departments use informal, case-by-case discretion to extend deadlines, waive minor penalties, or guide residents through the
fines and fees process, these
accommodations depend on individual staff availability, lack clear, uniform procedures, and remain unevenly accessible, which can inadvertently reinforce inequities.

Recommendations
First, consolidating all fees, deadlines, and relief programs into a single, multilingual online resource page—complemented by a council-adopted Master Fee Schedule—could vastly improve transparency and reduce administrative overhead. San Francisco, who publishes a biennial Master Fee Schedule, reports measurable increases in voluntary compliance and reductions in sta
ff time spent responding to routine inquiries.6 Also,
embedding clear instructions and QR codes on physical notices can further guide residents to assistance at the point of citation.

Second, updating Berkeley Municipal Code section 14.40.1007 to align with the ADA Amendments Act of 20088 and California Vehicle Code § 295.59 would broaden eligibility for disabled-parking placards to include individuals with blindness, cardiopulmonary conditions, or episodic impairments, and would allow caregivers to use placards when they are providing transportation to disabled persons. Harmonizing local law with federal and state de
finitions reduces legal risk and expands equitable access without substantive revenue loss.

Third, converting mandatory bicycle licensing under BMC 14.68 to a voluntary program removes a punitive requirement that discourages sustainable transportation and disproportionately penalizes second-hand bike owners who often lack sales documentation. State law under Cal. Veh. Code § 39002(a) prohibits enforcement against unlicensed bicycles,10 and Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan reported that sustainable modes—including cycling—accounted for 34 percent of trips in 2023, underscoring the 10 Registration and Licensing of Bicycles, Vehicle Code § 39002(a) (2023). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayT ext.xhtml?article=&chapter=&division=16.7.&lawCode=VEH&part=&title=. 9 Legislature, Cal. “Cal. Vehicle Code § 295.5.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_295.5. 8 ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–325, Stat. 3553, 2559, § 8, 122 (2008). https://archive.ada.gov/nprm_adaaa/nprm_adaaa.htm.
7 Berkeley Municipal Code, § 14.40.100 (1952).
6 City and County of San Francisco Staff Interview. Financial Justice Project, 2025 5 Jones, Monica. “Resolution to Adopt a City-Wide ‘Care First, Jails Last’ Policy,” July 25, 2023. https://dev.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-07-25%20Item%2031%20Resolution%20to%20Adopt%20a%20City- Wide.pdf.
4 “Reimagining Public Safety.” Berkeley Task Force Report, March 2022. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/T askForceReport-2322-653pm2-8-2022.pdf. 6

importance of barrier-free bike access.11 Forecasts project the global used bike market to grow from $47 billion in 2025 to $72.4 billion by 2035,12 highlighting the need for accessible, voluntary registration.

Fourth, evaluating a centralized, end-to-end fines and fees management platform—either by extending the City’s existing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software framework or deploying an end-to-end solution—could streamline workflows, eliminate tedious data entry, and enable real-time visibility into citation lifecycles. When taken a step further and complemented by Robotic Process Automation (RPA), which automates repetitive tasks in legacy systems, the combined technology reduces errors and frees sta ff for more strategic
work.13
Fifth, extending Berkeley’s Indigent Payment Plan—currently limited to parking citations—to all eligible fines and fees would align obligations with residents’ financial realities and bolster compliance. In San Francisco, their Ability-to-Pay model, which reduces the entry fee for payment plans by over 90 percent led to a 400 percent enrollment increase and nearly $160,000 in additional revenue within two months.14 Finally, embedding automatic installment plans as the default for every citation—offering three- or four-month payment schedules at the point of ticket issuance—aligns fiscal obligations with household cash-flow patterns. Research shows that many households facing modest but unexpected expenses are more likely to maintain compliance when payments are spread over time.15 One study of installment plans reported a 16:1 advantage in dollars collected compared to lump-sum enforcement, illustrating both revenue gains and administrative savings.16
Implementation Considerations
Implementation of these reforms will require phased investments, targeted staff training, and robust public outreach—particularly to limited-English-proficiency communities—to ensure broad awareness and uptake. While some benefits, such as increased compliance and streamlined operations, may emerge quickly, others—like cumulative revenue 16 “Payment Plans as a Compliance Tool: Best Practices For Florida Courts.” Fines and Fees Justice Center, August 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Payment-Plans-Final-1.pdf. 15 Hasler, Andrea, and Annamaria Lusardi. “Financial Fragility among Middle-Income Households: Evidence Beyond Asset Building.” Working Paper. Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center: The George Washington University School of Business, March 4, 2019. https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Financial-Fragility-among-Middle-Income-Households-WP-2019-1-v2-3.pdf. 14 Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald. “City Says Reduced Fee for Parking Citation Payment Program Boosting Revenues.” San Francisco Examiner, May 14, 2018.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/city-says-reduced-fee-for-parking-citation-payment-program-boosting-revenues/article_520d8832- 0300-5643-8267-3ad4c041176f.html.
13 Digital Robots. “Benefits of Integrating RPA with ERP: Savings and Efficiency.” Accessed April 24, 2025. https://www.digital-robots.com/en/news/beneficios-de-integrar-rpa-con-erp-ahorro-y-eficiencia. 12 “Used Bike Marketplace Size, Share & Forecast 2025 to 2035.” Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sales-of-used-bikes-through-used-bike-marketplace. 11 “Climate Action Plan and Resilience Update.” Berkeley City Council, April 15, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04-15%20Item%2023%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20and%20Resilien ce%20Update_0.pdf.
7

stabilization—may appear over longer timeframes. Moreover, reforms touching county- or state-mandated fees will necessitate intergovernmental coordination.

Conclusion
The report proposes options to consolidate communication, update legal standards, review current mandates, leverage technology, and incorporate income-sensitive payment options to support a
fines and fees system in Berkeley that promotes transparency, operational efficiency, and fiscal stability while advancing equity goals. A strategic, phased approach will enable the City to establish benchmarks, while building the foundation for more comprehensive, sustainable change.

Project Scope
This capstone undertakes a comprehensive review of Berkeley’s system of municipal fines and fees to determine how current practices affect equity, fiscal stability, and administrative efficiency. The primary emphasis is on Berkeley-specific fines and fees structures and opportunities for local reform; however, it is important to note that some fines and regulations are governed by Alameda County ordinances or California state law, which are beyond the City’s authority to modify.

This memorandum first maps the status quo: a decentralized network of department‑specific schedules, payment portals, and appeal procedures that, despite generating large volumes of citations, often yield declining revenues and create or exacerbate burdens on economically vulnerable populations. In addition to reviewing municipal fee schedules, budget data, and comparative research, semi-structured interviews were conducted with sta
ff from multiple departments, including the City
Manager’s Office, Planning and Development, Police Department, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, Public Works, Finance, and the City Attorney’s Office. These interviews provided critical insights that helped identify operational challenges and pinpoint areas where fines and fees reforms would be most impactful and administratively feasible.

Guided by a multi‑criteria analytical framework that weighs political feasibility, cost, effectiveness, sustainability, and externalities, the scope extends beyond diagnosis to targeted reform design. Six principal interventions are developed: (1) a city‑wide communication strategy and consolidated master fee schedule; (2) modernizing disability parking provisions to align with federal and state standards; (3) making bicycle registration voluntary; (4) unifying and simplifying the citation‑appeals process; (5) o ffering automatic
installment payment plans to everyone at the point of citation; and (6) expanding the Indigent Payment Plan model across the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC).

The project further evaluates how automation, such as Robotic Process Automation software and Enterprise Resource Planning platforms, can reduce clerical workload, 8

improve accuracy, and ensure consistent rule application when administering payment plans.

Overall, the scope encompasses problem analysis, stakeholder engagement, legal review, best‑practice benchmarking, and the development of actionable policy and technology recommendations aimed at making Berkeley’s fines and fees framework more equitable, transparent, and fiscally resilient.

Limitations
While this project employed a rigorous mixed-methods approach, several limitations should be noted. Access to comprehensive, granular data across departments and national partners was limited, which constrained the ability to perform a deeper quantitative analysis of
fines and fees distribution and impacts. The timeline of the study also naturally limited the breadth of inquiry, including the opportunity to conduct direct interviews with low-income Berkeley residents most a
ffected by municipal fines and fees. Additionally,
while the project engaged multiple City departments and offices, further connections with additional departments could have strengthened the comprehensiveness of the findings.

Future studies could build on this work by incorporating direct community engagement to further validate and re
fine recommendations. Additionally, some fines and regulations fall under Alameda County or California state authority, which places natural boundaries on the reforms that the City of Berkeley can independently implement. These factors should be considered when interpreting the
findings and recommendations presented in this
report.

Background
The City of Berkeley imposes a range of fines and fees on individuals for various violations and services. Although intended to maintain public order and offset administrative costs, studies show that such charges may place a disproportionate burden on low-income residents. Research indicates that relatively minor fees can lead to substantial financial hardship, as individuals with limited resources may need to choose between paying fines and covering basic necessities such as food, rent, or utilities. 9

A report by SPUR in 2021 highlighted that fines and fees disproportionately harm low-income Californians, pushing many families into debt and impeding their ability to meet basic needs.17 The report noted that 48 percent of individuals grappling with fines
and/or fees could not pay their other monthly bills, 40 percent had to skip paying utility bills, and 37 percent could not a
fford groceries.18 These findings underscore the significant burden that fines and fees can impose on low-income individuals, often leading to difficult choices between fulfilling legal obligations and meeting essential living expenses. 18 Ibid.
17 Denney, Jacob. “More Harm Than Good: Building a More Just Fine and Fee System in California,” June 2021. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/SPUR_More_Harm_Than_Good_0.pdf 10

Data at the California Budget and Policy Center shows that in 2023, 63 percent of households making less than $35,000 per year, 46 percent making $35,000-$74,999, and 30 percent making $75,000-$149,999 per year, reported difficulty paying for basic expenses.19 Households living paycheck-to-paycheck can be highly vulnerable to unanticipated expenses, as their budgets are already stretched thin by necessities like rent, food, and transportation. The lack of disposable income and emergency savings means that a significant portion of Californians, not just those who fall under the “low-income” threshold, are at risk of falling into deeper financial hardship with any unexpected cost.

Research suggests that fines and fees undermine efforts to alleviate poverty and strengthen social mobility by creating cumulative financial burdens that may contribute to financial hardship for vulnerable residents, ultimately perpetuating economic insecurity and reinforcing broader patterns of social and economic inequality. Recognizing these adverse impacts, policymakers and community advocates are increasingly calling for reforms to
fine and fee structures, aiming for greater financial equity reflected in the City’s municipal code.

Problem Statement
Across the United States, fines and fees related to minor offenses, court costs, and administrative penalties place a significant burden on individuals and families, particularly 19 California Budget and Policy Center. “Millions of Californians Are Struggling to Make Ends Meet.” Accessed April 13, 2025. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/millions-of-californians-are-struggling-to-make-ends-meet/. 11

in communities of color, disproportionately harming those with lower incomes.20 In Berkeley, a city with more than 118,000 residents21 and a federal poverty threshold of $15,650 per year in California22, 17.7 percent of residents live below that mark, placing them at higher risk of hardship when faced with compounding municipal fines.23 This dynamic can lead to spiraling debts and other consequences that can significantly impact those already struggling to meet basic needs.

The City of Berkeley recognizes the importance of addressing economic disparities and expanding opportunities that support financial and physical security for low-income individuals and families through accessible local government programs. Through the city’s e
fforts to create a public safety system that prioritizes equity and care, this comprehensive re-evaluation stems from the need to address concerns about the disproportionate impact of punitive fines on low-income residents and communities of color, as highlighted in both the Reimagining Public Safety initiative and the Care First, Jails Last resolution.

The Care First, Jails Last resolution shifts public safety toward prevention, treatment, and community-based interventions rather than criminalization and incarceration.24 The resolution also calls for
financial investments in restorative justice and survivor support, guided by City Council and the Mental Health Commission. Reimagining Public Safety is a Berkeley led, council-mandated initiative and Task Force e ffort to develop a community
centered safety paradigm that moves beyond traditional policing by repairing historical harm, advancing equity, and integrating non-police responders for mental health, substance use, and quality-of-life calls.25 Grounded in extensive community engagement and interdisciplinary research, it seeks to foster restorative justice, enhance transparency, and invest in alternative public safety solutions—such as specialized care units, transportation reforms, and violence-prevention programs—to build lasting, inclusive well-being across every neighborhood.26

The disproportionate impact of fines and fees often exacerbates existing inequalities, placing additional barriers before residents who are already facing significant economic challenges. When fines and fees escalate due to an individual's inability to pay immediately, they can escalate into larger debts, which may affect credit scores, housing opportunities, and vehicle registration, among other impacts, which is crucial in order to be legally able to get to and from a place of employment. These cascading consequences create cycles of 26 Ibid
25 “Reimagining Public Safety.” Berkeley Task Force Report, March 2022. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/TaskForceReport-2322-653pm2-8-2022.pdf. 24 Jones, Monica. “Resolution to Adopt a City-Wide ‘Care First, Jails Last’ Policy,” n.d. https://dev.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-07-25%20Item%2031%20Resolution%20to%20Adopt%20a%20City- Wide.pdf.
23 “U.S. Census.” Accessed March 24, 2025.
https://data.census.gov/all?q=residents+below+the+federal+poverty+line+Berkeley+city,+California. 22 “2025 Poverty Guidelines: 48 Contiguous States (All States except Alaska and Hawaii),” n.d. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dd73d4f00d8a819d10b2fdb70d254f7b/detailed-guidelines-2025.pdf. 21 “U.S. Census.” Accessed April 5, 2025. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/berkeleycitycalifornia/PST045223. 20 Firefly Advocates. “The Hidden Cost of Justice: Fines, Fees, and Their Impact on Communities of Color,” February 14, 2025. https://www.fireflyadvocates.org/blog/the-hidden-cost-of-justice-fines-fees-and-their-impact-on-communities-of-color. 12

debt that hinder economic mobility and deepen the very poverty such penalties may unintentionally exacerbate, despite intended regulatory purposes..

Research and experiences from other jurisdictions highlight viable alternatives to punitive approaches, emphasizing restorative practices and income-sensitive fine structures. Cities implementing tiered systems or income-based fee waivers have seen reduced financial burdens on marginalized communities without compromising the efficacy or intent behind fines as regulatory tools; effectively promoting compliance without imposing undue hardship.

In alignment with the values articulated in the Reimagining Public Safety initiative and the Care First, Jails Last approach, the City of Berkeley is uniquely positioned to put forth comprehensive reforms that not only mitigate economic disparities but also reinforce community trust in local governance. Engaging directly with impacted communities to understand lived experiences and soliciting input on equitable fine structures can help
Berkeley craft policies that better reflect the city's commitment to fairness, justice, and inclusion. Ultimately, these reforms serve as integral components of a broader strategy to build safer, healthier, and more resilient communities, ensuring that local government actions consistently align with the principles of equity and compassion.

Methodology
This project employed a mixed‑methods approach anchored in rigorous evidence analysis.

The first phase combined documentary analysis—examining the BMC, department‑level fee schedules, recent budget updates, and revenue reports—with 15 semi‑structured interviews, including correspondence through numerous follow up emails with City staff across Parking Enforcement, Code Enforcement, Finance, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Indigent Payment Plan program, as well as staff at San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project and the Fines and Fees Justice Center.

These steps mapped the current fines and fees ecosystem, surfaced operational pain points, and recorded equity concerns from frontline perspectives. Concurrently, Berkeley was benchmarked against other jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, San Francisco, Alameda, Oakland, and extensive literature review to identify legally and administratively viable reform models. All
findings were cross‑checked for consistency and accuracy.

Each potential reform is measured by a multi‑criteria decision matrix—political feasibility, cost, effectiveness, sustainability, and externalities—scored on a 1-10 scale to generate comparative rankings. Quantitative scores were paired with qualitative insights from interviews and existing evidence supported the prioritization of six recommendations measuring for equity,
fiscal soundness, and administrative practicality. Iterative peer review and reconciliation of data discrepancies ensured internal validity, while continuous 13

stakeholder feedback helped to mitigate any potential bias and maintain fidelity to community needs throughout the project.

Analytical Framework
The preferred package of six recommendations:
1) publish a consolidated, multilingual Master Fee Schedule and plain‑language portal 2) update BMC 14.40.100 to align disability‑parking rules with federal and state standards
3) convert mandatory bicycle licensing in BMC 14.68 to a voluntary program 4) explore internal software options
5) extend the Indigent Payment Plan beyond parking tickets to all eligible fines and fees
6) Offer an installment payment option for every citation

It is important to note that the order of the recommendations reflects a strategic sequencing based on relative ease of implementation. Recommendations are prioritized beginning with actions that present lower operational barriers and fewer interdependencies, and progressing toward reforms that involve broader structural considerations, require additional coordination, or present higher complexity. This approach is intended to support a phased implementation process that maximizes early gains while preparing for more comprehensive changes over time.

When evaluating policy recommendations for fines and fees reform, we assess each option's viability. Using specific criteria, this framework promotes a balanced approach that considers political, economic, social, and practical implications. Each recommendation involves trade-offs that influence the effectiveness and sustainability of the policy. The following matrix summarizes the considerations of a set of policy alternatives that follow.

Each criteria is based on a 1-10 score, with 10 being the best score. As it pertains to externalities, lower scores lean to more negative externalities, while higher scores lean to more positive externalities.

A. Political Feasibility - Will the policy gain the political support needed to be adopted? B. Cost Effectiveness - Do the policy outcomes outweigh the cost? C. Effectiveness - Will the policy achieve its intended goals? D. Sustainability - Can the policy be maintained over the long-term? E. Externalities - What are the unintended side-effects of the policy? 14

Criteria Matrix

Criteria Status
Quo
Develop
Clear
Comm
Strategy
Amend
BMC

14.40.100
Disabled
Parking
Rules
Amend
BMC

14.68 Bicycle
License
And
Registra
-tion
Explore
Internal
Software
Options
Indigent
Payment
Plan
Extended
to Other
Areas of
BMC
Automatic
Payment
Plans
Available
to Anyone
Community
Service
Political
Feasibility 8 9 7 7 7 5 4 4
Cost
Effective-
ness
3 9 8 7 6 8 8 5
Effective-
ness 3 8 9 9 9 9 9 6
Sustain-
ability 2 8 9 9 9 8 8 3
External-
ities
Low=Neg
High=Pos
2 8 8 8 7 8 8 5
Total
Score 15 42 41 40 38 38 37 23

15

Considerations:

Implementation Considerations
Following the evaluation of policy alternatives through the multi-criteria analytical framework, it is important to acknowledge key considerations that could impact the practical implementation of the recommendations. While the reforms identi fied offer clear
opportunities to advance equity, fiscal stability, and operational efficiency within the City of Berkeley’s fines and fees system, successful implementation will require careful navigation of administrative, fiscal, and structural realities inherent to municipal governance.

Several considerations are outlined below:

1) Budgetary Constraints: Although many proposed reforms, such as updates to the BMC and the development of a centralized communication strategy, are relatively low-cost, initiatives involving technological investments—such as integrating Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems or Robotic Process Automation (RPA)—will require initial capital outlays. Given competing fiscal priorities across City departments, implementation may require phased funding strategies or pursuit of external grants to offset costs.
2) Administrative Capacity and Workload: Consolidating department-specific schedules into a Master Fee Schedule, modernizing appeals processes, and expanding payment plan access will necessitate significant interdepartmental coordination, updates to workflows, and staff training. In the short term, these reforms may increase administrative burdens before longer-term efficiencies are fully realized. The City would need to consider how to strategically allocate resources, project management support, and technical assistance during the transition period
3) Public Awareness and Compliance: The effectiveness of reforms such as automatic installment plans and expanded access to financial relief options depends heavily on robust public communication. Without intentional outreach—particularly to low-income and limited-English-speaking communities—improvements in system design may not immediately translate into higher compliance rates or improved user experience. A comprehensive education and engagement campaign would be necessary to ensure that impacted residents are aware of and able to access new programs.
4) Timing of Fiscal Benefits: Although many reforms are designed to strengthen Berkeley’s fiscal resilience over time, cost savings and revenue stabilization may not be immediately apparent. As demonstrated in peer jurisdictions, there may be a lag between initial implementation and the realization of measurable fiscal outcomes.

Berkeley should build this lag into its financial projections and maintain regular 16

monitoring—using key performance indicators such as plan enrollment rates and delinquency trends—to sustain internal support for continued funding. 5) Jurisdictional and Legal Boundaries: Certain fines and fees affecting Berkeley residents are governed by Alameda County ordinances or California state law, limiting the City’s direct authority to enact reforms in those areas. Any recommendations pertaining to
fines set outside the City's jurisdiction would
require coordination with county or state entities to fully realize intended impacts.

Incorporating these considerations into a phased implementation plan—with defined milestones, dedicated resources, and ongoing stakeholder engagement—will enable Berkeley to establish a fines and fees system that is transparent, impartial, and financially sustainable.

Community Service Considerations
Additionally, community service in lieu of monetary fines has long been proposed by countless jurisdictions, including Berkeley, as an alternative for individuals unable to pay, but past implementations in Berkeley proved financially unsustainable. Police officials noted that the prior program, facilitated through an outside agency, required officers to work overtime in order to supervise participants, driving up costs without commensurate revenue or compliance gains.27 Multiple Parking Enforcement Officers stated that, “the cost to run the program and where the money goes or doesn’t go are factors”28 and, “the cost was too high to pay officers the overtime required to staff a program like that.”29

Other interview respondents nonetheless suggested an expanded community service model, pointing to recent legislative reforms in other states that broaden acceptable service activities beyond roadside cleanup, would be necessary if Berkeley was to revisit a program like this.30 In Texas, for instance, courts under Article 45.049(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may grant credit for participation in addiction counseling, victim impact panels, or social service outreach—rather than strictly manual labor.31 Likewise, New Mexico’s 2023 amendment to Section 31-12-3 of its statutes explicitly allows community service credit “including enrollment in job training or an academic or vocational program or participation in social service or rehabilitation programs,” o ffering a more flexible
framework for fulfillment of court‐ordered hours.32

32 Justia Law. “2024 New Mexico Statutes :: Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure :: Article 12 - Fines, Fees and Costs :: Section 31-12-3 - Paying Fines, Fees or Costs in Installments; Community Service Option.” Accessed April 23, 2025. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-31/article-12/section-31-12-3/. 31 FindLaw. “Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - CRIM P Art. 45.049. Community Service in Satisfaction of Fine or Costs.” Accessed April 23, 2025. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/code-of-criminal-procedure/crim-ptx-crim-pro-art-45-049/. 30 Policy and Research Director at Fines and Fees Justice Center, n.d. 29 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 28 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement 2, 2025. 27 City of Berkeley Police Department Staff Interview, 2025. 17

In light of these findings, a future community service alternative would need to incorporate a broader array of service options, while ensuring staffing and supervision costs are controlled to maintain both accessibility and fiscal responsibility.

Exemption Considerations
Exemptions to certain municipal fines and fees is an eventual objective; viewing them as a mechanism to advance equity and restorative public safety practices beyond strictly punitive measures. However, the City’s current fiscal environment—marked by a tightly constrained general fund and recent mid-year revenue shortfalls33 renders broad fee waivers infeasible at this time, as any reduction in revenue would deepen existing budgetary pressures and risk displacing critical services.

Under the present deficit state, allocating resources to cover foregone fine and fee revenues would require significant reallocation within an already balanced budget, making comprehensive exemptions in the near term, unfeasible. Once the City’s finances recover—through the steady and sustained revenue streams the proposed reform in this report is intended to provide, it can revisit and phase in targeted exemptions that align with the City’s long term equity goals, ensuring that financial capacity and policy intent advance in tandem.

Recommendations
Status Quo:

Current State of City of Berkeley’s Fines and Fees
Berkeley assesses administrative fines and fees through a decentralized system in which multiple departments—such as Parking Enforcement, Code Enforcement, Planning and Development, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Finance, and the City Attorney’s O
ffice—manage their own distinct schedules, billing systems, appeal procedures, and enforcement protocols. Parking citations, for example, operate under a separate framework from business license penalties or code violations, and each maintains its own payment forms and deadlines. An income-screened Indigent Payment Plan is available for parking citations, while most other
fines require the assessed amount to be paid before an
appeals hearing can be requested.

Information about fines and fees is dispersed across department-specific webpages and office counters, requiring residents—especially those with limited digital access or English 33 “Fiscal Year 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update.” City Budget. City of Berkeley, March 25, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03-25%20Item%2011%20FY%202025%20Mid-Year%20Budget%20Updat e%20Report.pdf.
18

proficiency—to contact several departments to determine the status of their citation, payment options, or eligibility for waivers. Staff have shared that some of the complaints from residents was their lack of knowledge that these programs exist.34 Additionally, some third-party portals that handle payments lack translation capabilities, creating further access barriers. According to multiple staff interviews, this decentralization not only confuses residents but also increases clerical workload, as employees must repeatedly explain disparate procedures and policies35 that could otherwise be unified under a central platform.

Currently, the City does not have a fully integrated case management system that spans departments. While some internal coordination tools are used for fiscal tracking and administrative operations, these tools do not track citations in real-time or automate installment plan management. Adjudication Staff shared that their department uses a citation management software that assists with their processes, but the software is exclusive to their department and does not crossover to other departments.36 For the most part, City of Berkeley staff must rely on manual coordination and independent data entry, creating duplication of effort and inconsistent user experiences.

Current City Statute
Several provisions in the BMC further compound both operational inefficiencies and equity concerns. BMC § 14.68, which mandates annual bicycle licensing and registration,37 is misaligned with California Vehicle Code § 39002(a), which prohibits municipalities from enforcing penalties for unlicensed bicycles.38 In practice, this outdated requirement can confuse residents, especially youth and low-income individuals who acquire secondhand bikes without formal documentation. Sta
ff are left to explain or enforce a law that is rarely
applied consistently and may not be legally enforceable—creating administrative friction and exposing the City to reputational or legal risk without generating meaningful public benefit.

Similarly, BMC § 14.40.100, which restricts disability related parking waivers to individuals with specific physical impairments and requires that the disabled person be the vehicle’s driver,39 does not reflect current definitions under state law or the federal ADA.40 This can limit access for individuals with blindness, respiratory illness, or cognitive impairments, and burden caregivers who assist disabled residents with transportation. Operationally, this has the potential to create ambiguity for enforcement staff and eligibility reviewers, who must reconcile local requirements with broader legal standards. From an equity standpoint, the 40 ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–325, Stat. 3553, 2559, § 8, 122 (2008). https://archive.ada.gov/nprm_adaaa/nprm_adaaa.htm.
39 Berkeley Municipal Code, § 14.40.100 (1952).
38 Registration and Licensing of Bicycles, Vehicle Code § 39002(a) (2023). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayT ext.xhtml?article=&chapter=&division=16.7.&lawCode=VEH&part=&title=. 37 Berkeley Municipal Code § 14.68.020 (1976).
36 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Adjudication Staff, 2025. 35 Ibid.
34 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Code Enforcement, 2025 19

restrictive language can result in unnecessary financial or mobility barriers for disabled residents—undermining the City’s broader commitments to accessibility and inclusion.

Departmental Practices and Informal Flexibility
While Berkeley’s current fines and fees structure is decentralized, it is important to note that some departments have developed informal practices to support residents. Staff from Planning and Development, Parks and Recreation, and the Finance Department reported taking case-by-case approaches to extend deadlines, waive minor penalties, or explain procedures to individuals unfamiliar with the system.41 42 43 These discretionary practices are rooted in a strong commitment to public service and, in some cases, help residents avoid deeper noncompliance.

However, such efforts remain dependent on individual staff availability, discretion, and a resident’s ability to reach the right person. Without a codified, transparent process for requesting relief, these accommodations are not universally accessible and can inadvertently perpetuate inequity. The absence of clear, uniform rules also places pressure on staff to make judgment calls in the absence of policy guidance—adding to administrative workload and introducing the risk of inconsistent outcomes.

Research at the state level confirms that fines and fees disproportionately harm low-income communities and may cost more to administer and collect than they ultimately generate in revenue.44
Evaluation of the Status Quo Based on Criteria
Total Score: 15/50

Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposed approach received a score of 15 out of 50.

On the positive side, it requires no new policy implementation, allowing the City to maintain short-term administrative continuity without the disruptions and learning curves associated with entirely new processes.

However, several significant drawbacks accompany this status quo. Rising default rates are placing increasing strain on both revenue collection and administrative capacity.

Low-income residents continue to face inequitable outcomes, unable to afford large lump-sum payments or to navigate the City’s decentralized system of fines and fees. Finally, by forgoing modern platforms, the City misses opportunities to reduce staff workload through automation, streamline communication with residents, and boost overall compliance.
44 Denney, Jacob. “More Harm Than Good: Building a More Just Fine and Fee System in California,” June 2021. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/SPUR_More_Harm_Than_Good_0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com. 43 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Finance Department, 2025 42 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parks and Recreation, April 2025. 41 City of Berkeley City Staff Interview. City Planning, March 2025. 20

Financial Implications
If Berkeley continues operating under its current structure, it is likely to face ongoing fiscal and operational strain. The City’s Fiscal Year 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update revealed a 12.9 percent increase in parking citations during the first half of the year, but a simultaneous 9.9 percent drop in related revenue—indicating that enforcement alone is not producing proportional returns. Departments are required to maintain their own intake, appeals, and payment processes, preventing the City from realizing cost savings that could be achieved through automation, centralized intake, shared administrative tools, or payment plans.

Recommendation 1: Develop a Clear Fines and Fees
Communication Strategy
Current State
The BMC, contains provisions that allow for flexibility or assistance in payment of some fines and fees; however, when these provisions are not clearly communicated, eligible residents may remain unaware that help exists as the fines and fees system can be difficult to navigate.45 In its current state, the City of Berkeley has multiple sites and departments that receive and determine eligibility for payment plans or waivers.46 One of the most significant lessons learned through our research is the necessity of framing information in a manner easily understandable to diverse populations. Even when local laws or ordinances (such as sections of the BMC) allow for exemptions or alternative payment schedules, instructions are delivered in overly technical language or strewn across multiple websites.47 48 49 50 51 52 This places additional challenges on residents who may face barriers in navigating complex systems.53
Proposed Change
In line with the broader goals of this project, the development of a clear communication strategy has emerged as a pivotal first step toward ensuring that fines and fees do not compound or create punitive barriers for vulnerable individuals. Therefore, a primary component of the recommended communication strategy is the consolidation of vital 53 Herd, Pamela, Donald Moynihan, and Amy Widman. “Identifying and Reducing Burdens in Administrative Processes,” December 5, 2023.
https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Identifying-and-Reducing-Burdens-in-Administrative-Processes-Final-Report-202

3.12.05_2.pdf.
52 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. City Attorney’s Office, 2025. 51 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Adjudication Staff, 2025. 50 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Code Enforcement, 2025. 49 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Finance Department, 2025 48 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement 2, 2025. 47 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 46 “Indigent Payment Plan for Parking Citations Application and Guidelines.” City of Berkeley, n.d. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Indigent-Payment-Plan-for-Parking-Citations-Application-and-Guidelines%20202

5.pdf.
45 “Targeted Fines and Fees Against Communities of Color Civil Rights & Constitutional Implications,” September 2017. https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/docs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2017.pdf. 21

details—like eligibility for fee reductions, application procedures for indigent payment plans, and relevant deadlines—into a single, widely accessible platform, such as a dedicated city webpage, along with a Master Fees Schedule with a fines and fees guide that
contains and describes all known fees associated with the various city departments across Berkeley, fully translated into the multiple languages commonly spoken by Berkeley residents.

Improving Access and Compliance
According to multiple City of Berkeley staff interviews, while an Indigent Payment Plan for parking citations54 or low-income ambulance waivers are available in Berkeley, some individuals miss critical enrollment windows or remain unaware of their eligibility.55 56 This outcome likely stems from decentralized information, which is often scattered across department-specific websites and physical offices. Staff at the City of Berkeley Finance Office shared that only 120-140 parcels out of around 3000 each year are utilizing their low-income program as it relates to property taxes.57
Consolidating essential details about fines and fees into a single, user friendly platform can be vital for increasing awareness and compliance. Cities that centralize payment information and provide clearer instructions see a measurable rise in compliance and a decrease in overall default rates.58 A centralized website, available in multiple languages, can outline steps for entering payment plans, applying for fee reductions, and understanding deadlines; all in plain language. Although the City’s web portal allows for language translation, once users are directed to third-party payment pages, translation features may not persist, which could pose challenges for non-English speakers when entering sensitive payment information.

Neighboring jurisdictions demonstrate that consolidating every municipal charge in a single, council‑adopted Master Fee Schedule (MFS) is both feasible and beneficial. San Francisco issues a combined “Master Fee Schedule & Fee Certification” with its biennial budget, listing licenses, service charges, fines, and the percentage of each fee’s cost recovery.59 Alameda publishes an annual MFS that incorporates Consumer Price Index adjustments and impact‑fee studies,60 while Oakland posts a searchable web page with the full PDF of its adopted MFS for each fiscal year, updated every July 1.61 61 City of Oakland. “City of Oakland Master Fee Schedules.” Accessed April 17, 2025. https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/city-of-oakland-master-fee-schedules. 60 “Master Fee Schedule.” City of Alameda, July 2024.
https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/finance/master-fee-schedule-fy-2024-25.pdf. 59 Office of the Controller Budget and Analysis Division. “Combined Fees Certification & Master Fee Schedule FY 2024-25 & FY 2025-26,” City and County of San Francisco, May 24, 2024. https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/FY24-25%20Master%20Fee%20Schedule%20and%20Fees%20Certification.pdf. 58 Hernandez, Pete. “Court E-Payments: External Service Providers, In-House Solutions and Beyond,” n.d. https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/15915/court-e-payments.pdf. 57 Ibid.
56 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Finance Department, 2025 55 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 54 “Indigent Payment Plan for Parking Citations Application and Guidelines.” City of Berkeley, n.d. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Indigent-Payment-Plan-for-Parking-Citations-Application-and-Guidelines%20202

5.pdf.
22

These documents do more than aggregate numbers; they increase transparency for residents and businesses, reduce repetitive staff inquiries, and give policymakers a clear view of how closely each fee aligns with the cost of providing the service. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that local governments “adopt formal policies regarding charges and fees,” measure the full cost of each service, and house the results in a single document that is reviewed regularly.62 Berkeley, by contrast, posts fee schedules individually—Planning and Building updates appear in individual council items or departmental PDFs, Engineering fees live on separate forms, and Environmental Health fees are embedded in sta ff reports. Because the
information is scattered across multiple webpages and file types, residents must hunt for the total cost of a permit or appeal, while staff spend extra time explaining where to look.

Public Trust and Clear and Consistent Communications
Another critical aspect is ensuring that any official notices, such as traffic citations or billing statements, link directly to resources. Something as simple as a QR code on the back of a parking ticket can direct an individual to a frequently asked questions (FAQ) page or a payment plan enrollment form. When individuals receive the information at the moment they need it—right when they open a ticket—it reduces confusion and can increase the likelihood of timely compliance.

Equally important is the equity dimension of clear communication. Providing instructions in multiple languages, offering large-print materials for visually impaired individuals, and furnishing straightforward, user-focused FAQs exhibits a commitment to equity.

Clarity and consistency also reduce administrative burdens and enhance public trust.

Currently, citations and the Parking and Transportation website inform residents that their vehicles can be towed or booted strictly for unpaid citations.63 64 According to a Parking Enforcement sta
ff interview, that penalty no longer aligns with current policy.65 Updating official texts and website content to reflect actual practice not only preserves trust but also prevents repetitive queries and appeals. Parking Enforcement staff further explained that, although the city no longer tows for purely delinquent citations, a vehicle will be denied registration until a delinquent citation is paid, and subsequently, a vehicle recognized on the street without registration can be towed and impounded, incurring an additional set of fees.66 Such discrepancies can cause confusion and may impact public con fidence. A
targeted and continuous communication campaign—one that clarifies actual policy—could resolve these conflicts, reduce confusion, and enhance compliance among residents. 66 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement 2, 2025. 65 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 64 “Paying Citations | Parking and Transportation.” Accessed April 23, 2025. https://pt.berkeley.edu/citations/paying-citations. 63 “Notice of Parking Violation.” City of Berkeley, n.d. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1w1DolG3cc4-sBhMBjMulkRhRVi-YscFy. 62 “Establishing Government Charges and Fees.” Accessed April 17, 2025. https://www.gfoa.org/materials/establishing-government-charges-and-fees?utm_source=chatgpt.com. 23

Evaluation of Recommendation 1 based on Criteria
Total Score: 42/50
Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal achieved a score of 42 out of 50.

Consolidating all fines, fees, deadlines, and relief programs onto a single, plain-language webpage would provide significant administrative relief and improve accuracy: clerks would spend less time answering repetitive questions or correcting payment errors caused by misinformation. In addition, clear presentation of what individuals owe and how to apply for relief in multiple languages can foster higher voluntary compliance and build trust—payment rates tend to rise and public resentment diminishes when people understand their obligations and options.

Nevertheless, maintaining this streamlined schedule poses its own challenges. Keeping the webpage perfectly up to date will require ongoing inter-departmental coordination, and any lapses could quickly recreate confusion. Moreover, residents without reliable internet access or mobile data may still miss digital notices unless the City supplements the portal with documents sent in the mail and provided at public buildings, or includes QR codes directly on paper tickets.

Financial Implications
From a fiscal perspective, an informed public is more likely to seek relief rather than simply not pay. Cities can then avoid burdensome collection tactics that siphon resources away from more pressing community needs. When people understand their obligations, deadlines, and available financial assistance, they tend to comply more swiftly, lowering the administrative cost of follow-up actions and possible legal enforcement.67 When residents easily grasp what they owe, why they owe it, how to request relief, and where to go for assistance, they are less inclined to ignore or contest citations, thus saving time and resources for both the public and city o
fficials.68 This level of transparency fosters
stronger, more respectful relationships between local government and its constituents.

Consolidating relevant information, fostering partnerships with community organizations, and adopting a multilingual, multimodal outreach approach could help Berkeley lower default rates, sustain stable revenue, and prevent residents from incurring additional penalties.
68 “Online Infraction Adjudication and Ability-to-Pay Determinations.” Report to Legislature, n.d. https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-08/2024_online-infraction-adjudication-and-ability-to-pay-determinations.p df.
67 Johnson, Shanelle. “First Steps Toward More Equitable Fines and Fees Practices,” n.d. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/uploads/2020/11/FFJC_Policy_Guidance_Ability_to_Pay_Payment_Plan_Community_ Service_Final_2.pdf.
24

Recommendation 2: Amend BMC 14.40.100 to align with federal and state standards on disability parking standards and accommodations.

Current State
Berkeley’s parking ordinance, 14.40.100 for disabled persons, still uses a 1950s statute that recognizes disability only when someone “has completely lost by paralysis the use of one or both feet or one or both legs, or who has had one or both feet or one or both legs amputated” and insists that the individual be the one behind the wheel.69 In practice, that wording bars blind residents, people with cardiopulmonary disease, wheelchair users who cannot drive, and anyone whose disability is episodic or cognitive from enjoying the fee waiver that was meant to guarantee access. The text also clashes with national civil‑rights law: Congress de
fines disability far more broadly as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” or a record or perception of such an impairment, and demands that the term be “construed broadly” after the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.70 California codi
fies this broader view in Vehicle Code § 295.5,
which adds blindness, severe lung and heart disease, and other mobility‑impairing conditions to the list of qualifying disabilities.71
CA Department of Motor Vehicle Guidelines and Supportive Persons Because Berkeley’s ordinance also states that “the disabled person shall operate the motor vehicle themselves,” a resident who cannot drive must either pay the meter or forgo the trip unless a costly alternative is arranged. State law and the Department of Motor Vehicles, by contrast, expressly allow a disabled‑person placard to be “moved from one vehicle to another,” which “makes them a good option for a caregiver who transports a disabled person.”72
The local restriction translates into concrete barriers to daily life. If a blind resident’s friend cannot legally use the placard while driving the resident to a doctor’s appointment, the pair may have to pay curbside fees they cannot a
fford or resort to ADA paratransit. Paratransit
is reliable but expensive and inflexible: federal rules permit providers to insist on next‑day reservations and one‑hour pick‑up windows,73 and fares may legally run up to twice the regular bus fare.74 Diverting travelers onto vans inflates public costs while denying disabled residents the spontaneity and dignity enjoyed by nondisabled neighbors. 74 Ibid.
73 “ADA Complementary Paratransit Requirements.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://www.nationalrtap.org/T oolkits/ADA-T oolkit/Service-Type-Requirements/ADA-Complementary-Paratransit-Requirements. 72 California DMV. “Disabled Person Parking Placards & Plates.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-registration/license-plates-decals-and-placards/disabled-person-parking-placards-plates/. 71 Legislature, Cal. “Cal. Vehicle Code § 295.5.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_295.5. 70 ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–325, Stat. 3553, 2559, § 8, 122 (2008). https://archive.ada.gov/nprm_adaaa/nprm_adaaa.htm.
69 Berkeley Municipal Code, § 14.40.100 (1952).
25

This amendment can be accomplished almost immediately, aligning local law with federal and state standards, by substituting the following language: “ ‘Disabled person’ means an individual who meets the definition of disability under 42 U.S.C. § 1210275 or California Vehicle Code § 295.5.76 The parking privilege applies when the disabled person is the driver or is present as a passenger in a vehicle operated by a support person.” This single amendment harmonizes Berkeley’s code with prevailing civil‑rights norms, protects the City from discrimination claims, and immediately extends equitable parking access to blind individuals, dialysis patients, and many others whose impairments do not involve limb loss.

Allowing family or friends to drive also reduces unnecessary reliance on paratransit, easing both public budgets and riders’ pocketbooks, and it facilitates easier access to daily activities for disabled residents..

Evaluation of Recommendation 2 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 41/50
Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal earned a score of 41 out of 50. By aligning Berkeley’s local ordinances with both the ADA and the California Vehicle Code, the City would reduce its legal risk—shielding itself from potential discrimination suits and DOJ enforcement actions. At the same time, expanding eligibility for parking waivers enables blind or cardiopulmonary-impaired residents to travel with friends and family rather than rely on costly paratransit vans, advancing equity goals while relieving pressure on transit subsidies.

However, this approach carries some drawbacks. Meter revenue may decline modestly as a greater number of vehicles qualify for fee waivers, and parking enforcement officers will need to learn and apply a broader set of placard rules.

Financial Implications
Updating the section requires only an ordinance revision. Such a modest administrative step would modernize Berkeley’s code, advance disability equity, and trim avoidable transportation costs—all while honoring the City’s broader commitment to accessible public spaces.
76 Legislature, Cal. “Cal. Vehicle Code § 295.5.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_295.5. 75 “42 USC 12102: Definition of Disability.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section12102&num=0&edition=prelim 26

Recommendation 3: Amend BMC 14.68 that requires an individual to license and register their bicycles annually to be optional.

Current State
Berkeley’s Municipal Code still makes it “unlawful for any person to operate or use a bicycle… which has not been licensed and registered.”77 Yet state law does not make this a requirement. California Vehicle Code § 39002(a) expressly says that when a city adopts a licensing ordinance it may not prohibit the operation of an unlicensed bicycle, confirming that any local program can be voluntary in practice. 78 Proposed Change
Amending Chapter 14.68 so the words “shall license” become “may license,” and deleting the fines that are currently associated with it, would bring Berkeley into alignment with this state standard while still allowing owners who want a theft‑recovery sticker to obtain one.

Reinforcing Berkeley’s Climate-friendly Mobility Efforts Encouraging climate-friendly transportation like bicycling requires policies that remove barriers—not create penalties. Mandating bicycle registration, especially with fines for non-compliance, discourages participation and disproportionately affects those who rely on bikes as an affordable, green alternative to cars. Doing so aligns with the city’s Climate and Action Plan79 while fostering equity and encouraging broader adoption of zero-emission travel.

In 2023, Berkeley City Council reported 34 percent of trips taken in the city were made by sustainable modes of transportation; bicycles included.80 With an ordinance revision, Berkeley can continue to promote sustainable mobility by eliminating punitive requirements and instead, o
ffering a voluntary program that makes riding easier and more accessible for all.

Low-Income Options Carry Compliance Difficulties
Another compelling reason to make bicycle licensing voluntary in Berkeley is the significant burden it places on individuals who acquire their bikes second-hand—particularly youth and low-income residents who often rely on the used bike market for affordability. Under the current BMC, registrants are expected to provide documentation such as a sales receipt 80 Ibid.
79 “Climate Action Plan and Resilience Update.” Berkeley City Council, April 15, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04-15%20Item%2023%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20and%20Resilien ce%20Update_0.pdf.
78 Registration and Licensing of Bicycles, Vehicle Code § 39002(a) (2023). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayT ext.xhtml?article=&chapter=&division=16.7.&lawCode=VEH&part=&title=. 77 Berkeley Municipal Code § 14.68.020 (1976).
27

or proof of ownership to complete registration. However, many used bikes are exchanged informally through garage sales, online marketplaces like Craigslist or Facebook, or given as hand-me-downs within families or communities. Second-hand global sales through bike marketplaces or private sellers are projected to grow from approximately $47 billion in 2025 to $72.4 billion by 2035, re
flecting a 4.4% annual growth rate.81 Many of these
transactions do not come with formal receipts or serial number records, which would make it difficult—if not impossible—for the new owner to comply with the city’s registration requirements.

Evaluation of Recommendation 3 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 40/50
Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal received a score of 40 out of 50. By eliminating the mandatory bicycle licensing requirement, the City stands to gain significant climate and public‐health benefits: removing this punitive barrier encourages more residents to cycle, directly supporting Berkeley’s Climate Action targets. This change also promotes equity for youth and low‐income riders, many of whom purchase second‐hand bicycles without a sales receipt and currently face fines they cannot realistically contest.

On the other hand, the City would relinquish a modest theft‐recovery tool—licensing stickers—that can aid in bicycle recovery unless an optional registry is promoted.

Additionally, Berkeley would forgo a minor revenue stream generated by license fees.

Financial Implications
In Washington, Seattle’s City Council reached this verdict decades ago. After police reported that keeping the program alive would cost at least $20,000‑$25,000 (equal to over $127,000 in 2025)82 a year while attracting fewer than half of riders, their City Council repealed its mandate outright in 1978, converting registration to a purely voluntary service, citing that it was unnecessary to keep a law in place that was never enforced.83 Recommendation 4: Establish a Centralized Platform for Fines and Fees Management
Current State
Berkeley currently relies on multiple internally hosted systems to handle different aspects of its municipal operations: an ERP system for human resources, payroll, and 83 “Registering Bicycles - CityArchives | Seattle.Gov.” Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/seattle-voices/registering-bicycles. 82 DollarTimes. “Calculate the Value of $25,000 in 1978.” Accessed April 28, 2025. https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=25000&year=1978. 81 “Used Bike Marketplace Size, Share & Forecast 2025 to 2035.” Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sales-of-used-bikes-through-used-bike-marketplace. 28

disbursements;84 a separate revenue-accounting application for incoming fines and fees;85 and a back-end case-management system for parking citations appeals.86 None of these platforms communicate directly to each other, requiring staff to manually export, transform, and consolidate data; often using spreadsheets.87 While the City may be utilizing specific software to coordinate specific internal processes, it may not be being used to its full potential. The City stands to benefit from a tool that can manage the full lifecycle of a fine or fee, from issuance to resolution, including user-facing functionality and automated workflows for payment plans. Significant consolidation and cross-communication of scalable and integrated administrative software would be instrumental in keeping structural inefficiencies from persisting.

Proposed Change
Berkeley can evaluate whether to consolidate and extend its current ERP framework end-to-end to cover both outgoing expenditures and incoming revenues across departments or to deploy a modern, integrated ERP solution capable of end-to-end automation that spans the full lifecycle of
fines, fees, and related financial operations.

How Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software Works
An ERP system is a modular suite that centralizes core business processes—finance, human capital management, procurement, and reporting—into a single, unified database, creating a “single source of truth.”88 By automating data flows between functional units, ERP reduces tedious data entry, enforces standardized workflows, and provides real-time visibility into organizational performance metrics.89
How Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Software Works
Robotic Process Automation employs software “bots” that watch user interactions with graphical interfaces and then replicate those actions—filling forms, extracting data, and moving information between systems—without direct API integration.90 RPA excels at automating repetitive, rule-based tasks, lowering the barrier to automation when legacy systems lack programmable interfaces.91
91 Ibid.
90 Lumenalta. “What Is Robotic Process Automation (RPA),” January 7, 2025. https://lumenalta.com/insights/what-is-robotic-process-automation-rpa. 89 Ibid.
88 SAP. “What Is ERP? The Essential Guide.” Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.sap.com/products/erp/what-is-erp.html. 87 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 86 Passport, Inc. “Getting Started (OpsMan Web).” Accessed April 24, 2025. https://help.passportinc.com/support/solutions/articles/73000552729-getting-started-opsman-web-. 85 Ibid.
84 “Contract 10549B Amendment:” City Manager: City of Berkeley, June 27, 2023. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-06-27%20Item%2027%20Contract%2010549B%20Amendment%20Tyler. pdf?utm.
29

ERP and RPA Can Work Together
When paired, RPA can bridge gaps in an ERP environment by automating tasks before and after core ERP workflows—such as processing incoming citations from a back-end system or generating custom compliance reports—while ERP handles master data, accounting logic, and consolidated reporting. This combination further reduces manual hando ffs and
accelerates end-to-end transactions.92
Broader Opportunity
Having multiple software platforms can make compliance more difficult, create administrative inefficiencies, and hinder the City’s ability to ensure equitable treatment across programs. A centralized ERP platform, potentially enhanced by RPA for legacy integrations, has the potential to promote transparency via consistent public dashboards, support fiscal responsibility through tighter budget controls, and lower equity barriers by automating internal processes among departments; thereby simplifying them, as well as residents’ interactions with City payment portals.93
Insights from Department of Labor Website
The Department of Labor describes how RPA bots are used in unemployment cases; stating that when tasked with adjudication and fact-finding, RPA bots review employer-submitted fact-finding requests and automatically enter the claimant’s separation reason into the benefits system.94 Used similarly, this can be helpful to the Fines and Fees citation ecosystem by eliminating the need for repetitive manual input, reducing both errors and processing time. Additionally, bots can scan relevant databases to determine whether required documentation has been returned by claimants and if documents are missing, the bots automatically generate and send a “failure to respond” notice, ensuring that claimants are aware of what is needed and how to provide it.95 These automations streamline the adjudication process while reinforcing accuracy and timeliness in case handling.

RPA bots can also be used to assemble and send appeals packets to the involved parties and to the designated Hearing O
fficer or Administrative Law Judge prior to the appeal
hearing.96 This task, which once consumed considerable staff time, is now completed swiftly and systematically. Further, bots extract key data elements such as the claimant’s name and the appeal issue from the request and input them into the system for human validation. After review, the bots complete the docketing of the appeal and ensure all related documentation is included. They are also capable of navigating scheduling systems 96 Department of Labor. “Use Cases for Robotic Process Automation in UI Claims Processing.” Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ui-modernization/promising-practices/rpa-use-cases. 95 Ibid.
94 Department of Labor. “Use Cases for Robotic Process Automation in UI Claims Processing.” Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ui-modernization/promising-practices/rpa-use-cases. 93 Ibid.
92 Digital Robots. “Benefits of Integrating RPA with ERP: Savings and Efficiency.” Accessed April 24, 2025. https://www.digital-robots.com/en/news/beneficios-de-integrar-rpa-con-erp-ahorro-y-eficiencia. 30

to identify the availability of adjudicators, thereby assigning and scheduling hearings without manual intervention.97
States have reported processing time reductions of 70–80% due to bots handling high-volume, rule-based tasks with precision. The automation of such tasks enables staff to shift their attention to more complex, discretionary work that demands human judgment and insight. In doing so, RPA not only mitigates backlogs and reduces errors but also enhances job satisfaction among employees by relieving them of the burden of monotonous administrative work. These outcomes a
ffirm that RPA is not merely a
technological upgrade but a strategic tool for improving the capacity, equity, and responsiveness of public benefit systems . Supplementing Electronic Resource Planning with Robotic Process Automation could further enhance administrative feasibility, fiscal soundness, and transparency.

Investing in a modern fines and fees management platform could be critical to making payment plans universally available and to expanding the IPP in a fiscally sustainable, user‑friendly way, simultaneously boosting employee satisfaction and relieving burnout and fatigue.

Peer jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, attest to improvements in administrative ease and data accuracy.

San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project as a Model
One of the most illuminating local precedents is San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project (FJP). Established to address the regressive nature of fines and fees, FJP demonstrated that lowering fines for low-income residents not only improves payment rates but also mitigates the harmful collateral consequences of unpaid debt.98 99 Their “MyCitations” income-based fine reductions underscore that expanding streamlined payment strategies can achieve both revenue stability and social equity.100 This mirrors the observations of Berkeley’s Indigent Payment Plan;101 participants who can see a direct path to resolving their obligations without spiraling penalties are more likely to follow through and pay.102 Software Impact on San Francisco
As discussed, purpose‑built ERP or platforms can replace time-consuming manual data-entry with a single, scalable system that processes every account according to 102 “Payment Plans as a Compliance Tool: Best Practices For Florida Courts.” Fines and Fees Justice Center, August 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Payment-Plans-Final-1.pdf. 101 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 100 Byrne, Francine. Report to the Legislature: Online Infraction Adjudication and Ability-to-Pay Determinations (2023). https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11695191&GUID=70B48C8A-FE60-48DB-8137-320B528E107D. 99 “Graduating Economic Sanctions According to Ability to Pay | Iowa Law Review - The University of Iowa.” Accessed April 13, 2025. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-103-issue-1/graduating-economic-sanctions-according-to-ability-to-pay. 98 City and County of San Francisco Staff Interview. Financial Justice Project, 2025 97 Ibid.
31

consistent rules. FJP has implemented specific ERP software and their Payment Plan staff, shared the following in an email:

Our software handles the bulk of the heavy lifting and is essential to the efficacy of the payment plan administration. The way CSS [Impact] computes and administers the plans is great (and user friendly):
● The system has the flexibility to set rules for the payment plan program parameters that can be specific to a type of debt; The system uses those rule settings to perform the math to calculate the payment installments and terms, and trigger other work
flow logic to conduct outreach and identify
outlier cases and apply rules for those situations, and progresses each of the plans through its life cycle with no need for human intervention. ● The system can maintain all of the necessary documents related to the payment plan program (i.e., any financial documents needed to assess eligibility, the application and terms of agreement, critical communications), and set rule restrictions to ensure all plans are handled the same/treated equally
● Manages the sustained outreach that helps facilitates compliance and helps increase the propensity for payment; We send out enrollment notices once the plans are set-up, a reminder notice 15 days before the due date, another reminder on the due date (if we have the email address or are approved to send text), a notice when they are in default to give an opportunity to cure, and notice when the plans are cancelled
● Maintains the modern features of convenience, such as interfacing daily with the online payment page to provide clientele with information on the status of their plans, special messaging on the portal, and outreach through email or text messages
● Provide reports for analysis that can be used to account for trends, change needs in the payment plan program rules, and provide a general status of how the program is performing

They go on to say:

From my experience the software is absolutely essential to successfully administer and manage the payment plan program. The initial set-up costs can vary based on the complexity of the payment plan program, but in my experience it is worth the investment. It is much more cost effective over time, greatly reduces the administrative burden, greatly reduces the chance for human error or delays, and centralizes the data to a single scalable source vs maintaining multiple spreadsheets, and far easier to make changes as service programs evolve.103

103 City and County of San Francisco Payment Plan Staff. Financial Justice Project, 2025. 32

When asked what effect the software had on the administrator, staff at the City and County of San Francisco assured that this software is intended to supplement the administrator’s job as a tool for efficiency and accuracy, not a replacement.104 Evaluation of Recommendation 4 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 38/50
Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal achieved a score of 38 out of 50. By consolidating Berkeley’s fines and fees systems, the City would realize improved administrative efficiency and eliminate time-consuming processes. This streamlined approach would also enhance transparency for residence and provide them with accessible self-service options. In addition, it lays a strong foundation for future capabilities—such as advanced analytics, mobile engagement, and proactive compliance features—that can further strengthen the system over time.

However, these gains come with notable upfront challenges. Implementing a unified platform will demand a significant initial investment and careful transition planning across multiple departments. Furthermore, sustaining its benefits will require ongoing governance and coordination to uphold shared data standards and ensure that workflows remain aligned across the organization.

Financial Implications
With departments routinely resorting to spreadsheets for interim calculations and cross-program reconciliations, such manual processes can consume dozens of hours per month, diverting sta
ff from higher-value tasks and slowing the City’s responsiveness to emerging compliance or equity concerns.105 The current decentralization not only increases maintenance costs for multiple software licenses and support contracts but also amplifies the risk of data entry errors and delays in critical decision-making.106 Public‑sector studies put the ceiling for national annual savings from cognitive automation at up to $41 billion and 1.2 billion staff hours, with even “minimal” investments freeing 96 million hours and $3.3 billion a year.107 Federal agencies have already eliminated more than

1.4 million staff hours of low‑value work in their first five years of RPA use, redirecting capacity to mission‑critical tasks.108 State unemployment‑insurance programs report 70‑80 percent faster claim‑handling and more than 300,000 staff hours saved after deploying 108 Jacobs, Brian. “Intelligent Automation in the Federal Government: Key Factors for Success.” Macro Solutions (blog), March 6, 2023. https://macrosolutions.com/intelligent-automation-in-the-federal-government-key-factors-for-success/. 107 Deloitte Insights. “AI-Augmented Government.” Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/cognitive-technologies/artificial-intelligence-government.html 106 TechTarget. “An Explanation of SAP ERP,” November 20, 2024. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/video/An-explanation-of-SAP-ERP?utm. 105 Schwarz, Lisa. “ERP Automation Benefits and Trends.” Oracle Net Suite, June 4, 2023. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/erp/erp-automation.shtml?utm. 104 City and County of San Francisco Staff Interview. Financial Justice Project, 2025 33

bots to copy data and send notices.109 These figures far outweigh typical licensing and integration fees, especially for cloud solutions that scale elastically.

Cost/Benefit
Low‑code suites let non‑technical staff drag‑and‑drop workflows; Los Angeles put up an emergency‑rental‑assistance app in two months, and New South Wales built a disaster‑response hub in a single week, saving AUD $10.5 million and 30,000 work‑hours.110 Implementing or refining a centralized ERP platform alone, or with complementary RPA capabilities will require interdepartmental coordination and potentially phased investments—similar to other technology projects undertaken by the City. However, modern ERP solutions have consistently delivered strong returns. Nucleus Research found that organizations recouped implementation investments in sixteen months on average and achieved over 200 percent return on investment (ROI), driven by the elimination of legacy system costs and efficiency gains.111
Additionally, ERP automation benefits such as reduced human labor, improved productivity, and lower error rates further free staff capacity for strategic work and accelerate revenue collection processes.112 Over time, these savings can outweigh up-front costs, delivering a sustainable platform that underpins the City’s equity, transparency, and fiscal-responsibility objectives.

Certain ERP software have the ability to centralize multiple processes and absorb and facilitate the use of additional software simultaneously. By centralizing and automating fines and fees across all municipal programs, Berkeley stands to achieve a more equitable, transparent, and cost‑effective system, while laying the foundation for future enhancements such as advanced analytics and AI‑driven customer support.

To achieve a centralized system, convening a dedicated cross-departmental strike team could drive timely coordination and bring the initiative across the finish line. 112 Schwarz, Lisa. “ERP Automation Benefits and Trends.” Oracle Net Suite, June 4, 2023. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/erp/erp-automation.shtml?utm. 111 Nucleus Research. “ERP Pays for Itself--Fast,” December 16, 2019. https://nucleusresearch.com/research/single/erp-pays-for-itself-fast/. 110 Sturges, Kim Kaull. “3 Ways to Harness the Power of Low-Code in Government & Public Services.” servicenow.com, n.d. https://www.servicenow.com/blogs/2024/power-low-code-government. 109 Department of Labor. “Use Cases for Robotic Process Automation in UI Claims Processing.” Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ui-modernization/promising-practices/rpa-use-cases. 34

Recommendation 5: Expand the Indigent Payment Plan to Other Areas of the BMC
Current Framework
Currently, Berkeley’s Indigent Payment Plan program offers to reduce a parking fine down to its original amount and set up an installment plan for qualifying residents, who qualify by proof of their enrollment in government assistance programs such as EBT or Medi-Cal.

According to staff overseeing this initiative, compliance rates under this plan exceed those in regular enforcement.113 This result hints to the relationship of compliance and the direct alignment of monthly payments with people’s financial realities.

Proposed Change
Building on these findings, Berkeley can extend the Indigent Payment Plan beyond parking or specific code enforcement contexts to other parts of the BMC that involve fines and fees.

Low-income residents often face collateral consequences—such as vehicle registration holds, towing risks, or even property liens—when they cannot pay large lump-sum fines.

Berkeley officials consistently acknowledged these inequities in interviews. Staff at Berkeley's Code Enforcement highlighted that compounding penalties disproportionately penalize vulnerable populations, creating additional layers of economic hardship for those least able to afford them.114 Similarly, the National Consumer Law Center’s 2022 report documents extensively how punitive municipal fines create harmful financial instability among already struggling residents.115 Ultimately, once a household falls behind on one fine, additional fees or penalties usually accumulate, reducing the likelihood of eventual payment, subsequently harming the City’s bottom line.

Financial Implications
With the numerous benefits and relief that payment plans provide, Ability-to-Pay models have been repeatedly underscored by other jurisdictions. For example, according to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, when they reduced their fee to enter a payment plan from $60 to $5, enrollment in the payment plan increased by 400 percent; resulting in an increase of nearly $160,000 in total revenue for the City in the first two
months.116
116 Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald. “City Says Reduced Fee for Parking Citation Payment Program Boosting Revenues.” San Francisco Examiner, May 14, 2018.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/city-says-reduced-fee-for-parking-citation-payment-program-boosting-revenues/article_520d8832- 0300-5643-8267-3ad4c041176f.html.
115 NCLC. “No Fresh Start 2022: Will States Let Debt Collectors Push Families Into Poverty as the Cost of Necessities Soars?” Accessed March 30, 2025.
https://www.nclc.org/resources/no-fresh-start-2022-will-states-let-debt-collectors-push-families-into-poverty/. 114 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Code Enforcement, 2025. 113 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement 2, 2025. 35

Insights from the 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update
The City of Berkeley’s Fiscal Year 2025 Mid‑Year Budget Update notes that parking‑ticket issuance grew by 12.9 percent during the first half of the fiscal year, yet parking‑fine revenue fell by $320,386 (9.85 percent).117 In the report, City staff attribute the revenue decline to a 2018 change in California law that prohibits towing solely for unpaid parking citations118 however, outstanding citations can still block a vehicle’s registration and cars driven without valid registration remain subject to towing, license suspensions, added fines or fees, and can impact insurance coverage.119

This analysis has uncovered another possible factor: higher default rates among residents who cannot afford lump‑sum payments. A BMC-wide IPP could reverse such losses by transforming large, unrealistic obligations into affordable, enforceable ones.

Scaling the IPP across the BMC has the potential to stabilize municipal finances by converting high‑risk debt into steady receipts, lighten administrative workloads by curtailing costly enforcement actions, and fulfill the City’s equity mandate by shielding its most vulnerable residents from cascading penalties wherever fines and fees can impact low-income Berkeley residents. In doing so, Berkeley can align itself with a growing national movement that recognizes humane, data‑driven policy on
fines as both fiscally prudent and
socially responsible.

Evaluation of Recommendation 5 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 38/50

Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal earned a score of 38 out of 50. By extending the IPP, the policy would deliver robust equity gains, safeguarding the lowest-income households from cascading late fees. It also presents a demonstrated fiscal upside, as higher participation rates are likely to boost overall revenue collections.

However, some middle-income residents may perceive the policy as preferential unless it is paired with the universal installment option described in Recommendation 6. In addition, expanding the IPP would increase the burden on staff to verify public-benefit eligibility for a wider range of citation types—unless that workload is mitigated by the software upgrades proposed elsewhere in the Report.
119 LegalClarity. “California Vehicle Code 465: Registration Rules and Penalties,” December 27, 2024. https://legalclarity.org/california-vehicle-code-465-registration-rules-and-penalties/. 118 Ibid.
117 Friedrichsen, Sharon, and Henry Oyekanmi. “Fiscal Year 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update.” City Budget. City of Berkeley, March 25, 2025.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03-25%20Item%2011%20FY%202025%20Mid-Year%20Budget%20Updat e%20Report.pdf.
36

Recommendation 6: Explore Automatic Fines and Fees Payment Plans Available to Anyone
Current Framework
At present, Berkeley’s installment options are restricted almost exclusively to its Indigent Payment Plan, which residents may access only if they can document enrollment in programs, such as CalFresh/EBT, Medi-Cal, or General Assistance.120 All other citation recipients must either pay the full amount in a single lump sum or navigate ad-hoc appeals, leaving most households without a structured, affordable path to compliance.

Unfortunately, many residents who do not meet the public-assistance test still lack the liquidity to pay large
fines at once and the risk of widespread non-payment is poised to grow. As highlighted earlier, 63 percent of California households earning under $35,000, 46 percent earning $35,000–$74,999, and even 30 percent earning $75,000–$149,999 reported difficulty meeting basic expenses.121 When core living costs already strain the budgets of more than just low-income families, a sudden $75–$100 parking ticket—or a far larger code enforcement penalty—can quickly become unpayable, driving citation holders into default.

Proposed Change
Berkeley can strengthen both fiscal stability and procedural fairness by making installment‑based payment plans the default option for every fine or fee assessed under the BMC. Offering three‑ or four‑month schedules at the moment a citation is issued aligns payment obligations with ordinary household cash‑flow patterns, fostering timely partial payments instead of sporadic lump‑sum defaults. Embedding an automatic three‑ or four‑installment option into every notice issued under the BMC therefore meets residents where they are financially, converting what is often perceived as a sudden shock into a series of manageable obligations.

Studies highlight how many individuals hesitate or delay payments if the amount is too large at once, while smaller scheduled payments can encourage individuals to budget more e
ffectively and keep their accounts current.122 Success stories from other jurisdictions bolster this approach. According to the Brennan Center for Justice's 2019 report, high fines frequently lead to non-payment, resulting in costly enforcement actions, including 122 Hasler, Andrea, and Annamaria Lusardi. “Financial Fragility among Middle-Income Households: Evidence Beyond Asset Building.” Working Paper. Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center: The George Washington University School of Business, March 4, 2019.
https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Financial-Fragility-among-Middle-Income-Households-WP-2019-1-v2-3.pdf. 121 California Budget and Policy Center. “Millions of Californians Are Struggling to Make Ends Meet.” Accessed April 13, 2025. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/millions-of-californians-are-struggling-to-make-ends-meet/. 120 “Indigent Payment Plan for Parking Citations Application and Guidelines.” City of Berkeley. Accessed March 23, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Indigent-Payment-Plan-for-Parking-Citations-Application-and-Guidelines%20202

5.pdf.
37

administrative expenses, collections procedures, and potential legal actions.123 Conversely, reasonable fines aligned with individuals' ability to pay can provide more reliable revenue streams and minimize unnecessary expenditures associated with unpaid debts.

Research consistently shows that aligning fines with individuals’ economic reality directly improves compliance rates,124 125 thereby boosting overall revenue and saving resources that would otherwise be spent on cumbersome enforcement actions.126

Berkeley’s leadership on this issue would set an important precedent, demonstrating how local governments can cultivate a balanced, inclusive, and fiscally responsible enforcement framework. By adopting comprehensive installment options for all residents, Berkeley can strengthen both its fiscal health and its commitment to an equitable civic environment.

Comprehensive Social Impacts
Municipalities nationwide have reported significant benefits from implementing equitable fine and fee reforms similar to those proposed for Berkeley. Reforms around fines and fees in Las Vegas, for example, improved community relations, enhancing trust between local governments and constituents.127 This outcome is critical, given the broader societal impacts associated with financial penalties, including diminished community trust, heightened socioeconomic disparities, and perpetuated cycles of poverty.

Financial Implications
Although Berkeley’s Indigent Payment options focus on those with demonstrated low income, research indicates that payment plan options offered to all residents can lead to greater compliance and increased revenue, regardless of income. Empirical evidence from other jurisdictions underscores this financial logic. When Palm Beach County clerks placed misdemeanor and traffic defendants on installment plans at the first point of contact, 85 out of 200 cases made payments, generating $11,097 on $61,823 owed; non‑plan cases saw just four payers and a meager $678 on $73,693 assigned.128 The ratio—roughly 16:1 in favor of structured installments—speaks not only to willingness but to capacity: residents 128 “Payment Plans as a Compliance Tool: Best Practices For Florida Courts.” Fines and Fees Justice Center, August 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Payment-Plans-Final-1.pdf. 127 National League of Cities. “5 Lessons from NLC’s Cities Addressing Fines and Fees Equitably Initiative,” March 20, 2025. https://www.nlc.org/article/2025/03/20/5-lessons-from-nlcs-cities-addressing-fines-and-fees-equitably-initiative/. 126 Menendez, Matthew, Michael F. Crowley, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Noah Atchison. “The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines | Brennan Center for Justice,” November 21, 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/the-steep-costs-of-criminal-justice-fees-and-fines-a-fiscal-analysis-of-three-states-and-t en-counties/.
125 Obama Whitehouse Archives. “FINES, FEES, AND BAIL: Payments In the Criminal Justice System That Disproportionately Impact the Poor,” December 2015.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf. 124 Harris, Alexes. A Pound of Flesh: Monetary Sanctions as Punishment for the Poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2016. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/207/monograph/book/45636.
123 Menendez, Matthew, Michael F. Crowley, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Noah Atchison. “The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines | Brennan Center for Justice,” November 21, 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/the-steep-costs-of-criminal-justice-fees-and-fines-a-fiscal-analysis-of-three-states-and-t en-counties/.
38

will comply when the obligation fits with a monthly budget cycle. By lowering barriers and placing people on payment plans immediately, the county has increased collections and reduced the number of cases that fall out of compliance.

As another example, in February 2017, the National Task Force on Fines, Fees and Bail Practices issued a bench card to help judges properly apply fees and fines. Later that year, Texas passed a law requiring courts to assess defendants’ ability to pay earlier in the process, adjust financial penalties accordingly, limit warrants for noncompliance, and expand community service options—leading to a 7 percent increase in collections.129 Reducing Administrative Costs and Default Rates
One commonly overlooked advantage of providing installment plans is a reduction in administrative overhead. According to the Brennan Center for Justice's 2019 report, for every unpaid citation, the City has the potential to incur costs associated with collection; additional administrative paperwork, sending notices, and in some cases, court proceedings.130 In some municipalities, resources consumed in pursuit of delinquent fines
often exceeded the revenue gained. One New Mexico county, for example, spent $1.17 for every $1.00 collected in fines and fees, illustrating how enforcement and oversight expenses rapidly erode any revenue gain.131 These costs mount as courts and their partners devote resources to paperwork, hearings, and other procedures to pursue unpaid obligations that frequently remain uncollected. Automatically implementing payment plans and shifting to an installment-based system would almost certainly cut any expenses related to collection e
fforts by turning potential defaulters into willing payers, while simultaneously preventing the City from funneling resources into endless attempts to collect from individuals who lack the immediate means to pay.

Evaluation of Recommendation 6 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 37/50

Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal earned a score of 37 out of 50. By offering early payment plans, jurisdictions have realized higher net revenue and lower collection costs and have mitigated collateral harms, since timely partial payments prevent vehicle registration holds and other cascading penalties that accompany delinquency.

However, rolling out this approach depends on integrating new software into existing systems and ensuring sta
ff are properly trained to use it.
131 Miller, Andrea L., and Nikole Hotchkiss. “Policy Reforms for Racial Justice: What Works for Fines and Fees.” National Center for State Courts, December 2024. https://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/financial/id/293. 130 Menendez, Matthew, Michael F. Crowley, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Noah Atchison. “The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines | Brennan Center for Justice,” November 21, 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/the-steep-costs-of-criminal-justice-fees-and-fines-a-fiscal-analysis-of-three-states-and-t en-counties/.
129 “Fees and Fines: The Criminalization of Poverty.” Accessed April 7, 2025. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/government_public/publications/public_lawyer_articles/fees-fines/. 39

Conclusion
This report brings together key insights on Berkeley’s fines and fees framework, while underscoring the prospective impact on the CIty’s broader civic values. The analysis demonstrates that Berkeley’s existing fines and fees system—characterized by decentralized departmental schedules, uneven informational access, and reliance on punitive lump-sum charges—has contributed to growing revenue shortfalls and imposed disproportionate burdens on
financially vulnerable residents.

Employing a mixed-methods approach that combines document review, semi-structured sta
ff interviews, budget analysis, and other jurisdiction benchmarking, this report developed a multi-criteria decision matrix to evaluate six targeted reforms. Each recommendation was assessed on political feasibility, cost, effectiveness, sustainability, and externalities, yielding clear prioritization; from low-barrier interventions, such as consolidating all fees into a single Master Fee Schedule; to more complex technology investments, such as centralized ERP and RPA; to expanding access to payment plans.

Early implementation phases should prioritize low-cost, high-impact actions while laying the groundwork for subsequent technology integrations and payment-plan expansions. .

Collectively, these reforms promise to enhance transparency, promote equitable access, and stabilize long term revenues. A uni
fied Master Fee Schedule and multilingual online
resource page will streamline resident interactions and reduce clerical workload; updates to disability-parking and bicycle-registration ordinances will remove outdated requirements and align local law with state and federal standards; modernized software platforms will automate repetitive tasks, improve data accuracy, and free sta ff for higher-value work; and
expanded income-sensitive and automatic installment payment options will convert high-risk debt into manageable obligations and bolster compliance.

Ultimately, regular reporting to the City Council and the Fines and Fees Steering Committee, including transparent updates on
fiscal impacts, compliance metrics, and
community feedback, will help maintain momentum and adaptability. By sequencing reforms to secure early administrative relief and building capacity for more complex changes, the City of Berkeley can progressively realize a fines and fees framework that balances fiscal responsibility with equitable access, operational efficiency, and public trust.

Such an approach aligns with the City’s broader “Care First, Jails Last” and “Reimagining Public Safety” initiatives, illustrating that reforms to fines and fees are not merely revenue
tools but integral components of a more just and resilient local government framework. 40

Appendix I
Additional Sections of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) for Staff to Consider for Inclusion in Payment Plan Eligibility
BMC
Section
Description

6.04.080 Bathe, swim, wade in Aquatic Park

6.08.020 Going upon or using the wharf

6.24 Municipal Off‑Street Parking Facilities (meters, pay‑to‑display)

6.32 Parks and Public Pathways—Use Restrictions

6.50.030 Prohibition on feeding wild animals on public property

12.32.050 Garbage collection and fees

12.32.060 Garbage collection and fees

12.36.070 Collecting recyclables from the curbside (aimed at low‑income individuals)

12.40.040 Litter, Debris, and Noxious Plants

12.40.050 Litter, Debris, and Noxious Plants

12.40.060 Litter, Debris, and Noxious Plants

13.36.015 Creation of accessibility on commercial sidewalks—related restrictions

13.36.20 Obstructing entrance to or exit from public or private buildings

13.36.040 Obstructing City‑owned planters and trees

13.52.040 Parking vehicle on private property

13.52.050 Parking vehicle on private property

13.52 Parking vehicle on private property (entire Chapter 13.52)

13.98.030 Placing graffiti as a nuisance—owner’s obligation to have graffiti removed

13.98.040 Penalties if owner does not remove or show good‑faith efforts to remove graffiti
41

16.04.010 Sidewalk repair requirements—property owner’s duty to maintain public sidewalks
Appendix II
Public Safety Defined
Public Safety in the context of fines and fees reform refers to the deliberate use of financial penalties not simply as revenue tools or punitive measures, but as instruments for promoting equitable compliance and reinvesting in community wellbeing. A well designed system ensures that penalties deter harmful behavior without imposing disproportionate burdens on low‑income residents or triggering secondary sanctions that can worsen economic instability. By providing transparent payment options, relief programs like installment plans and clear communication, municipalities foster voluntary compliance.

Moreover, reducing the administrative and enforcement resources tied up in pursuing delinquent
fines frees up capacity to support upstream interventions, such as violence prevention, mental‑health outreach, and social services, that address root causes of unsafe behavior. In this way, reforms to fines and fees serve both to uphold individual rights and to enhance collective safety by minimizing collateral harm and enabling proactive, preventive public safety strategies.
42

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance
Subject: Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on January 20, 2026

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids (attached to staff report) that will be, or are planned to be, issued upon final approval by the requesting department or division. All contracts over the City Manager’s threshold will be returned to Council for final approval.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Total estimated cost of items included in this report is $480,000 Project Fund Source Amount
Vehicle Parts and Related Equipment 672 Equipment MTC. $480,000 Total: $480,000

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On May 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S. effective June 6, 2008, which increased the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services to $50,000. As a result, this required report submitted by the City Manager to Council is now for those purchases in excess of $100,000 for goods; and $200,000 for playgrounds and construction; and $50,000 for services. If Council does not object to these items being sent out for bid or proposal within one week of them appearing on the agenda, and upon final notice to proceed from the requesting department, the IFB (Invitation for Bid) or RFP (Request for Proposal) may be released to the public and notices sent to the potential bidder/respondent list.

BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2008, Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,035-N.S., amending the City Manager’s purchasing authority for services

Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals
Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council
Approval on January 20, 2026 CONSENT CALENDAR

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Finance Department reviews all formal bid and proposal solicitations to ensure that they include provisions for compliance with the City’s environmental policies. For each contract that is subject to City Council authorization, staff will address environmental sustainability considerations in the associated staff report to City Council.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Need for the goods and/or services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Henry Oyekanmi, Director of Finance, 510-981-7329
Attachments:

1. Vehicle Parts and Related Equipment
Note: Originals of these attachments, with the live signatures of authorizing personnel, are on file in General Services.

NEXT 30 DAYS
DATE SUBMITTED: January 20, 2026
Attachment 1

SPECIFICATION
NO.

DESCRIPTION

OF GOODS /

SERVICES
BEING

PURCHASED
APPROX.

RELEASE DATE
APPROX. BID

OPENING DATE

INTENDED USE ESTIMATED
COST
BUDGET CODE TO BE CHARGED DEPT. / DIVISION CONTACT NAME & PHONE
26-11779-C Invitation for Bids
(IFB): Vehicle
Parts and Related
Equipment –
OEM, OES, and
Aftermarket
Pricing
1/21/26 2/22/2026 Vehicle Parts and Related
Equipment – Original
Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM), Original Equipment
Supplier (OES), and
Aftermarket Pricing
$480,000/
Three-year
period.

FY26   672-54-626-722-0000-000-473-642120-
$180,000                                                                  FY27 672-54-626-722-0000-000-473-642120-  $180,000
FY28  672-54-626-722-0000-000-473-642120 -
$180,000
Public Works/Equipment
Maintenance
Sarita Rubio
831-981-5372
Dept Total $480,000
TOTAL $480,000
1 of  1

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing & Community Services Subject: 1740 San Pablo Ownership Transfer

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution:

1. Approving the transfer of the general partner for 1740 San Pablo, LP from an affiliate of BRIDGE Housing Corporation to Resources for Community Development or their affiliate; and

2. Extending the project’s existing $4,496,669 reservation of Measure U1 general funds for 24 months; and

3. Authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute all original or amended documents to effectuate this action.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There are no expected fiscal impacts of the transfer itself. The City entered into an acquisition and predevelopment loan agreement with 1740 San Pablo, LP as the borrower for $7,500,000 in Measure O funding (Fund #512) to support the project. The City also reserved $4,496,669 in General Funds from Measure U1 (Fund #016) to

support development costs for the project. Resources for Community Development (RCD) would assume the existing loan, which the City would amend to reflect the new

partnership structure and to add the Measure U1 funds. RCD indicated that the project may have a funding gap due to tariffs increasing the cost of construction materials, and because of recent changes to the low-income housing tax credit program and

fluctuations in tax credit pricing. RCD will pursue value engineering and non-City sources to mitigate that gap but may return to the City with a request for additional funding. At the time of this report, the City has approximately $2,000,000 in housing

funds unallocated to specific projects, comprised mostly of Measure O funds (Fund #512) and some Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee funds (Fund #120).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
1740 San Pablo is a City-funded affordable housing project currently in predevelopment. BRIDGE Housing Corporation (BRIDGE) owns this project through its special purpose entity 1740 San Pablo, LP, and is seeking City Council approval to transfer the general partnership of that entity to another qualified affordable housing

1740 San Pablo Partnership Transfer CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026

developer. BRIDGE is choosing to transfer the project because it is refining its portfolio strategy and is prioritizing larger-scale (100+ unit) developments moving forward.

BRIDGE identified an interested party, Resources for Community Development (RCD), to take ownership of the project. A competitive bid for new ownership is not required because this action constitutes an administrative transfer of an existing, previously competitively awarded project—approved through the City’s 2019 Housing Trust Fund RFP—to a new management member of the same legal entity (1740 San Pablo, LP).

No new procurement, renegotiation or expansion of scope would apply. Staff therefore recommends the transfer consistent with the existing loan agreements and the City Manager’s authority under Housing Trust Fund guidelines to approve transfers to qualified organizations. The City has worked with RCD on many affordable projects, including the recently completed 87-unit Maudelle Miller Shirek Community. Earlier this year, RCD was selected to develop two affordable housing projects as part of the Ashby BART West Lot Transit-Oriented Development team. RCD is a Berkeley-based developer whose portfolio includes more than 300 affordable units in Berkeley, and over 3,000 affordable units throughout the greater Bay Area.

RCD will assume the existing $7,500,000 Housing Trust Fund loan for 1740 San Pablo.

As part of this transfer approval, Council will also need to extend its 2024 reservation of Measure U1 funds for an additional $4,496,669. This extension will allow RCD time to pursue additional financing, including highly competitive low-income housing tax credits.

BACKGROUND
1740 San Pablo is a 54-unit project for households earning between 30% and 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). BRIDGE planned to prioritize three residential units for artists and potentially include studio space, if financially feasible. The project was first funded through the City’s 2019 Housing Trust Fund Request for Proposals process. On March 10, 2020, Council approved a resolution (69,315– N.S.) authorizing a loan to support the acquisition and predevelopment phases of the project. Due to rising construction costs and a change in the project that resulted in deeper affordability, BRIDGE requested additional development funding for the project in 2024.

Subsequently, on June 25, 2024, Council passed a resolution (71,403-N.S.) authorizing an additional $4,496,669 in development funding for 1740 San Pablo. That reservation was for a 24-month period and will need to be extended to allow RCD additional time to secure the project’s remaining financing.
1740 San Pablo was awarded 21 Project Based Vouchers from the Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA). It has also received $3,087,650 in Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) funds from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and an additional $1.5 million from the Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB).

BRIDGE is working with all entities to transfer those awards to RCD. If RCD acquires the project, they plan to apply for 9% tax credits in 2026, which would put the project on track to begin construction by early 2027. RCD will explore the feasibility of an artist

1740 San Pablo Partnership Transfer CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026

preference for up to three residential units, subject to fair housing law and the logistics of implementing along with the City’s adopted preference policy.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There will be no environmental impacts related to the transfer, and the project will remain as affordable rental housing for families.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Because 1740 San Pablo is considered a small project, it is no longer aligned with BRIDGE’s priorities as a nonprofit developer. Transferring the project to RCD will protect the City’s investment in the project and will enable the project to move forward, providing additional affordable housing stock in Berkeley.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None considered.

CONTACT PERSON
Kelly deWolfe, Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, (510) 981-5424 Attachment:
1: Resolution

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

AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF 1740 SAN PABLO, LP FROM BRIDGE

HOUSING TO RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the general partner of 1740 San Pablo, LP is an affiliate of BRIDGE Housing Corporation (BRIDGE); and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, with Resolution 69,315-N.S., the City Council allocated $7,500,000 Housing Trust Fund loan with Measure O bond funds to 1740 San Pablo, LP to support acquisition and predevelopment costs for 1740 San Pablo Avenue in Berkeley, CA; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, with Resolution No. 71,403-N.S., the City Council reserved an additional $4,496,669 with Measure U1 funds to support development costs for 1740 San Pablo, conditioned on BRIDGE securing approvals and all remaining project financing within 24 months; and
WHEREAS, BRIDGE determined that the 1740 San Pablo project is no longer compatible with its strategic priorities and is seeking City approval to transfer the project to a qualified organization; and
WHEREAS, in 2025, BRIDGE selected Resources for Community Development (RCD), with the experience and expertise to develop affordable housing for families; and WHEREAS, the City’s existing Loan Agreement with 1740 San Pablo, LP requires City approval of any transfers, including partnership transfers.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City approves the transfer of the general partner role for 1740 San Pablo, LP from a BRIDGE affiliate to RCD or an RCD-controlled affiliate.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council approves BRIDGE’s assignment and RCD’s assumption of BRIDGE’s obligations under the loan agreement for 1740 San Pablo.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reservation of $4,496,669 authorized with Resolution number 71,403-N.S. shall be extended for a period of no more than 24 months from the date of this Resolution, contingent on RCD obtaining all required City approvals and securing commitments for project funding that the City Manager or designee deems sufficient within the reservation period.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee be authorized to refinance existing Housing Trust Fund loan (including any accrued interest) into a new loan with terms consistent with the HTF Guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute all original or amended documents or agreements to effectuate this action; a

signed copy of said documents, agreements, and any amendments will be kept on file in the Office of City Clerk.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Subject: Request for Proposals for Capacity Building for Emerging Nonprofit Affordable Housing Developers

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for $400,000 ($200,000 per year for Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028) to support capacity building for emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The RFP process is intended to result in a recommendation to award capacity building grant funds to one or more qualifying emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers, up to a total of $200,000 for each fiscal year (FY). The funds would be awarded from the general fund pursuant to Measure U1 (Fund #016) and would be subject to Council approval in the FY2027 and FY2028 budget processes.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On November 6, 2025, the Housing Advisory Commission took the following action:

Action: M/S/C (Haycox/Potter) to recommend that City Council release an RFP for $400,000 ($200,000 per year for FY 2027 and FY 2028) to support capacity building for emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers; and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all original or amended documents or agreements to effectuate these actions.

Vote: Ayes: Bell, Haycox, Micael, Potter, Scott, Simon-Weisberg, and Twu. Noes: None.

Abstain: None. Absent: Shere.

Housing and Community Services Division staff intend to release an RFP for a total of $400,000 for two years of capacity building grants to encourage and support new or less experienced nonprofit developers to build capacity to pursue future affordable housing opportunities in Berkeley.

Eligible Applicants
The capacity building funds will be available to nonprofit developers with limited development experience that are actively working on or pursuing new opportunities for

Request for Proposals for Capacity Building CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

affordable housing in Berkeley that could be eligible for City funding under the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) program or Small Sites Program (SSP). The City’s HTF and SSP Guidelines include specific threshold requirements for developer experience for the City to consider funding predevelopment or development loans; applicants for the capacity building grants do not need to meet those standards. Applicants can request up to $200,000 per fiscal year, however if the City receives multiple applications, the available funds may be allocated to one applicant or divided amongst multiple applicants.

Eligible Uses
Potential uses of the capacity building funds include (but are not limited to) the following:
 Staff development to increase technical knowledge and skills;  Board development to improve organizational systems as well as an understanding of affordable housing development and finance;  Development of internal systems such as operational policies and guidelines that help with staff development and business planning; and
 Creation of program policies and decision-making tools to assess development opportunities
Evaluation Criteria
Staff will review applications and prioritize funding based on need, the applicant’s plan for increasing affordable housing development capacity, whether the applicant is actively working on or pursuing new affordable housing opportunities in Berkeley, and a demonstrated ability to manage governmental grant funding.

BACKGROUND
This RFP will provide an open and transparent process for qualified organizations to request capacity building support. The selected applicant(s) will enter into the City’s community agency contract and will be required to report on the use of funds and progress towards capacity building goals on a quarterly basis.

The City has a history of providing operational support to local nonprofit developers through Community Housing Development Organization grants to qualified organizations (currently Resources for Community Development and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates). The City issued an RFP for capacity building for developers interested in pursuing SSP projects in 2018, through which Bay Area Community Land Trust (BACLT) was awarded $50,000. Since then, Council approved subsequent annual allocations to BACLT in amounts ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 per fiscal year.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no direct environmental or climate impacts related to issuing the RFP and awarding capacity building grants.

Request for Proposals for Capacity Building CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Issuing a new RFP offers a transparent process and allows organizations with limited development experience to apply. The capacity building funding could help an emerging developer grow its staffing, improve organizational processes, and be better positioned to create or preserve affordable housing in Berkeley.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City could opt to not release the RFP. This could negatively impact emerging developers’ ability to pursue new affordable housing opportunities in Berkeley.

CONTACT PERSON
Asavari Devadiga, Community Development Project Coordinator, HHCS, 510-981-5426 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

AUTHORIZING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CAPACITY BUILDING WHEREAS, the City Council established a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) program to assist in the development and expansion of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income persons who either work or reside within the City of Berkeley, and authorized the City Manager to implement the HTF program; and
WHEREAS, there is a great need for affordable and special needs housing in the City of Berkeley as stated in the General Plan Housing Element and the City of Berkeley’s Consolidated Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for capacity building to support newer or less experienced nonprofit developers to build capacity to pursue future affordable housing opportunities in Berkeley; and WHEREAS, up to $200,000 per fiscal year (FY) for FY2027 and FY2028 would be made available to one or more qualifying developers through the RFP process; and WHEREAS, the RFP funds are general funds generated pursuant to Measure U1, and subject to approval by Council in the FY2027 and FY2028 budget processes.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council authorizes releasing a Request for Proposals for $400,000 ($200,000 per year for FY2027 and FY2028) in resources generated by Measure U1 (Fund #016) to support capacity building for emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funding allocations to the selected applicant or applicants will be subject to Council approval as part of the annual budget approval cycle.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute all original or amended documents or agreements to effectuate this action.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Acceptance of Fiscal Year 2026 Donations from Meals on Wheels of Alameda County (MOWAC) for the Berkeley Meals on Wheels Program

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution accepting donations in an amount estimated to be up to $225,000 for the Berkeley Meals on Wheels Program from the Meals on Wheels of Alameda County (MOWAC) agency, for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY2026).

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The donations will be received and deposited on a quarterly basis into Fund 111 Fund- Raising Activities and will be appropriated as part of the Second Amendment to the FY 2026 Annual Appropriations Ordinance. These donations will support the cost of hourly personnel and operating expenses needed to provide meals to home-bound seniors by the City of Berkeley Meals on Wheels program.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Berkeley Meals on Wheels program contributes to the City’s Strategic Plan goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily accessible service to the community, particularly serving the older adult, homebound community.

The Berkeley Meals on Wheels program provides over 60,000 nutritious meals to over 250 seniors each year.

MOWAC is a private, non-profit agency that raises funds for the six Meals on Wheels programs in Alameda County. MOWAC provides special grant funding and donations to programs to support the delivery of meals to home-bound seniors.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley Meals on Wheels program is funded by an annual grant contract with the Alameda County Area Agency on Aging, as well as by client and community donations and the City’s General Fund. While each Meals on Wheels program in the County is expected to support unfunded costs of the program to meet community needs, MOWAC helps programs meet additional needs by conducting its own fundraising efforts for the benefit of all programs countywide.

Fiscal Year 2026 Meals on Wheels of Alameda County Donations CONSENT CALENDAR for the Berkeley Meals on Wheels Program January 20, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The Berkeley Meals on Wheels program packages its meals in compostable containers to reduce landfill waste. The program also offers volunteer bicycle delivery routes.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Donations received from MOWAC will provide the Berkeley Meals on Wheels program with significant financial support that can be directly applied to both personnel and operating expenses for the program.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Refusing donations from MOWAC would not be consistent with the City’s Strategic Plan goals or its efforts to sustain an Age-Friendly Berkeley and is not recommended.

CONTACT PERSON
Rhianna Babka, Aging Services Manager, HHCS, (510) 981-5410 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

FISCAL YEAR 2026 MEALS ON WHEELS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY DONATIONS FOR

THE BERKELEY MEALS ON WHEELS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Meals on Wheels of Alameda County (MOWAC) Agency’s mission is to raise funds for the six Meals on Wheels programs in Alameda County, including Berkeley Meals on Wheels; and
WHEREAS, Alameda County distributes these funds on a quarterly and proportional basis to Meals on Wheels programs and special grant requests throughout Alameda County; and
WHEREAS, Berkeley Meals on Wheels provides over 60,000 nutritious meals to over 250 seniors each year; and
WHEREAS, MOWAC donations will assist in covering personnel costs or providing meals to homebound seniors; and
WHEREAS, the donations will be deposited into Fund 111 Fund-Raising Activities and will be appropriated as part of the Second Amendment to the FY 2026 Annual Appropriations Ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that donations in an amount up to $225,000 to the Berkeley Meals on Wheels program from the Meals on Wheels of Alameda County Agency are accepted to support personnel and operational costs of meal provision to home-bound seniors by the City of Berkeley Meals on Wheels program.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Janelle Rodrigues, Director of Human Resources Subject: Reestablish and Revise Job Class Specification and Pay Scale – Animal Services Supervisor (formerly Animal Services Operations Supervisor)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to reestablish and revise the job class specification and pay scale of Animal Services Supervisor (formerly Animal Services Operations Supervisor) with an hourly pay scale of $48.4266 to $53.3904 distributed across three steps.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Animal Services Supervisor job classification has been reestablished and revised in preparation for future position requests and budgetary planning. The recommended pay scale for the proposed classification represents a fiscal impact of $100,727 to $111,052 (approximately $180,060 to $198,517 including full benefits) for one position.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Animal Services Division of the City Manager’s Office provides a wide range of services supporting public safety and animal welfare across Berkeley, Emeryville, Albany, and Piedmont. These include ordinance enforcement, wildlife removal, stray pet impoundment, and investigations of neglect, cruelty, nuisance, and bite cases, as well as sheltering services.

Currently, a single Animal Services Manager is responsible for overseeing 12 staff members – including animal control officers, medical personnel, and administrative staff

– while also managing daily operations and long-term strategic planning. Without a mid- level supervisory role, the Manager lacks the capacity to implement recent consultant recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Animal Services Division in alignment with industry best practices. Although the Senior Animal Control Officer serves as the lead, this classification does not have the authority or capacity to fully supervise subordinate staff. This blurring of roles leads to inconsistent leadership in the field among Animal Control Officers and does not address the oversight of the front desk administrative staff who handle customer service, communication, and documentation.

Reestablish and Revise Job Class Specification and Pay Scale – Animal Services Supervisor (formerly Animal Services Operations Supervisor)

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026

To address these challenges, the City Manager’s Office Animal Services Division proposes to reestablish the Animal Services Operations Supervisor classification, which was abolished in 2017, and simultaneously revise the job class specification to reflect current industry standards and duties of the classification. Reinstating this position will provide formal supervision of staff and improve accountability, performance monitoring, and daily guidance; strengthen coordination between field and shelter operations; enhance customer service and internal workflows; and allow the Manager to focus on strategic initiatives, partnerships, and policy development, ultimately strengthening the shelter’s ability to effectively serve both animals and the community.

BACKGROUND
The classification of Animal Services Supervisor falls under the Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Maintenance and Clerical (SEIU-MC) bargaining unit.

The City formally notified SEIU-MC of the proposed job class specification revisions and engaged in five meet-and-confer meetings to address the potential impacts. These discussions resulted in a mutual agreement on the proposed changes.

The proposed salary is set 5% above the Senior Animal Control Officer and is 16% above the mean and 17% above the median when compared to neighboring agencies including County of Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, and City and County of San Francisco (the bargaining unit’s survey agencies as outlined in the memorandum of understanding).

The Personnel Board discussed and voted at its November 3, 2025 meeting to send the revised classification and pay scale to the City Council for approval.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation to reestablish the classification of Animal Services Supervisor will improve organizational structure, service delivery, and alignment with industry best practices.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Janelle Rodrigues, Director of Human Resources, (510) 981-6807.

Attachments:
1: Resolution

Reestablish and Revise Job Class Specification and Pay Scale – Animal Services Supervisor (formerly Animal Services Operations Supervisor)

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026

Exhibit A to Resolution: Proposed Job Class Specification and Pay Scale – Animal Services Supervisor

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

APPROVING REESTABLISHMENT AND REVISION OF JOB CLASS SPECIFICATION

AND PAY SCALE OF ANIMAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR (FORMERLY ANIMAL

SERVICES OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR)
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department maintains the Classification and Compensation plan for the City of Berkeley; and
WHEREAS, job specifications are foundational components of the City’s Classification and Compensation plan; and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Department revised the job class specification of Animal Services Supervisor with an hourly pay range of $48.4266 - $53.3904; and WHEREAS, the Personnel Board recommended adopting the revised job class specification and pay range for Animal Services Supervisor at its November 3, 2025, meeting; and
WHEREAS, employees who work in the classification of Animal Services Supervisor will be considered non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); and WHEREAS, the job classification of Animal Services Supervisor is represented by Service Employees International Union Local 1021, Clerical Chapter; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the classification for Animal Services Supervisor is reestablished with a job specification and pay range as shown in Exhibit A, effective January 20, 2026.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Animal Services Supervisor classification has an hourly pay scale of $48.4266 - $53.3904 distributed across three steps:

Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$48.4266 $50.8480 $53.3904
Exhibits
A: Animal Services Supervisor – Job Class Specification and Pay Scale

CITY OF BERKELEY

ANIMAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR
Class Code XXXX
Pay Scale: $48.4266 - $53.3904 Hourly
Established Date: December 1, 1988
Reestablished Date: January 20, 2026

DEFINITION
Under general direction, supervises, organizes, assigns, and reviews the work of animal and services personnel in accordance with state and local codes, laws, and ordinances; responds to public inquiries and complaints; maintains records; performs related work as assigned.

CLASS CHARACTERISTICS
This is a first-line supervisory classification responsible for overseeing both field and shelter animal services personnel in daily operations of animal control and shelter services, including enforcement of animal-related laws and ordinances, and humane care and sheltering of a variety of animals. This class is distinguished from Animal Services Manager which has overall program planning and administration responsibilities for the entire division.

EXAMPLES OF ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
The essential functions outlined in the classification represent the fundamental requirements and primary purpose of the classification. Duties are illustrative of the essential functions of the classification intended to describe the general nature and level of work performed and are not intended to be an exhaustive list of duties that may be assigned. The omission of a specific duty statement does not exclude it from the position if the work is consistent with the concept of the classification or is similar or closely related to another duty statement. The City of Berkeley is committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, and providing reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

1. Organizes, schedules, assigns and reviews daily work of the Animal Services Assistants, Animal Control Officers, the Volunteer Coordinator, and/or front desk staff; adjusts schedules and areas of assignment based on daily staffing.

2. Oversees and helps manage the animal population, including assessing animals for adoption, monitoring for stress and deterioration, working with the clinic to monitor the animal’s overall health, making euthanasia recommendations to the Manager, and approving or denying adoptions that require supervisory approval or adoptions where the staff members do not feel comfortable moving forward with the adoption.

3. Coordinates with external agencies including, but not limited to, law enforcement, veterinary and animal welfare professionals, local health departments, District and City Attorney’s Offices, and the California Department of Public Health to provide assistance and prepare cases for prosecution and prevent and contain

the spread of infectious, animal-borne diseases through proactive education and intervention strategies.

4. Responds to public requests for shelter or operational related information and complaints; engages in proactive community outreach by building trusted relationships with the public, identifying and supporting at-risk pet owners, assisting individuals in crisis, and treating all people with empathy and compassion.

5. Maintains accurate records and prepares periodic or special reports regarding animal services activities, including animals euthanized, adopted, or returned to owners, and contract services provided to other jurisdictions; ensures the correct recordkeeping of animals and people in the animal management software system.

6. Provides technical expertise, guidance, and ongoing mentorship to field and shelter, field services, shelter, and animal control personnel, and oversees performance and evaluation for subordinate staff.

7. Refers major non-routine problems to the manager.

8. Assists in the selection, training, and performance appraisal of employees; prepares documentation of disciplinary problems training of employees; conduct regular team meetings, including weekly briefings and monthly reviews, to align staff with departmental goals, enhance communication, and track progress.

9. Assists in long-term planning of division activities; assists the public at the counter, including collecting fees, processing paperwork for release or adoption of animals, conducting facility tours, and maintaining positive public relations.

10. Represents the division on animal services contract matters.

11. Provides support and supervision of Animal Control Officers and field operations in the absence of the Senior Animal Control Officer.

12. Monitors and orders supplies required for division operations; oversees vehicle and equipment maintenance to ensure operational readiness, safety, and adherence to established protocols; promotes and enforces safe work practices to ensure staff safety.

13. Evaluates and recommends revisions to operations, policies, and procedures.

14. Participates in shelter and operational activities when required; performs euthanasia of animals when required and at the direction of the Manager.

15. Patrols or assigns Animal Control Officers to patrol assigned areas, issues citations for violations of applicable regulations, and testifies in court as necessary.

16. Investigates complaints from the public and other agencies regarding nuisance, stray, uncontrolled, dangerous, wild, or diseased animals; investigates animal bites, conducts interviews, completes all necessary forms, attends animal-related hearings, and acts as quarantine officer when assigned.

17. Handles reported cases of abuse, cruelty, and other criminal activity; provides explanations to the public regarding state, and local laws, codes, and ordinances relating to the responsibilities of the Animal Care Services, including licensing and vaccination requirements.

18. Performs related duties as assigned.

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES:

Note: The level and scope of the knowledge and skills listed below are related to job duties as defined under Class Characteristics.

Knowledge of:

1. Principles and practices of effective supervision, including staff assignment, scheduling, training, coaching, performance evaluation, and discipline.

2. Laws, ordinances, regulations, and codes related to animal control, rabies control, dangerous animals, licensing, animal cruelty, and other relevant legal enforcement activities.

3. Principles and practices of animal control, animal law enforcement, humane animal care, and shelter operations, including animal health, behavior assessment, and placement.

4. Safe and humane methods for handling, capturing, transporting, housing, and euthanizing animals, including the use of specialized equipment and restraint techniques.

5. Public health concerns related to animals, including zoonotic disease recognition, prevention, and response.

6. Safety regulations, safe work practices, and protective equipment related to shelter and field operations.

7. Investigative techniques used in animal control and cruelty/neglect investigations, including documentation and case preparation.

8. Procedures for effective public engagement, education, de-escalation, and conflict resolution during stressful or emotionally charged situations.

9. Operational needs of shelter facilities, including cleaning protocols, inventory, vehicle and equipment maintenance, and emergency response.

10.Use of animal management software systems for accurate documentation of animals, people, and shelter/field activity.

11.Basic budgeting principles and purchasing procedures.

12.Community engagement strategies to promote responsible pet ownership, return- to-owner practices, and support for underserved populations.

Skill in and Ability to:

1. Organize, schedule, assign, and review the work of shelter and field staff, including Animal Control Officers, Animal Services Assistants, and administrative personnel.

2. Lead teams effectively through change, crisis, and day-to-day operations while promoting accountability and high performance.

3. Deal tactfully, patiently, and effectively with the public in person and on the telephone under hostile, emotional, or emergency conditions.

4. Assess animal health and behavior and making effective decisions regarding handling, treatment, disposition, or euthanasia of animals.

5. Handle, capture, and restrain animals safely, humanely, and confidently in stressful or emergency situations.

6. Administer euthanasia by lethal injection in a legal and humane manner, at the direction of the Manager.

7. Investigate complaints and violations thoroughly and objectively and prepare documentation and reports for possible prosecution.

8. Prepare clear, accurate, and concise records, reports, correspondence, and procedural documents.

9. Use independent judgment and initiative to prioritize tasks, resolve operational issues, and adapt to rapidly changing situations.

10.Interpret and apply relevant laws, codes, policies, and procedures related to animal services operations.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
A typical way of gaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities outlined above is:

Education
High school graduation or equivalent.

Experience
Three (3) years of journey-level experience, with one (1) year of lead supervisory experience, in animal control, animal law enforcement, and shelter operations.

Licenses, Certifications, and Other Requirements

1. Must possess a valid California driver’s license and have a satisfactory driving record.

2. Must possess and maintain certification as a California Certified Animal Control Officer (CACO).

3. Completion of California Penal Code Section 832 Arrest, Search, and Seizure Course (non-handgun).

4. Must obtain and maintain training certification in the administration of euthanasia in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 16 § 2039 - Sodium Pentobarbital/Euthanasia Training within one (1) year of appointment.

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. The City of Berkeley is committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, and providing reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

1. Frequently walk, stand, sit, kneel, squat, and twist and bend at the waist.

2. Frequently speak and hear well enough to communicate in person and over the telephone.

3. Frequently hear heart and lung sounds and measure blood pressure with or without corrective devices.

4. Frequently read standard text, fine print, various handwritings, and view a computer monitor.

5. Frequently use manual dexterity to handwrite, use a computer keyboard, manipulate equipment dials.

6. Frequently perform daily tasks with independent body mobility, agility, and stamina sufficient to stand, or sit, walk, stoop, and bend routinely for prolonged periods.

7. Frequently operate equipment requiring repetitive hand movement and fine coordination, including use of a computer keyboard.

8. Frequently independently reason and analyze data, and to reach objective conclusions.

9. Frequently work under stressful conditions, deadlines, and competing priorities.

10.Frequently work with other individuals successfully and collaboratively.

11.Frequently lift up to 50 pounds.

12.Frequently travel to various locations within and outside the City of Berkeley to meet program needs and to fulfill the job responsibilities.

WORKING CONDITIONS
The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. The City of Berkeley is committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, and providing reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly exposed to office and animal care environments, including kennels, outdoor areas, clinical spaces, and occasionally in the field. Duties involve exposure to excessive noise, strong or unpleasant odors, animal urine, feces, blood, and other bodily fluids, as well as chemical agents such as disinfectants and euthanasia solutions. The position requires both independent work and collaboration with others and may involve shifts, weekends, holidays, emergency response, field assignments, and alternative schedules.

CLASSIFICATION HISTORY
FLSA Status: Non-Exempt
Bargaining Unit: Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Maintenance and Clerical (SEIU-MC)
Established: January 20, 2026 (Reestablished)
Revisions: January 20, 2026 (Revised minimum qualifications, updated duties)

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Contract: Clariti Cloud Inc. for a Comprehensive Permit Management System, RFP Specification No. 24-11661-C

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments with Clariti Cloud, Inc. for the implementation of the Permit Software Procurement (PSP) Project—including software licensing, implementation services, integrations, data migration, training, hosting, and five years of support and maintenance—in an amount not to exceed $5,359,128.

SUMMARY
The City’s existing permitting system is increasingly difficult to maintain and no longer meets operational needs of the Planning and Development Department. The PSP Project was initiated to replace the current system with a modern, cloud-based system that improves customer service, streamlines and consolidates workflows, and enhances internal efficiency.

Following a competitive selection process (Request for Proposal (RFP) Specification No. 24-11661-C), including extensive demonstrations, cost analysis, reference checks, and evaluation of implementation approaches, staff recommend awarding a contract to Clariti Cloud, Inc., whose proposal offers the best overall value, lowest implementation risk, and strongest alignment with the City’s business process modernization goals.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The total not-to-exceed amount for the Clariti contract is $5,359,128, which includes:
 $4,871,934 for software subscription, implementation services, integrations, data migration, training, hosting, managed and custom integrations, and optional travel; and
 A 10% contingency of $487,193 to accommodate change orders, for unforeseen implementation needs.

Funding of $1,500,000 for the initial phase is available in the Permit Service Center Fund (621), into which revenues from all building and zoning permit applications are

Award of Contract for a Comprehensive Permit Management System, CONSENT CALENDAR RFP Specification No. 24-11661-C January 20, 2026

deposited, under the Budget Code: 621-53-581-000-0000-000-472-612990-. Funding for the FY27 and FY28 phases will be included in the FY27-28 budget. No General Fund allocation is requested for this procurement; all costs will be covered through fees paid by permit applicants, which include a technology enhancement fee meant to pay for this kind of service.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City’s current permit processing platform is more than a decade old and not optimized for current workflows, resulting in:
 Slow system performance and data reliability issues
 Manual workarounds across the Planning and Development Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Department
 Limited self-service options for applicants
 High support and maintenance demands for the Information Technology Department
 Constraints on electronic plan review, mobile field inspections, and application intake
To address these challenges, the PSP Project was initiated to replace the legacy system with a single, modern, cloud-based solution that supports:
 Integrated permit intake, routing, and review
 Mobile inspections
 Customer-facing application and permit portal
 Automated fee calculation and financial reporting
 Compliance with State laws (e.g., AB 2234 electronic submittal and permit tracking requirements)
Before issuing the RFP, staff conducted extensive outreach to all internal City stakeholder departments whose work uses or is impacted by the City’s permitting software. As part of this effort, the City engaged the consultant, Thirdwave, to lead a comprehensive business process review. Overseen by the Planning and Development Department with substantial help from the IT Department, Thirdwave worked with subject-matter experts from Land Use Planning, Building & Safety, Public Works, Fire, the Office of Energy & Sustainable Development, Toxics Management, and administrative and finance staff to create detailed as-is and to-be process maps. These maps—developed collaboratively through workshops, interviews, and validation sessions—were incorporated into the RFP to provide vendors with a clear and consistent understanding of the City’s current-state challenges and future-state expectations.

The City received 11 bids in response to the RFP. A review panel comprised of staff from Planning, Public Works, Fire, and Information Technology scored each bid using the criteria established in the RFP. Evaluation categories included functional fit to

Award of Contract for a Comprehensive Permit Management System, CONSENT CALENDAR RFP Specification No. 24-11661-C January 20, 2026

business requirements, technical architecture and security, implementation methodology, proposer qualifications and past performance, cost, and long-term support considerations. Based on this initial scoring, five firms were selected and invited to participate in structured virtual demonstrations with the review panel.

From these demonstrations, two finalists were selected and invited for in-person, two- day demonstrations covering core permitting workflows, inspections, plan review, payments, reporting/analytics, and administrative configuration. Panelists asked operational questions and evaluated how well each solution supported the City’s mapped to-be processes. In parallel, staff conducted reference checks with jurisdictions currently using each finalist’s platform to assess real-world performance, implementation experience, and quality of ongoing support.

After completing the demonstrations and reference checks, the review panel reconvened to deliberate. The panel reached a unanimous recommendation that the City enter into agreement with Clariti Cloud, Inc., which received the highest overall evaluation.

The proposed new contract would begin on January 21, 2026, and last until September 21, 2032, unless extended by mutual agreement. The contract term includes both the one-time system implementation period of 20 months, and five years of ongoing software licensing, hosting, maintenance, and support following system go-live.

The PSP Project advances the City’s Strategic Plan goals to:
 Be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily accessible service and information to the community; and  Provide an efficient and financially healthy city government.

BACKGROUND
The Permit Software Procurement (PSP) Project was initiated to replace the City’s legacy Accela permitting system, modernize workflows, improve public-facing permitting services, support digital plan review, and provide an integrated platform for Planning, Building, Fire, Public Works, Environmental Health, and related City functions.

The City issued RFP Specification No. 24-11661-C – Comprehensive Permit Management Software Solution, seeking a commercial off-the-shelf, cloud-based platform capable of configurable workflows, robust data management, online permitting, GIS integration, digital plan check, and modern inspection tools.

Following a thorough evaluation process—including review of written proposals, vendor demonstrations, reference checks, internal staff interviews, and cost analysis—the evaluation committee determined that Clariti Cloud, Inc. best meets the City’s operational, technical, and financial requirements.

Award of Contract for a Comprehensive Permit Management System, CONSENT CALENDAR RFP Specification No. 24-11661-C January 20, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The recommended action is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The new system will reduce paper consumption, in-person visits, and vehicle trips associated with permitting, supporting the City’s climate goals.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
A modern, cloud-based permitting system is necessary to improve transparency and reduce permit processing times, support remote work, mobile inspections, and electronic approvals, and reduce reliance on outdated systems and manual workflows.

Once implemented, the Clariti software will enhance the customer experience for applicants, architects, contractors, and residents, and ensure compliance with new regulatory mandates for online permitting and timeline tracking.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED

1. Maintain existing Accela system: This is not recommended due to ongoing performance issues, a high support burden and related costs, and misalignment with business needs.

2. Rebid the RFP: This is not recommended, since a full competitive procurement was completed, multiple strong proposals were received, and the recommended vendor was selected through a comprehensive evaluation process.

CONTACT PERSON
Eryn Blackwelder, Senior Management Analyst, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7498
Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT: CLARITI CLOUD, INC. FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SOLUTION (RFP SPECIFICATION NO. 24-11661-C) WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley issued RFP Specification No. 24-11661-C, Comprehensive Permit Management Software Solution, to acquire a modern, integrated permitting, licensing, inspections, and community-facing portal system; and WHEREAS, the City requires a consolidated solution that supports the work of the Planning & Development Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, Environmental Health Division, and Information Technology Department, and that integrates with existing systems and business processes; and WHEREAS, after evaluation of written proposals, product demonstrations, reference checks, and Best and Final Offer submissions, Clariti Cloud, Inc. was determined to be the highest-ranked proposer; and
WHEREAS, the parties negotiated a cost of $4,871,934 for implementation and for five years of annual software support, to be paid from PSC Fund account 621-53-581-000- 0000-000-472-613130; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to include a 10% contingency to accommodate potential change orders, schedule adjustments, or additional implementation needs.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract and all necessary amendments with Clariti Cloud, Inc. for the Comprehensive Permit Management Software Solution, RFP Specification No. 24-11661-C, in an amount not to exceed $5,359,128, for a period beginning January 21, 2026 and continuing until September 21, 2032.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute any required amendments or change orders, provided they remain within the not-to-exceed amount and comply with City contracting and fiscal oversight procedures.

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Adena Ishii (Author), Councilmember Lunaparrra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Tregub (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Caminos al Éxito: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Fund

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $250 from Mayor Ishii, $250 from Councilmember Lunnaparra, and $150 from Councilmember Tregub, to the Multicultural Institute for Caminos al Éxito with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Mayor Ishii and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND
Entering its second year of programming, Caminos al Éxito, is a one day parent and student conference on February 21, 2026, meant to provide resources pertaining to life after high school. Through a series of designated workshops, guest speakers, and resources translated in both English and Spanish, this conference is designed to support all Berkeley families.

This endeavor is done through the collective collaboration with the UC Berkeley’s Chicanx Latinx Student Development Center (CLSD), Berkeley City College, Berkeley Unified School District, the Multicultural Institute, and Latinos Unidos de Berkeley (LUB).

Hosted on Berkeley City College campus, families are going to be engaging with a variety of resources meant to demystify the college-going process, offer essential resources, and build community support for families navigating often unfamiliar or inaccessible educational systems.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact; $250 is available from Mayor Ishii’s and Councilmember Lunaparra’s and $150 from Councilmember Tregub’s budget discretionary accounts.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no environmental impacts associated with the recommendations in this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Adena Ishii
510-981-7100

Attachments: Resolution for Council Expenditures

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FROM THE

OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A

GRANT TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE

WHEREAS, Mayor Adena Ishii has funds in her office discretionary account; and

WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax-exempt corporation, Multicultural Institute, seeks funds from the City of Berkeley not to exceed $500 per Councilmember, including the amount of $250 from the office of Mayor Adena Ishii to Caminos al Éxito to provide the following service to support all Berkeley families; and

WHEREAS, entering its second year of programming, Caminos al Éxito, is a one day parent and student conference providing resources pertaining to life after high school; and

WHEREAS, through designated workshops, guest speakers, and resources translated in both English and Spanish; and

WHEREAS, through the collective collaboration UC Berkeley’s Chicanx Latinx Student Development Center (CLSD), Berkeley City College, Berkeley Unified School District, the Multicultural Institute, and Latinos Unidos de Berkeley (LUB); and WHEREAS, at Berkeley City College, families are going to be engaging with a variety of resources meant to demystify the college-going process, offer essential resources, and build community support.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget up to $500 per office shall be granted to the Multicultural institute to fund the following service of offering aid to families in Berkeley through a one day student and parent conference.

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Members of the Berkeley City Council
From: Mayor Adena Ishii (Author), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Kesarwani (Co- Sponsor)
Subject: Refer to the City Manager the Development of Comprehensive Transportation Design Standards

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager the development of comprehensive Transportation Design Standards to enhance safety for all transportation modes, including walking, biking, and transit. Current plans, such as Vision Zero Action Plan, the Berkeley Bike Plan, the Pedestrian Plan, the Berkeley Transit-First Policy Implementation Plan, and the 5-Year Paving Plan should guide an integrated, cross-departmental approach to developing the Standards. The three-to-five-year process should be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2027 budget process, the five-year Capital Improvement Plan, and the Measure FF Safe Streets planning.

BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2025 the Berkeley City Council adopted the second reading of the 2025 California Fire Code Standards with local amendments “to refer Sections 503.2.1, 503.2.2, and 503.4.1 and Appendix D, including section D105.2, to the City Manager and the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment & Sustainability (FITES) Policy Committee to develop and recommend revisions for Council consideration by April 2026. The mayor will submit an agenda item for a meeting in January 2026 with a referral for staff to develop Transportation Design Standards.” The recommendation to refer to the City Manager the development of Transportation Design Standards is a direct outgrowth of the December 2nd City Council meeting, where it became clear that having easy to understand, transparent design standards would help the City ensure vibrant, safe, sustainable streets that meet the operational needs of the Public Works Department, Emergency Services, AC Transit and other road users.

The development of comprehensive Transportation Design Standards is intended to enhance safety for all transportation modes, including walking, biking, and transit.

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
Current plans, such as the Vision Zero Action Plan, the Berkeley Bike Plan, the Pedestrian Plan, the Berkeley Transit-First Policy Implementation Plan, and national best practices for urban street design should guide an integrated, multi-departmental approach to developing the Standards. The three-to-five-year process should include a phased-in approach with proposed benchmarks for implementation and be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2027 budget process and the five-year Capital Improvement Plan.

The City Council encourages staff to incorporate a research phase that explores examples and promising practices from other cities, such as, but not limited to: Austin, Texas; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Oakland, California. Additionally, staff should involve the appropriate commissions and identify other opportunities for the Berkeley community to engage in the planning process.

Funding for the development of the Transportation Design Standards aligns with the goals of Measure FF Safe Streets and should be incorporated into the FF and Fiscal Year 2027 budget adoption process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Development of Transportation Design Standards will require staff and consultant time over a multiyear effort. The planning should leverage Measure FF Safe Streets. Staff are also encouraged to seek grant funding from the public and/or private sector.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The environmental impacts associated with the recommendations in this report will be determined by the Transportation Design Standards.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Adena Ishii 510-981-7100

Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember, District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author), Councilmember Igor Tregub (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Mark Humbert (Co-Sponsor) SUBJECT: Referral to the City Manager to Allow Tiny Homes on Wheels as Permissible Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the City Manager to create a permitting process to allow a Tiny Home on Wheels as a legal Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Tiny homes on wheels are generally considered to be detached dwellings less than 400 square feet in floor area, providing independent living quarters, including basic functional areas for cooking, sleeping, toileting, and bathing. They can retain their wheels and rest on pads instead of a foundation, and are connected to water, electric, and sewer utilities through RV-style hookups.

The referral should:
● Amend Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.306, Accessory Dwelling Units, to incorporate tiny homes on wheels as an allowable type of ADU1; ● Facilitate coordination among City Departments, such as Planning (Land Use and Building and Safety) and Fire to establish a clear set of guidelines, including code requirements and standards for installation; and
● Create online resources for homeowners, including a full list of requirements related to fire, safety, and installation as well as potentially pre-approved prefabricated tiny homes on wheels.
1 City staff may want to consider using San Jose’s amendments to their municipal code as a model: San Jose Municipal Code, 20.200.327: Dwelling, Tiny Home on Wheels. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_jose/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT20ZO_CH20.200DE_20 .200.327DWTIHOWHTH

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
2 CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Are Naturally More Affordable Than Other Home Options. Innovations in constructing ADUs, such as modular (fully pre-fabricated) designs that can be installed with a crane or panel kits that allow the walls, roof, and sometimes floors to be delivered to the site as ready-to-assemble sections (panels), are bringing down the cost to construct an ADU. Further, a 2022 report from the Association of Bay Area Governments found that 19 percent of ADUs statewide are rented to family members at no cost, and another 16 percent statewide are rented to family and/or friends. 2 Tiny homes on wheels are even more affordable than other types of ADUs, taking just weeks to install (for permitting and hookups), rather than six months or longer for a typical ADU.

Many come certified from a factory instead of having to be built from scratch and thus require fewer inspections.3
Other California Cities Have Permitted Tiny Homes on Wheels. The effort to legitimize use of tiny homes on wheels to address housing needs in California began as early as 2016. Fresno was the first city to permit tiny homes on wheels as a permanent, rentable additional unit, 4 followed not long after by San Luis Obispo. 5 The City of Los Angeles began permitting tiny homes on wheels in 2019 6 with San Jose and San Diego close behind in 2020. In 2022, the City of Santa Cruz adopted an ordinance to allow tiny homes on wheels as both a type of ADU and as primary dwellings. 7 This widespread appeal throughout California and other states to legally permit tiny homes on wheels is understandable given the current housing crisis. These units are quicker, easier and cheaper to install, saving both owners and renters time, effort and costs.8 2 Association of Bay Area Governments, Final Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units, June 13, 2022:
https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04/ADU_Affordability_Report_June_13_2022.pdf 3 Peters, Adele, What’s better than a tiny house? A tiny house on wheels?, 09 November 2020, https://www.fastcompany.com/90572129/whats-better-than-a-tiny-house-a-tiny-house-on-wheels 4 KQED California Report: “Fresno Passes Groundbreaking ‘TIny House’ Rules,” Sasha Khokha, January 19, 2016: https://www.kqed.org/news/10833592/fresno-passes-groundbreaking-tiny-house-rules 5 The San Luis Obispo Tribune: “Tiny Homes are now Legal in SLO. What the New Rules Say About Building One,” Nick Wilson, November 28, 2018:
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article222318655.html 6 Tiny House Blog, January 2019, “Tiny Houses NOW Legal in Los Angeles:
https://tinyhouseblog.com/announcement/tiny-houses-now-legal-in-los-angeles/ 7 Santa Cruz County, Board of Supervisors Amending ORD-5413, December 6, 2022 https://sccoplanning.com/Portals/2/County/Planning/policy/Tiny%20Homes%20on%20Wheels/Ordinance %205413%20Tiny%20Homes%20on%20Wheels.pdf
8 “Sightline Institute: Homes on Wheels are Filling a Big Gap in Portland,” Katie Gould, September 11, 2025: https://www.sightline.org/2025/09/11/homes-on-wheels-are-filling-a-big-gap-in-portland/

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
3 BACKGROUND
Permitted ADUs in Berkeley Have Steadily Increased Over Time. In Berkeley, the number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) permitted by the City has steadily increased over the past few years, as shown in Exhibit 1. A total of 16 ADU construction permits were approved in 2016, rising to 102 in 2024—more than a sixfold increase. 9 The consistent and sizeable number of ADUs being built each year highlights their importance as a more affordable alternative to traditional housing types.

Exhibit 1: Number of ADUs Permitted in the City of Berkeley Has Steadily Grown Source: City of Berkeley staff, and Housing Element and General Plan Annual Progress Reports (2023- 2024)10
9 Note: While the number of ADUs permitted in 2023 was lower than in 2022, 91 units received certificates of occupancy compared to the 72 in 2022. This significantly higher number indicates continued progress in the completion and availability of ADU units despite a slight decrease in new permits issued.
10 Note: The numbers for ADUs per year from 2015-2022 were provided by staff, numbers for 2023 and 2024 were extracted from the respective Housing Element and General Plan Annual Progress Reports.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
4 RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed recommendation for adding tiny homes on wheels as a type of ADU is intended to make it easier for property owners to add a legally permitted tiny home on wheels on their property in a timely manner at a competitive price.

FISCAL IMPACT
Time-limited staff time from relevant departments (Planning, Fire, and Public Works) to develop a standard set of requirements to satisfy all building codes and safety regulations.

Additional staff time from the Planning Department would be required to incorporate tiny homes on wheels in any ADU-related permitting process online and bring staff members up to speed on information about tiny homes on wheels.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Encouraging the creation of more ADUs enables the City to make more efficient use of residential land that is generally located in close proximity to public transit. Studies show that infill development is an effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled when compared to homes created in outlying undeveloped areas.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, District 1 (510) 981-7110

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Blackaby (Author), Mayor (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Kesarwani (Co-Sponsor) Subject: City Council Employee Recognition Program

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to institute a City Council led Employee Recognition Program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley is committed to delivering excellent, timely, and accessible services that help create a resilient, safe, and connected community. Achieving these goals depends on attracting and retaining a talented, dedicated, and diverse City workforce.

Berkeley’s employees keep the City running every day with skill, commitment, and professionalism. While the City’s annual Staff Appreciation Day recognizes all employees, formal recognition by the City Council would elevate that appreciation— honoring individuals publicly and highlighting the vital role City staff play in serving the community.

To shine a public spotlight on this extraordinary work, this item proposes a City Council– led Employee Recognition Program. The program would honor nine (9) employees each year during nine separate Council meetings, with each Council office and the Mayor sponsoring one recognition. Upon approval, Councilmember Blackaby’s office will partner with the Mayor’s office and City Manager to implement the program.

BACKGROUND
The City already celebrates its workforce through a well-loved annual Staff Appreciation Day with leadership from staff volunteers on Team Unity, a staff-led initiative that strengthens recognition, connection, and workplace culture.

City Council Employee Recognition Program CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

This proposed Council-led program would complement those efforts by offering a visible, public form of recognition—demonstrating the City Council’s appreciation for staff excellence and sharing that appreciation with the broader Berkeley community during Council meetings.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
No sustainability impacts.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Brent Blackaby Council District 6 510-981-7160 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

CITY COUNCIL EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Berkeley’s city employees keep our city running—24 hours a day, 7 days a week—serving residents, businesses, students, workers, and visitors; and WHEREAS, City staff protect public health and safety, keep our streets clean and lit, maintain parks and facilities, respond to emergencies, support businesses and nonprofits, care for our most vulnerable neighbors, and ensure access to knowledge, recreation, housing, and essential services; and
WHEREAS, from Zero Waste crews, librarians, arborists, recreation leaders, and maintenance workers, to public safety personnel, planners, engineers, health and housing staff, DEI professionals, accountants, attorneys and economic development teams, City employees bring skill, compassion, and dedication to their work every day; and
WHEREAS, much of this work happens seamlessly and behind the scenes, yet it profoundly improves the quality of life in Berkeley and strengthens our resilience as a community.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council proudly recognizes and thanks all City employees for their extraordinary service and lasting contributions to our City.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council hereby establishes a Council-led Employee Recognition Program, through which nine (9) employees will be honored annually at nine separate City Council meetings, with each Councilmember and the Mayor recognizing one staff member.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Councilmember Blackaby’s office, in collaboration with the Mayor’s office and the City Manager, shall operationalize this Employee Recognition Program.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7170 E-Mail: [email protected]

REVISED AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2
Meeting Date: December 2, 2025
Item Number: 43
Item Description: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Amendments to Title 21 (Subdivisions) to Allow Separate Sale of ADUs
Submitted by: Councilmember Lunaparra (author), Councilmember Bartlett (co- sponsor)
The ADU Condo Conversion Ordinance’s goal of providing opportunities for more affordable home-ownership is critical to Berkeley’s ability to address the housing crisis.

Additionally, to prevent the displacement of sitting tenants, it is vital that renters in affected ADUs are provided with protections similar to those of tenants in other units proposed for condominium conversion. Based on feedback from tenants, housing supply advocates, and legal experts, this supplemental material proposes adding the following tenant protections to this ordinance:
● Condition of Approval Language - Adding the condition of approval language from BMC Section 21.28.090.B as part of the eligibility requirements for ADU conversion (except it shortens the cool-down period from ten years, like the Condo Conversion Ordinance, to five years). This language would disincentivize owners from displacing tenants to convert to condominiums by preventing approval of any ADU conversion for properties where there have been recent no- fault evictions for five years. This supplemental item also adds an Ellis Act savings clause to the proposed ordinance updates to ensure compliance with state law and reduce the City’s legal liability.
● First Right of Refusal for All ADU Tenants - Granting any tenants in ADUs the first right of refusal to purchase their ADU after conversion. A previous supplemental item from other Councilmembers proposed reducing the Right of First Refusal time period from one year to three months. Out of a desire to reach a balanced solution, this supplemental item also mirrors that item’s timeline of three months.
● Owner Move-in Evictions - Prohibiting owner move-in evictions for any existing tenants in a converted ADU at the time of conversion, equal to the requirements of BMC Section 21.28.090(C)(4). This would not apply to new tenants who begin leases after the ADU has been converted.
● Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee (AHMF) - Maintaining the affordable housing mitigation fee requirement for converting ADU units, but waiving the fee in its entirety if the owner converting the ADU has agreed as part of their application to allow for rent control on the unit. In other words, a property owner can opt to keep the newly converted ADU rent-controlled instead of paying the AHMF.

● More precise language defining what ADUs are eligible for conversion - Clarifying whether ADUs created under previous code sections can also convert to condominiums would help clear a potential source of confusion for property owners. Additionally, limiting conversion to those ADUs created after 2003 would prevent the loss of rent-controlled housing.

When tenant protections for renters living in ADUs are proposed, concerns are often raised about the ability of property owners to “go out of business” for a relative to move into their ADU when it is already occupied by a tenant. This item’s proposed tenant protections would have no impact on those existing protections; they would only apply in the case that the property owner voluntarily opts to convert their ADU into a condo. This item does not propose any new restriction on ADU owners or new protections for ADU tenants beyond what currently exists under Berkeley law; rather, it ensures that the tenant protections already afforded to other tenants in Berkeley are similarly applied to ADU tenants, as we look to create more flexibility and options for ownership for ADUs.

A homeowner intending to build a new condo ADU will face no obstacles or fees from the tenant protections proposed by this supplemental item. All of these changes protect tenants and further the ordinance’s goal of encouraging ADU development, minimizing displacement, and providing opportunities for affordable home-ownership.

Attachments:

1. Amended Ordinance

Internal
ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISIONS) TO ALLOW SEPARATE SALE OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU), AND AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 23 (ZONING) RELATED TO ADUS TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 21.29 is added to Title 21 (Subdivisions) to read as follows:

21.29. Accessory Dwelling Unit Condominium Subdivision

21.29.010. -- Purpose and Applicability.

A. This Chapter establishes regulations and procedures for the subdivision of property to allow separate ownership of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) from other buildings on the same lot in the City of Berkeley. It implements California Government Code Section 66342, which authorizes local ordinances permitting ADUs to be conveyed as condominiums.

B. This Chapter applies to all lots that contain (or will contain) one or more ADUs constructed after calendar year 2002, in compliance with BMC Chapter 23.306 (Accessory Dwelling Units) or its precursor, BMC Chapter 23C.24.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Berkeley Municipal Code, an ADU condominium subdivision that conforms to this Chapter and state law may be approved and recorded as provided herein. An ADU condominium subdivision shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.28, except that an application to convert an ADU to a condominium subdivision shall not be allowed if the ADU was removed from the rental market through a no-fault eviction during the preceding five years.
1) 2) Covered Rental or Tenant Occupied ADUs. If the ADU is tenant occupied or is a covered rental unit under BMC Chapter 13.76 (Rent Stabilization Ordinance), the tenant protections of Chapter 21.28 shall apply in full, including:
a. A tenant in an ADU shall have a continued right to occupy the ADU after a conversion, pursuant to Section 21.28.090(C)(4); and
b. A tenant in an ADU shall have an exclusive right to purchase the unit, pursuant to Section 21.28.030(C) and 21.28.090(C)(2),

Internal
except that the period of the ERP shall last for 90 days rather than one year; and
c. An agreement signed by the owner that, at the time of sale of each unit, an affordable housing mitigation fee, pursuant to BMC 21.28.070, will be paid to the City of Berkeley, unless the application meets the affordable housing mitigation fee waiver requirement.
2) 3) The affordable housing mitigation fee payment for ADU condominium subdivisions, pursuant to BMC 21.28.070 shall be waived for owner(s) that agree, as part of their ADU condominium subdivision application, to allow for rent or price controls on the converted units when rented, as allowed under California Civil Code Section 1954.52(b), to limit future rent increases to no more than 65% of the increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Bay Area Consumers. The City or, at the request of the City Manager, the Rent Board, shall enforce any violations of this section and shall have the authority to adjust tenants’ rents when they are being overcharged.
3) 4) All other requirements of Chapter 21.28, including application procedures and rent-ceiling limitations, shall not apply to an ADU condominium subdivision processed under this Chapter unless expressly referenced above.

D. This Chapter is intended to provide a streamlined, ministerial process for qualifying ADU condominium subdivisions and shall remain operative only so long as state law authorizes such subdivisions (Government Code §66342).

21.29.030. -- Permit required.

The Planning Director shall review, on a ministerial basis and without a hearing, an application for a parcel map or a tentative and final map for an ADU Condominium subdivision, and shall approve the application if the criteria in Government Code Section 66342 and this section are satisfied.

Units other than ADUs that are part of an ADU Condominium Subdivision may be subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.28, or any other applicable regulations.

21.29.040 -- Eligibility.

A. A property is eligible for an ADU Condominium subdivision under this Chapter only if all the following criteria are met:

Internal
1) Existing Units. The lot contains at least one legally established primary dwelling unit and at least one legally established ADU, or there is a valid building permit for construction of a new ADU on the lot. The ADU must be constructed after calendar year 2002, in compliance with BMC Chapter

23.306 or its precursor BMC Chapter 23C.24.
2) Number of Condominium Units. In no event shall an ADU condominium subdivision result in more than ten (10) total condominium units on the lot inclusive of all residential, commercial, and accessory dwelling units.

B. Junior ADUs. Junior ADUs shall not be eligible for conversion to condominiums.

21.29.050 -- Application Requirements.

In addition to the information required by Section 21.24.020 (Parcel Maps, Form and Content) and Section 21.16.020 (Tentative Maps, Form and Content), an application for an ADU condominium subdivision shall include all of the following information:

A. The condominium shall be created pursuant to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Part 5 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 4 of the Civil Code).

B. Subdivision Map Act Compliance. The condominium shall be created in conformance with all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2, commencing with Section 66410) and all other objective requirements of this Part.

C. Safety Inspection. Prior to the recordation of the condominium plan, a safety inspection of the ADU shall be conducted as evidenced either through a certificate of occupancy or housing quality standards report from a building inspector certified by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

D. Lienholder Consent.
1) Neither a subdivision map nor a condominium plan shall be recorded with the county recorder without obtaining the written consent of each lienholder. A lienholder may refuse to give consent. A lienholder may also consent provided that any terms and conditions required by the lienholder are satisfied. Prior to recordation of the initial or any subsequent modifications to the condominium plan, written evidence of the lienholder’s consent shall be provided to the Assessor-Recorder along with a signed statement from each lienholder that states as follows:

Internal
"(Name of lienholder) hereby consents to the recording of this condominium plan in its sole and absolute discretion, and the borrower has or will satisfy any additional terms and conditions the lienholder may have."
2) Required Information. The lienholder’s consent, whether included directly on the condominium plan or attached thereto, must include the following information:
a. The lienholder’s signature.
b. The name of the record owner or ground lessee.
c. The legal description of the real property.
d. The identities of all parties with an interest in the real property as reflected in the public records.
e. A statement that the lienholder’s consent shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder.

E. Tenant Protections Notice. Proof of service of a Notice of Tenants’ Rights Regarding ADU Condominium Conversion, on a form required by the City, shall be submitted for each tenant household occupying the subject ADUs, no earlier than 60 days prior to the date of the application. The Notice shall include, but not be limited to:
1) The tenant’s continued right to occupy the unit pursuant to Section

21.28.090(C)(4), which prohibits eviction for the purpose of occupancy by the owner or the owner's relatives so long as the unit remains the tenant’s principal place of residence.
2) Information concerning any agreement by the owner to limit rents under Section 21.29.010(C)(2)(c).
3) The tenant’s exclusive right to purchase the unit under 21.28.090(C)(2).

F. Notice to providers of utilities. If an ADU is established as a condominium, the owner shall notify providers of utilities, including water, sewer, gas, and electricity, of the condominium creation and separate conveyance.

Internal
G. The owner of a property or a separate interest within an existing planned development that has an existing association, as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code, shall not record a condominium plan to create a common interest development under Section 4100 of the Civil Code without the express written authorization by the existing association.

For purposes of this subdivision, written authorization by the existing association means approval by the board at a duly noticed board meeting, as defined in Section 4090 of the Civil Code, and if needed pursuant to the existing association’s governing documents, membership approval of the existing association.

21.29.060 -- Required Notice to Consumers.

The City shall include the following notice to consumers on any Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) submittal checklist or public information describing requirements and permitting for ADUs, and as a standard condition of any building permit or condominium plan approval:
“NOTICE: If you are considering establishing your primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit as a condominium, please ensure that your building permitting agency allows this practice. If you decide to establish your primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit as a condominium, your condominium plan or any future modifications to the condominium plan must be recorded with the County Recorder. Prior to recordation or modification of your subdivision map and condominium plan, any lienholder with a lien on your title must provide a form of written consent either on the condominium plan, or on the lienholder’s consent form attached to the condominium plan, with text that clearly states that the lender approves recordation of the condominium plan and that you have satisfied their terms and conditions, if any.

In order to secure lender consent, you may be required to follow additional lender requirements, which may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
(a) Paying off your current lender.

You may pay off your mortgage and any liens through a refinance or a new loan. Be aware that refinancing or using a new loan may result in changes to your interest rate or tax basis. Also, be aware that any subsequent modification to your subdivision map or condominium plan must also be consented to by your lender, which consent may be denied.
(b) Securing your lender’s approval of a modification to their loan collateral due to the change of your current property legal description into one or more condominium parcels.

Internal
(c) Securing your lender’s consent to the details of any construction loan or ground lease.

This may include a copy of the improvement contract entered in good faith with a licensed contractor, evidence that the record owner or ground lessee has the funds to complete the work, and a signed statement made by the record owner or ground lessor that the information in the consent above is true and correct.”

21.29.070 – Savings Clause
Ellis Act. This chapter shall be applied only to the extent permitted by state law as to dwelling units which have been entirely withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to the Ellis Act (California Government Code Chapter 12.75).

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

PUBLIC HEARING
January 20, 2026
(Continued from December 2, 2025)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Amendments to Title 21 (Subdivisions) to Allow Separate Sale of ADUs

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, adopt the first reading of an Ordinance to amend Berkeley Municipal Code Title 21 (Subdivisions Ordinance) and Chapter

23.306 Accessory Dwelling Units to implement Assembly Bill (AB) 1033 by establishing local regulations for the separate sale of ADUs as condominiums.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) does not currently provide for the separate sale of ADUs. Assembly Bill (AB) 1033, a state law passed in 2024, allows municipalities to create regulations to permit the separate sale of ADUs.

On May 14, 2024, the City Council adopted a referral (Attachment 2) to prepare an ordinance to permit the separate sales of ADUs in Berkeley. The referral highlighted the potential of ADU condominiums to expand homeownership opportunities for moderate- income households, help existing homeowners build equity, and increase the supply of naturally affordable housing in the city. The proposed amendments to BMC Title 21 (Attachment 1) would provide for such separate sales.

Currently, condominium conversions are regulated in BMC Chapter 21.28 (Condominiums and Other Common Interest Subdivisions). The purposes of Berkeley’s Condominium Conversion regulations are to preserve the rental housing stock, protect existing renters, mitigate the loss of rental units through condominium conversion, and to create a transparent process for the conversion of rental units to condominiums.

Most ADUs are “naturally affordable” and exempt from rent control. In a study published in 2022, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) found that 20 percent of

Amendments to BMC Title 21 (Subdivisions) regarding ADUs PUBLIC HEARING January 20, 2026

ADUs are offered rent-free, 16 percent are rented at discounted rates (presumably to friends and family), and that most market-rate ADUs are affordable to low or moderate- income households in most markets.1
Recognizing the generally affordable nature of ADUs, the Planning Commission’s recommendation treats ADU condominiums differently than typical condominiums.

These differences include:
 Condominium Conversion Mitigation Fee: The proposed ordinance would not apply the Condominium Conversion Mitigation Fee to ADU condominiums. The Planning Commission felt the fee was unnecessary given the small scale of likely ADU condominium projects, and expressed concern that the amount of the Fee would discourage the creation of affordable homeownership opportunities from ADU condominiums.
 Tenant Protections: The Commission affirmed the importance of maintaining tenant protections consistent with existing Chapter 21.28 requirements, including notice provisions and the right to remain in a unit after conversion.

Under the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Ordinance (BMC 13.76), ADUs fall into three rent ordinance categories. The Planning Commission’s recommendation bases tenant protections on an ADU’s rent ordinance status.

A “Fully Covered Unit” is any residential rental unit that is not exempt under BMC

13.76.050. Covered units are subject to the rent-stabilization (rent ceiling/ maximum annual rent increase) provisions and good-cause protections.

According to the Rent Board, examples of Fully Covered Units include most multi-unit buildings built before June 1980, single family homes with tenants who moved in before 1996, and single-family homes with five or more rooms rented out with separate leases. For ADUs, examples of potentially Fully Covered Units include a legally established “secondary unit” with a certificate of occupancy predating the Rent Ordinance (June 1980), or a legally established “secondary unit” created before the City’s first ADU regulations (2003). “Partially Covered Units” are not subject to local rent ceilings but do remain subject to local just-cause eviction protections, registration, and annual security- deposit interest rules. According to the Rent Board, examples of Partially Covered Units include single family homes with current tenancies that began after 1996, most condominiums, and new construction that received a Certificate of Occupancy after June 1980. Post-2003 ADUs are typically Partially Covered. 1 Final Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025- 04/ADU_Affordability_Report_June_13_2022.pdf

Amendments to BMC Title 21 (Subdivisions) regarding ADUs PUBLIC HEARING January 20, 2026

“Fully Exempt Units” include certain institutional housing types, Golden Duplexes, and tenancies in ADUs that started after November 2018 on properties where there is 1) only one single-family dwelling; 2) only one ADU; and 3) where an owner occupies either unit. Fully Exempt Units are not subject to local rent ceilings, local just-cause eviction protections, registration, or any annual security- deposit interest rules.

For purposes of the ADU Condominium ordinance, a Covered Rental ADU includes both Fully Covered and Partially Covered ADUs. The table below summarizes the applicability of tenants protections to ADU rentals.

Protection Fully Covered Partially
Covered Fully Exempt
Local rent ceilings (rent stabilization) Yes No No
Petition rights Yes Some No
Local just-cause eviction protections Yes Yes No
Rent Board registration requirement Yes Yes No
Annual security-deposit interest
requirement
Yes Yes No
Local filing of rent-increase and
termination notices
Yes Termination
notices only No
Exclusive Right to Purchase (ERP)
after condo conversion
Yes Yes No
Right to Remain / No Owner-Move-In
— after condo conversion
Yes Yes No
Recent no-fault eviction screen —
condo conversion eligibility
Yes Yes No

BACKGROUND
At its March 5, 2025 meeting, the Planning Commission received an informational report regarding AB 1033 implementation (Attachment 3) and directed staff to prepare an ordinance to permit separate sale of ADUs as condominiums. At its May 7, 2025 meeting, the Planning Commission received staff’s recommended BMC amendments (the creation of Title 21, Section 21.29: Accessory Dwelling Unit Condominium Subdivision) and recommended the proposed amendments included in Attachment 1.

At its meeting of July 29, 2025, the City Council considered revisions to the Zoning Ordinance related to ADU development standards. At that meeting, the City Council adopted the Zoning Ordinance amendments, and continued consideration of the ADU condominium changes to a future meeting.

Amendments to BMC Title 21 (Subdivisions) regarding ADUs PUBLIC HEARING January 20, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The proposed ordinance amendments to Title 21 (Subdivisions) do not include any allowances for additional development capacity or other new physical changes to the environment that are not already permitted and previously evaluated under CEQA. Adoption of the proposed amendments would in no way have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption).

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed ordinance amendments to Title 21 (Subdivisions) fulfill the City Council’s 2024 referral to adopt provisions to permit the separate sale of ADUs.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
As noted above, the Rent Stabilization Ordinance extends certain rights to sitting tenants in units covered by the Rent Ordinance that are proposed to be converted to condominiums. The Planning Commission had considered extending these protections to tenants of Exempt ADUs, who had occupied their units for at least 12 months.

Ultimately, the Planning Commission’s recommendation did not include extending these provisions to Exempt ADUs, due to a concern that such requirements could discourage the construction of new ADUs.

CONTACT PERSON
Branka Tatarevic, Associate Planner, Planning and Development, 510-981-7472.

Attachments:
1: Ordinance
2: City Council Referral to implement AB 1033, May 14, 2024. 3: Planning Commission Staff Report, March 5, 2025
4: Public Hearing Notice

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDMENTS TO BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISIONS) TO

ALLOW SEPARATE SALE OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU), AND A CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO TITLE 23 (ZONING) RELATED TO ADUS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 21.29 is added to Title 21 (Subdivisions) to read as follows:

21.29. Accessory Dwelling Unit Condominium Subdivision

21.29.010. -- Purpose and Applicability.

A. This Chapter establishes regulations and procedures for the subdivision of property to allow separate ownership of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) from other buildings on the same lot in the City of Berkeley. It implements California Government Code Section 66342, which authorizes local ordinances permitting ADUs to be conveyed as condominiums.

B. This Chapter applies to all lots that contain (or will contain) one or more ADUs constructed in compliance with BMC Chapter 23.306 (Accessory Dwelling Units).

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Berkeley Municipal Code, an ADU condominium subdivision that conforms to this Chapter and state law may be approved and recorded as provided herein. An ADU condominium subdivision shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.28, except that:
1) Covered Rental ADUs. Covered Rental ADU means any rented ADU that is not a Fully-exempt unit under BMC 13.76.050(C). T enant protections of Chapter 21.28 shall apply in full, including:
a. A tenant in an ADU shall have a continued right to occupy the ADU after a conversion, pursuant to Section 21.28.090(C)(4). b. A tenant in an ADU shall have an exclusive right to purchase the unit, pursuant to Section 21.28.030(C) and

21.28.090(C)(2).
2) All other requirements of Chapter 21.28, including application procedures and rent-ceiling limitations, shall not apply to an ADU condominium subdivision processed under this Chapter unless expressly referenced above.

D. This Chapter is intended to provide a streamlined, ministerial process for qualifying ADU condominium subdivisions and shall remain operative only so long as state law authorizes such subdivisions (Government Code §66342).

21.29.020. -- Permit required.

The Planning Director shall review, on a ministerial basis and without a hearing, an application for a parcel map or a tentative and final map for an ADU Condominium subdivision, and shall approve the application if the criteria in Government Code Section 66342 and this section are satisfied.

Units other than ADUs that are part of an ADU Condominium Subdivision may be subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.28, or any other applicable regulations.

21.29.030 -- Eligibility.

A. A property is eligible for an ADU Condominium subdivision under this Chapter only if all the following criteria are met:
1) Existing Units. The lot contains at least one legally established primary dwelling unit and at least one legally established ADU, or there is a valid building permit for construction of a new ADU on the lot. The ADU must be in compliance with BMC Chapter 23.306.
2) Number of Condominium Units. In no event shall an ADU condominium subdivision result in more than ten (10) total condominium units on the lot inclusive of all residential, commercial, and accessory dwelling units.

B. Junior ADUs. Junior ADUs shall not be eligible for conversion to condominiums.

21.29.040 -- Application Requirements.

In addition to the information required by Section 21.24.020 (Parcel Maps, Form and Content) and Section 21.16.020 (Tentative Maps, Form and Content), an application for an ADU condominium subdivision shall include all of the following information:

A. The condominium shall be created pursuant to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Part 5 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 4 of the Civil Code).

B. Subdivision Map Act Compliance. The condominium shall be created in conformance with all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2, commencing with Section 66410) and all other objective requirements of this Part.

C. Safety Inspection. Prior to the recordation of the condominium plan, a safety inspection of the ADU shall be conducted as evidenced either through a certificate of occupancy or housing quality standards report from a building inspector certified by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

D. Lienholder Consent.
1) Neither a subdivision map nor a condominium plan shall be recorded with the county recorder without obtaining the written consent of each lienholder.

A lienholder may refuse to give consent. A lienholder may also consent provided that any terms and conditions required by the lienholder are satisfied. Prior to recordation of the initial or any subsequent modifications to the condominium plan, written evidence of the lienholder’s consent shall be provided to the Assessor-Recorder along with a signed statement from each lienholder that states as follows:
"(Name of lienholder) hereby consents to the recording of this condominium plan in its sole and absolute discretion, and the borrower has or will satisfy any additional terms and conditions the lienholder may have." 2) Required Information. The lienholder’s consent, whether included directly on the condominium plan or attached thereto, must include the following information:
a. The lienholder’s signature.
b. The name of the record owner or ground lessee.
c. The legal description of the real property.
d. The identities of all parties with an interest in the real property as reflected in the public records.
e. A statement that the lienholder’s consent shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder.

E. Tenant Protections Notice for Covered Rental ADUs. Proof of service of a Notice of Tenants’ Rights Regarding ADU Condominium Conversion, on a form required by the City, shall be submitted for each tenant household occupying the subject

Covered Rental ADU, no earlier than 60 days prior to the date of the application.

The Notice shall include, but not be limited to:
1) The tenant’s continued right to occupy the unit pursuant to Section

21.28.090(C)(4), which prohibits eviction for the purpose of occupancy by the owner or the owner's relatives so long as the unit remains the tenant’s principal place of residence.
2) Information concerning any agreement by the owner to limit rents under Section 21.28.080(B).
3) The tenant’s exclusive right to purchase the unit under 21.28.090(C)(2).

F. Notice to providers of utilities. If an ADU is established as a condominium, the owner shall notify providers of utilities, including water, sewer, gas, and electricity, of the condominium creation and separate conveyance.

G. The owner of a property or a separate interest within an existing planned development that has an existing association, as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code, shall not record a condominium plan to create a common interest development under Section 4100 of the Civil Code without the express written authorization by the existing association.

For purposes of this subdivision, written authorization by the existing association means approval by the board at a duly noticed board meeting, as defined in Section 4090 of the Civil Code, and if needed pursuant to the existing association’s governing documents, membership approval of the existing association.

21.29.050 -- Required Notice to Consumers.

The City shall include the following notice to consumers on any Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) submittal checklist or public information describing requirements and permitting for ADUs, and as a standard condition of any building permit or condominium plan approval:
“NOTICE: If you are considering establishing your primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit as a condominium, please ensure that your building permitting agency allows this practice. If you decide to establish your primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit as a condominium, your condominium plan or any future modifications to the condominium plan must be recorded with the County Recorder. Prior to recordation or modification of your subdivision map and condominium plan, any lienholder with a lien on your title must provide a form of written consent either on the condominium plan, or on the lienholder’s consent form attached to the condominium plan, with text that clearly states that the lender

approves recordation of the condominium plan and that you have satisfied their terms and conditions, if any.

In order to secure lender consent, you may be required to follow additional lender requirements, which may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
(a) Paying off your current lender.

You may pay off your mortgage and any liens through a refinance or a new loan. Be aware that refinancing or using a new loan may result in changes to your interest rate or tax basis. Also, be aware that any subsequent modification to your subdivision map or condominium plan must also be consented to by your lender, which consent may be denied.
(b) Securing your lender’s approval of a modification to their loan collateral due to the change of your current property legal description into one or more condominium parcels.
(c) Securing your lender’s consent to the details of any construction loan or ground lease.

This may include a copy of the improvement contract entered in good faith with a licensed contractor, evidence that the record owner or ground lessee has the funds to complete the work, and a signed statement made by the record owner or ground lessor that the information in the consent above is true and correct.” Section 2. That Municipal Code Section 23.306.040(C)(2) is amended to read as follows:

2. The ADU shall not be sold separately from the main building, unless authorized under BMC 21.29 (ADU Condominium Ordinance) or unless the conditions of under BMC 23.306.040(D) -- ADUs Developed by a Qualified Nonprofit Developer, or as otherwise permitted by state law. are met;
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.

Rashi Kesarwani
Councilmember, District 1

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 14, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Author)
SUBJECT: Increasing Entry Level Homeownership Opportunities:

Implementation of AB 1033 to Allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) To Be Sold Separately

RECOMMENDATION
Refer to City Manager to implement AB 1033, which would allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be sold separately from a primary unit.

This referral would necessitate elimination of any mention of sales restrictions as they pertain to ADUs within the Berkeley Municipal Code and adoption of an ordinance allowing ADU sales separate from a primary unit(s).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
AB 1033 Allows ADUs to be Sold Separately from a Primary Residence, Increasing Entry Level Homeownership Opportunities. State law AB 1033, effective January 1, 2024, eliminates the prior state law prohibiting the mapping and selling of a single-family home and its ADU as condominium units. While this prohibition on condominium conversion has been lifted, local agencies must opt-in and amend their codes to permit these entry-level homeownership opportunities. Congruent with the condominium homeownership model, property owners wishing to sell an ADU will need to notify their utility provider and establish a homeowners’ association responsible for overseeing property maintenance. ADUs tend to be more affordable than a typical single-family home. By permitting the independent sale of ADUs, the City of Berkeley can increase the available stock of entry-level homeownership opportunities. Further, ADU condominium conversion purchases are eligible for federally guaranteed mortgages, easing financing opportunities for homebuyers.1 AB1033 not only helps households seeking entry-level homeownership opportunities, it can also help existing homeowners to age in place by providing lump-sum resources from an ADU sale. 1 Casita Coalition and Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP: AB 1033 - How to Implement New State ADU Condominium Laws, p. 1
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f2c2d67c58236227115e0de/t/65397c083ac9fc75cf8701fd/169 8266121029/AB-1033-Casita-Coalition-RJR-ADU-Condos-memo.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2Page 18 of 37

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

BACKGROUND
California, particularly the Bay Area, faces an ongoing housing crisis, with affordability and accessibility becoming increasingly challenging for residents. As the state grapples with this issue, nearly 20 percent of housing units constructed in California today are ADUs, reflecting the significant contribution that ADUs are making in reducing the housing shortage.2 According to the California Association of Realtors Housing Affordability Index, only 17 percent of households in the state can afford a single-family home, a figure that falls significantly below the national average.3
The California Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan entity, examined the state's exorbitant housing costs and delineated various factors contributing to it, notably a pronounced housing shortage, particularly in coastal California.4 Since 1980, housing construction in California has lagged significantly behind both national and historical averages. Despite a national housing boom in the mid-2000s, California's housing production remained relatively sluggish. Moreover, merely 10 percent of Berkeley's housing units were constructed after 1980.5 As construction slowed over time, California's housing costs escalated, surpassing the national average. Presently, home prices in Berkeley stand at $1.4 million compared to the national average of $354,000.6 In their report, "Closing California’s Housing Gap," the McKinsey Global Institute proposed specific measures to alleviate housing insecurity in the state. They recommend tackling housing scarcity by identifying potential "hot spots" for housing creation, such as areas within a half-mile radius of transit hubs, underutilized urban lots, and the addition of extra units to single-family homes.7
While the impact of high housing costs disproportionately affects certain racial and socioeconomic groups, there is also a noticeable generational divide. The scarcity of affordable housing near employment opportunities, coupled with mounting student debt, has resulted in a net worth for young households that is 20 percent lower than that of baby boomers in 1989 and 40 percent lower than that of Generation X families in 2001.

Additionally, homeownership is increasingly unattainable for younger generations, with millennials being 8 percent less likely to own homes compared to baby boomers and Gen Xers.8 Nearly half of households aged 18-34 are considered rent-burdened. The Urban 2 Casita Coalition and Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP: AB1033 – How to Implement New State ADU Condominium Law, p.1
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f2c2d67c58236227115e0de/t/65397c083ac9fc75cf8701fd/169 8266121029/AB-1033-Casita-Coalition-RJR-ADU-Condos-memo.pdf 3 Casita Coalition and Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP: AB1033 – How to Implement New State ADU Condominium Law, p.1
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f2c2d67c58236227115e0de/t/65397c083ac9fc75cf8701fd/169 8266121029/AB-1033-Casita-Coalition-RJR-ADU-Condos-memo.pdf 4 California’s High Housing Costs, Causes and Consequences (2015) Legislative Analyst’s Office. https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx 5 2015-2023 Berkeley Housing Element (2014). City of Berkeley. https://cityofberkeley.app.box.com/s/x7cfk49voo9hr56iw3exsqogx0w7e6y3 6 Home Values (2024) https://www.zillow.com/home-values/ 7 Woetzel,J., Mischke, J., Peloquin, S., and Weisfield, D. (2016, October). A Toolkit to Close California’s Housing Gap: 3.5 Million Homes by 2025. McKinsey Global Institute:
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/public%20and%20social%20sector/our%20in sights/closing%20californias%20housing%20gap/closing-californias-housing-gap-full-report.pdf 8 Grabar, Henry. (2019). I Got Mine. Slate Magazine.

3 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
Institute conducted an extensive study on the barriers to millennial homeownership and recommended a series of policy changes, with a key recommendation being the alteration of land use and zoning restrictions, particularly in areas with rigid housing supply.9 Furthermore, moderate-income earners often find themselves unable to access Below Market Rate (BMR) housing, exacerbating the issue. Naturally affordable housing options, such as ADUs, often offer a pathway to more affordable living. An analysis by the Terner Center revealed that 58 percent of ADU owners rented their units at below-market-rate rent.

Due to their smaller size and/or cost-effective construction, ADUs frequently provide more affordable options for both owners and renters compared to single-family homes.10

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff time to amend the Berkeley Municipal Code to eliminate mention of sales restrictions as they pertain to ADUs and to prepare an ordinance allowing ADU sales separate from the main unit(s).

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The recommendation to promote ADUs has significant implications for environmental sustainability, particularly through the concept of infill housing, especially near transit hubs.

By encouraging the construction of ADUs, cities can capitalize on existing infrastructure and minimize urban sprawl by using underutilized parcels within established neighborhoods. This approach to infill housing not only optimizes land use but also reduces the need for further development on undeveloped land, preserving natural habitats and open spaces.11 Moreover, situating ADUs near transit promotes alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, or public transit, thus reducing reliance on cars and lowering greenhouse gas emissions associated with commuting. Overall, the strategic implementation of ADUs as infill housing near transit contributes to a more sustainable urban environment, aligning with efforts to combat climate change and promote eco-friendly living practices.

Expanding housing options plays a crucial role in addressing environmental concerns, aligning with the City of Berkeley's Climate Action Plan. Researchers from the University of California have developed a climate policy tool for local governments to evaluate policies' https://slate.com/business/2019/05/californiahousing-crisis-boomer-gerontocracy.html 9 Choi, j., Zhu, J., Goodman, L., Ganesh, B., and Strochak, S. (July 2018). Millennial Homeownership.

The Urban Institute.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98729/millennial_homeownership.pdf 10 Garcia, D. (2017). ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes. Terner Center for Housing Innovation. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and- policy/adu-update-early-lessons-and-impacts-of-californias-state-and-local-policy-changes/ 11 The Environmental Center September 24, 2020 Blog Post: Accessory Dwelling Units: A Sustainable Housing Solution: https://envirocenter.org/accessory-dwelling-units-a-sustainable-housing- solution/#:~:text=Since%20these%20units%20tend%20to,more%20sustainable%20and%20livable%2 0community.

4 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7110 ● Fax: (510) 981-7111 E-Mail: [email protected]
effectiveness in reducing carbon footprints. Their study of 700 cities revealed that infill housing has the most significant impact.12

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani, District 1 (510) 981-7110 Attachments:

Casita Coalition and Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP: AB 1033 - How to Implement New State ADU Condominium Law. Pages 3-5 include required text in ADU condominium ordinances – Cal. Govt. Code Section 65852.2(a)(10)
12 Jones, C, Wheeler, S, and Kammen, D. (2018) California Local Government Climate Policy Tool.

Cool Climate Network. https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/ca-scenarios/index.html

AB1033 – HOW TO IMPLEMENT NEW STATE ADU CONDOMINIUM LAW

Today, nearly 20% of housing units built in California are accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”). According to the California Association of Realtors Housing Affordability Index, only 17% of households can afford a single-family home, less than half of the national average. In many States across the country, ADU condo conversion projects are re-enabling a generation of home buyers to live in the communities of their choice near work and family. The State of Washington recently required all local agencies to allow conversions of a primary unit and ADU to condominiums for sale.

Consequently, in Seattle and Portland 40% to 50% of ADUs constructed are sold as condominiums to new homebuyers, where they are bought for approximately half the value of a stand-alone single-family home. Such ADU condo conversion purchases are eligible for federally guaranteed mortgages, making them easy to finance for ordinary homebuyers.

The California State Legislature recently adopted a new law, AB1033, that creates affordable options for homeownership by allowing ADU’s to be sold separately from a primary unit. AB1033 removes the previous State law prohibition against mapping and selling a single-family home and its ADU as condominiums. Even though this prohibition on condo conversion has been eliminated, it is up to Local Agencies to amend their codes to allow these entry-level home ownership opportunities.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ALLOW SALE OF ADUS?

Respecting local control, the Legislature left it up to Local Agencies to amend their municipal code(s) to allow these entry-level home ownership opportunities through the sale of ADUs. The Casita Coalition and Reuben, Junius, and Rose, LLP have developed this guidance to encourage your Local Agency to make the following changes to your code(s), procedures and policies to re-enable Californians priced out of many of our communities to once again have a dream of buying a home by enabling more naturally-affordable condominiums for sale.

RECOMMENDED STEPS TO IMPLEMENT SALE OF ADUS

1. Eliminate Sale Restrictions. Remove all provisions in your municipal code that prohibits the sale or other conveyance of an ADU. These restrictions are typically included in local Condominium Codes and Zoning Codes.

2. Adopt Legislation Expressly Allowing ADU Sales. To align local rules with State law, adopt changes to the municipal code that allow conversion of a home and its ADU into condominiums subject to the requirements of the Davis- Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 4400-6150.) Appropriate amendment text will differ depending on the existing municipal code, but AB1033 requires a list of express provisions be included in such local ordinance, attached at the end of this document.

3. Publish ADU Checklists. Provide a comprehensive checklist for any ADU building permit and for ADU condominium/subdivision projects, indicating Subdivision Map Act compliance and lender subordination information.

4. First Right of Offer to Owner Occupants. To further encourage new homeownership, consider including a condition of approval for establishing condominiums of a primary unit and ADU giving a first right of offer for a period of 45 days on publicly accessible databases, e.g., MLS, to buyers indicating an intent to live in the property (either themselves or their immediate family). To avoid issues with lenders, however, do not require owner occupancy.

5. Create “Grow Homeownership” Program. Establish a program with dedicated staff that expedites ADU condominium processing with first comments to be issued within 45 days of submission of a complete application. • Consider waiving or reducing application and impact fees otherwise applied to condominiums.
• The Grow Homeownership Program could be paired with other funding programs your jurisdiction may have, e.g., through SB2 (2017) funds.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the above, please do not hesitate to reach out to Justin A. Zucker from Reuben, Junius & Rose, LLP at 415.656.6489 or [email protected].

AB1033 – Required Text in ADU Condominium Ordinances – Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 65852.2(a)(10)

(A) The condominiums shall be created pursuant to the Davis -Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Part 5 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 4 of the Civil Code).

(B) The condominiums shall be created in conformance with all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) and all objective requirements of a local subdivision ordinance.

(C) Before recordation of the condominium plan, a safety inspection of the accessory dwelling unit shall be conducted as evidenced either through a certificate of occupancy from the local agency or a housing quality standards report from a building inspector certified by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

(D) (i) Neither a subdivision map nor a condominium plan shall be recorded with the county recorder in the county where the real property is located without each lienholder’s consent. The following shall apply to the consent of a lienholder:

(I) A lienholder may refuse to give consent.

(II) A lienholder may consent provided that any terms and conditions required by the lienholder are satisfied.

(ii) Prior to recordation of the initial or any subsequent modifications to the condominium plan, written evidence of the lienholder’s consent shall be provided to the county recorder along with a signed statement from each lienholder that states as follows:

“(Name of lienholder) hereby consents to the recording of this condominium plan in their sole and absolute discretion and the borrower has or will satisfy any additional terms and conditions the lienholder may have.”

(iii) The lienholder’s consent shall be included on the condominium plan or a separate form attached to the condominium plan that includes the following information:

(I) The lienholder’s signature.

(II) The name of the record owner or ground lessee.

(III) The legal description of the real property.

(IV) The identities of all parties with an interest in the real property as reflected in the real property records.

(iv) The lienholder’s consent shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the real property is located.

(E) The local agency shall include the following notice to consumers on any accessory dwelling or junior accessory dwelling unit submittal checklist or public information issued describing requirements and permitting for accessory dwelling units, including as standard condition of any accessory dwelling unit building permit or condominium plan approval:

“NOTICE: If you are considering establishing your primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit as a condominium, please ensure that your building permitting agency allows this practice. If you decide to establish your primary dwelling unit and accesso ry dwelling unit as a condominium, your condominium plan or any future modifications to the condominium plan must be recorded with the County Recorder. Prior to recordation or modification of your subdivision map and condominium plan, any lienholder with a lien on your title must provide a form of written consent either on the condominium plan, or on the lienholder’s consent form attached to the condominium plan, with text that clearly states that the lender approves recordation of the condominium plan and that you have satisfied their terms and conditions, if any.

In order to secure lender consent, you may be required to follow additional lender requirements, which may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:

(a) Paying off your current lender.

You may pay off your mortgage and any liens through a refinance or a new loan. Be aware that refinancing or using a new loan may result in changes to your interest rate or tax basis. Also, be aware that any subsequent modification to your subdivision map or condominium plan must also be consented to by your lender, which consent may be denied.

(b) Securing your lender’s approval of a modification to their loan collateral due to the change of your current property legal description into one or more condominium parcels.

(c) Securing your lender’s consent to the details of any construction loan or ground lease.

This may include a copy of the improvement contract entered in good faith with a licensed contractor, evidence that the record owner or ground lessee has the funds to complete the work, and a signed statement made by the record owner or ground lessor that the information in the consent above is true and correct.”

(F) If an accessory dwelling unit is established as a condominium, the local government shall require the homeowner to notify providers of utilities, including water, sewer, gas, and electricity, of the condominium creation and separate conveyance.

(G) (i) The owner of a property or a separate interest within an existing planned development that has an existing association, as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code, shall not record a condominium plan to create a common interest development under Section 4100 of the Civil Code without the express written authorization by the existing association.

(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, written authorization by the existing association means approval by the board at a duly noticed board meeting, as defined in Section 4090 of the Civil Code, and if needed pursuant to the existing association’s governing documents, membership approval of the existing association.

(H) An accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence only under the conditions outlined in this paragraph or pursuant to Section 65852.26.

ATTACHMENT 3
Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
March 5, 2025
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Branka Tatarevic, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Amendments

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the staff report, receive the staff presentation, consider public comments, and provide feedback to staff on potential amendments to the ADU Ordinance.

BACKGROUND
The consideration of updates to the ADU ordinance has been prompted by a number of factors including a City Council referral for implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 1033, the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) review of Berkeley’s ADU Ordinance, and changes to state law pertaining to ADUs.

Assembly Bill 1033 (ADU Condominiums)
AB 1033 (Gov. Code § 66340 – 66342), which took effect on January 1, 2024, allows ADUs to be sold separately from the primary residence as condominiums, creating new opportunities for entry-level homeownership. Prior to AB 1033, California law prohibited the separate conveyance of ADUs, requiring them to remain under the same ownership as the primary dwelling unit. AB 1033 lifts this restriction, but local jurisdictions must opt- in by adopting an ordinance to enable separate ADU sales.

On May 14, 2024, the Berkeley City Council approved a referral (Attachment 1) directing the City Manager to implement AB 1033 by amending the Berkeley Municipal Code to eliminate restrictions on the sale of ADUs and adopt an ordinance allowing their separate sale. The referral emphasizes the potential of ADU condominiums to increase homeownership opportunities for moderate-income households, help existing homeowners generate equity, and expand naturally affordable housing options in the city.

As of today, the City of San José remains the only jurisdiction in California to have adopted an ADU condominium ordinance (Attachment 4). Staff have met with the San José team to discuss their approach to AB 1033 implementation, as well as their processing procedures. San José's ADU Condominium Ordinance is separate from its existing ADU, subdivision or other land use regulations and applies only to the creation of ADU condominiums. The ordinance limits ADU condo projects to a maximum of four

ADU Condominium Ordinance and State/HCD ADU Updates Planning Commission Staff Report March 5, 2025

units, as subdivisions with four nor fewer units can be processed ministerially as Parcel Maps, rather than through the discretionary process required for Tentative Tract Maps.

Unlike Berkeley, San José does not have its own policies to disincentivize condo conversions or mitigate the impacts of condo conversions on the affordability of the rental housing market.

ADU Letter from California Housing and Community Development Department As part of its oversight of local ADU regulations, HCD issued a letter to the City of Berkeley on May 3, 2024 (Attachment 2), reviewing the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23.306 (Accessory Dwelling Units)1, which was adopted on October 10, 2023.

In the letter, HCD asserted that several provisions of BMC Chapter 23.206 do not align with state ADU law and must be amended.

The City responded to HCD’s letter on June 3, 2024 (Attachment 3). The City’s letter determined that:
 a number of the HCD’s suggested changes were minor. These minor changes were included in the State Law and Technical Edits package the Planning Commission recommended in June 2024;
 a select number of findings did not require any changes; and  an additional set of findings required policy consultation with the City Council.

These are the findings included in this report for policy recommendations from the Planning Commission.

California Government Code Section 66323 includes types of ADUs that the City must approve ministerially. Generally speaking, these are ADUs that are 800 square feet or less, meet specified height requirements, and comply with specified rear and side setback requirements. While the City can adopt development standards and regulations for larger ADUs, cities are limited in the regulation of these “Section 66323 ADUs”
Senate Bill 1211
Senate Bill 1211 (SB 1211) was signed into law in on September 19, 2024. SB 1211 contains two provisions which could require amendments to the BMC.

Previously, state law allowed only two detached ADUs on a multifamily lot. SB 1211 now permits up to eight detached ADUs on a multifamily lot, or a number equal to the existing units on the lot, whichever is less. BMC Chapter 23.206 is proposed to be amended to comply with SB 1211 as part of the annual State Law and Technical Edits (STLE) package which the Planning Commission will review in the spring.

Additionally, SB 1211 includes a provision which prohibits the City from imposing objective development or design standards on Section 66323 ADUs beyond what is authorized in state law.

DISCUSSION
1 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.306

ADU Condominium Ordinance and State/HCD ADU Updates Planning Commission Staff Report March 5, 2025

Assembly Bill 1033 and ADU Condominiums
AB 1033 Local Ordinance Requirements
AB 1033 allows a city to adopt a local ordinance permitting separate sale of the primary dwelling and one or more ADUs as condominiums. To do so, the local ordinance must include the following components:
 Compliance with:
o the Subdivision Map Act;
o the Davis-Stirling Act (the state law that regulates condominiums); and o the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 21).
 A procedure to obtain lienholders’ consent (i.e., the property owner must get the mortgage lender’s sign-off before a separate sale would be permitted).  A process to conduct and verify a safety inspection. Obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the city, or obtaining an inspection report from a HUD-certified inspector are two of the most common approaches to meeting this requirement.  Mandatory consumer disclosures regarding lender requirements.

If an ADU is tenant-occupied and the property owner seeks to sell the ADU as a separate condominium under an AB 1033 ADU Condominium Ordinance (once the city adopts it), the city may require that a tenant receive a right of first refusal. If the city were interested in implementing an ordinance with a right of first refusal requirement, an AB 1033 ADU Condominium Ordinance could treat ADU condos the same as typical condos under the city’s own Condo Conversion Ordinance (BMC Chapter 21.28)2, or it could include different requirements for the conversion of ADUs to condos.

Existing City Regulations Governing Condominiums
Existing Subdivision Ordinance (BMC Title 21 (Subdivisions))3 BMC Title 21 (Subdivisions) was enacted for the purpose of adopting regulations to implement and supplement the State’s Subdivision Map Act. Title 21 includes:
 A ministerial process for the creating a Parcel Map for four or fewer parcels or condo units;
 A discretionary process for Tentative Maps for creating five or more parcels or condo units;
 Condo conversion regulations; and
 Design requirements, procedures for lot line adjustments and subdivision improvement requirements.

Existing Condominium Conversion Ordinance (BMC Chapter 21.28)4 2 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/21.28
3 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/21
4 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/21.28

ADU Condominium Ordinance and State/HCD ADU Updates Planning Commission Staff Report March 5, 2025

Berkeley’s Condominium Conversion Ordinance lays out the procedures, fees, and required tenant protections for applicants proposing to convert existing dwelling units into condominiums. It also includes the city’s annual limit on allowable condo conversions.

Generally, BMC Chapter 21.28 requires:
 Payment of a Condo Conversion Mitigation Fee;
 Tenant protections, including notice, relocation assistance, and right of first refusal.

Since 1992, the City of Berkeley has imposed a Condo Conversion Housing Mitigation Fee. Revenues from the fee accrue to the Berkeley Housing Trust Fund to help finance construction and rehabilitation of permanently affordable housing in Berkeley.

The fee is calculated by dividing the difference between the costs of owning the unit as a condominium less the rental costs by the current fixed mortgage rate. The following is an example of a fee calculation from the city’s Residential Condominium Conversion Packet.5
 Rental Costs = $1,500 per month x 12 months/year = $18,000 annually  Ownership Cost (including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and homeowners’ association dues) = $2,700 per month x 12= $32,400
 Assume a mortgage rate of 6.5 percent.
 Increased housing cost due to ownership conversion of the unit = $32,400 - $18,000 = $14,400
 Mitigation Fee = $14,400/0.065 = $221,538
In addition, Berkeley’s Condo Conversion Housing Mitigation Fee is designed to encourage property owners to extend protections to their tenants. Owners providing additional tenant protections specified in the Condo Conversion Ordinance receive a decrease in the amount of the fee, which is capped at 8% of the total sales price, or 4% of the total sales prices for 2-unit properties.

Berkeley Rent Ordinance (BMC Chapter 13.76)6
Under Berkeley’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance, units with a Certificate of Occupancy issued after June 30, 1980, are generally exempt from rent ceiling controls. Most ADUs 5 City of Berkeley, Residential Condominium Conversion Packet, Updated: July 1, 2022. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Condo%20Packet%2007-01- 2022_Posted%20Online.pdf
6 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/13.76

ADU Condominium Ordinance and State/HCD ADU Updates Planning Commission Staff Report March 5, 2025

fall into this “new construction” exemption, though they still must follow just-cause eviction rules (BMC § 13.76.130).

Policy Questions for Planning Commission Discussion
1) Regulation of ADU Condos.

Should ADU condos be treated as any other condominium under Chapter 21.28— including payment of the Condominium Conversion Mitigation Fee, tenant protections, and discretionary approval for five or more units—or should the city create a streamlined path for ADU condominiums (as San Jose does)? 2) Right of First Refusal.

Should an AB 1033 ordinance require a right of first refusal for any tenant occupying an ADU that is being sold as a separate condominium? If so, should the right be the same as the current Condo Conversion Ordinance (i.e., one year to respond) or should it include a different timeline for ADU condominiums?
ADU Letter from California Housing and Community Development Department On May 3, 2024, HCD sent a letter regarding the ADU Ordinance (Attachment 2), and the city responded on June 3, 2024 (Attachment 3). The letter included a set of findings which called for policy consultation with the Planning Commission, which are included below.

Number of ADUs Permitted
In its letter of May 3, 2024, HCD found that BMC Chapter 23.306 did not permit as many Section 66323 ADUs as required under state law. Currently, Table 23.306-1 (Unit Allowance) permits one ADU and one Junior ADU on a parcel with an existing single- family dwelling. HCD asserted that Government Code Section 66323 permits a homeowner, who meets specified requirements, to create one converted ADU; one detached, new construction ADU; and one JADU, for a total of three Section 66323 ADUs.

This is consistent with the latest HCD ADU Handbook (January 2025)7, which explains that on single-family lots specifically, local agencies must allow Category (a)(1) (converted ADU) and Category (a)(2) (detached ADU) together, plus one JADU (also described in Gov. Code § 66323(a)(1)).

Originally, BMC Section 23.306.020(B) was drafted based on HCD’s December 2020 ADU Handbook, which stated that the two new ADU/JADU categories under former 7 California Housing and Community Development Department, Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook, January 2025. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/adu-handbook- update.pdf

ADU Condominium Ordinance and State/HCD ADU Updates Planning Commission Staff Report March 5, 2025

subdivision (e) “are not required to be combined.” At that time, it appeared an applicant seeking to build both an ADU and a JADU would have to choose between a single- family ADU+JADU “conversion configuration” or “detached configuration,” rather than do both. However, in July 2022, HCD updated its guidance to clarify that the four statutory categories of ADUs “may be combined”—meaning a local government “must allow (A) and (B) together or (C) and (D) together.”
Question for the Planning Commission: Should the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) be amended to clearly allow up to three units on a single-family property: one interior/converted ADU, one detached new-construction ADU, and one JADU? Conversion of Accessory Structures
In its letter of May 3, 2024, HCD found that the city must amend the BMC to remove the words “legally established” from BMC Section 23.306.030(A)(3), related to the conversion of accessory structures.

BMC Section 23.306.030(A)(3) states “An ADU converted from a legally established accessory building or accessory structure is allowed to maintain non-conformity to the same location and dimensions of the existing accessory building or accessory structure….”
Question for the Planning Commission: Should the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) be amended to remove the requirement that an accessory building or structure be “legally established” to be eligible for conversion to an ADU?
JADUs and Enclosed Uses
BMC Section 23.306.030(B) allows JADUs “within an existing or proposed single family dwelling or its attached garage….” It is later defined in Section 23.502.020(A)(4)(a) as, “A unit that is contained entirely within the walls of an existing or proposed single family dwelling, or a single-family dwelling unit’s attached garage.” In its letter of May 3, 2024, HCD found that Government Code Section 66333 provides a broader allowance, stating “For purposes of this subdivision, enclosed uses within the residence, such as attached garages, are considered a part of the proposed or existing single-family residence,” and that the BMC must allow JADUs in other enclosed uses not limited to the single-family residence and an attached garage.

City staff interprets the existing BMC language to already include other enclosed areas of the single-family dwelling. Specifically, the BMC definition of “accessory uses” (BMC Section 23.502.020(B)(2)(a)) is broad and extends beyond just the attached garage (e.g., storage rooms, basements). There is no instance staff could envision where an enclosed space would be excluded from conversion under the current definition.

Question for the Planning Commission: Should the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) be amended to explicitly expand eligibility to all “enclosed uses”?

ADU Condominium Ordinance and State/HCD ADU Updates Planning Commission Staff Report March 5, 2025

Deed Restriction
BMC Section 23.306.040 states that “A completed [ADU] application must include evidence of compliance with this Chapter, including development standards, deed restrictions, and neighborhood noticing.”
In its letter of May 3, 2024, HCD found Government Code section 66317, states, “No local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this section,” and therefore the city may not condition approval of an ADU application on the recordation of a deed restriction.

Under the ADU Ordinance, the requirement that a deed restriction be recorded is not a condition of approval; it is a requirement for a completed application. City staff does not interpret this provision as allowing the city to delay or deny a permit solely for lack of a recorded deed restriction.

Question for the Planning Commission: Should the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) be amended to remove the deed restriction requirements for a completed application? JADU Rental Term
BMC Section 23.306.040(C)(3) states that a JADU cannot be rented for a term that is shorter than 30 days. In its letter of May 3, 2024, HCD found that while Government Code section 66333 allows the city to adopt an ordinance to provide for the creation of JADUs, and includes the provisions that can be included in the ordinance, the provisions do not include requiring a minimum rental term of 30 days. Therefore, HCD states that the 30-day rental term minimum for JADUs must be removed. The current 30-day minimum rental term for ADUs complies with state law.

Question for the Planning Commission: Should the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) be amended to remove the 30 days minimum rental term for JADUs? Senate Bill 1211
SB 1211 (signed on September 19, 2024) allows up to eight detached ADUs on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling (subject to certain limits). Staff intends to incorporate this statutory update into the upcoming State Law and Technical Edits (SLTE) Zoning Amendments package that will come before the Planning Commission for public hearing this Spring.

SB 1211 also includes a provision which prohibits the City from imposing objective development or design standards on Section 66323 ADUs beyond what is authorized in state law. There are two provisions in the BMC which may conflict with this provision. 1) ADUs in the Front Setback: BMC Chapter 23.306.030(A)(4) prohibits the placement of ADUs in the front setback unless the only location on a lot that can accommodate an

ADU Condominium Ordinance and State/HCD ADU Updates Planning Commission Staff Report March 5, 2025

800 square foot ADU is within the front setback. The section also includes specific front setback requirements that apply only to ADUs that qualify to be located within the front setback. State law currently permits only the establishment of side and rear setbacks for Section 66323 ADUs, not front setbacks. SB 1211 could be interpreted to limit the city’s ability to prohibit Section 66323 ADUs in the front setback even if an ADU could be located elsewhere on a lot.
2) ADU Building Separation: BMC Chapter 23.306.030(A) includes basic development standards for ADUs, which include building separation standards. State law currently only permits the establishment of side and rear setbacks for Section 66323 ADUs.

There is no provision for the establishment of building separation standards, nor is there any explicit prohibition. The building separation requirement was adopted by the City Council to address concerns about fire safety and firefighter access to buildings on a property. State law provides the establishment of side and rear setbacks “for fire safety,” but does not specifically mention building separation requirements for Section 66323 ADUs.

Question for the Planning Commission: Should BMC Chapter 23.306.030 be amended to remove the front setback and building separation provisions for Section 66323 ADUs, or should those provisions be removed for all ADUs?

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with this informational report.

NEXT STEPS
Staff is currently reviewing HCD’s comments and exploring policy options to meet state requirements, particularly regarding separate ADU conveyance and other statutory changes. With Planning Commission’s input, we will incorporate them into draft amendments, solicit public feedback, and move forward with the required steps for final adoption of any Zoning Ordinance amendments.

CONTACT PERSON
Branka Tatarevic, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7472

ATTACHMENTS

1. Referral to Implement AB 1033

2. HCD ADU Ordinance Review Letter

3. City’s Response to HCD’s Letter

4. San Jose ADU Condominium Ordinance

ATTACHMENT 4

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 21 (SUBDIVISIONS) TO ALLOW SEPARATE

SALE OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.

The Department of Planning and Development is proposing an Ordinance to adopt proposed amendments to Title 21 (Subdivisions Ordinance) to implement Assembly Bill (AB) 1033 to establish local regulations for the separate sale of ADUs as condominiums.

The hearing will be held on January 20, 2026 at 6:00 pm in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of January 8, 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 Branka Tatarevic, Associate Planner at 510-981- 7472.

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

Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Published: January 9, 2026 – The Berkeley Voice
BMC 23.412.050 and Govt Code 65853; notice provided according to Govt Code 65090 and BMC 23.404.040.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 January 8, 2026.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

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

PUBLIC HEARING
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Gilman, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Fees: Public Health Vital Statistics Vital Records

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution establishing a new fee schedule for Vital Records with a $2.00 increase in the fee for birth, death, and fetal death certificates to comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 64 and Health & Safety (H&S) Code 103625(f)., effective February 1, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The fee increase is expected to generate an additional $10,564 for the rest of the current fiscal year. Of this amount, $5,810.20 (55%) is estimated to accrue to City revenue. State law requires that the revenue collected be split and sent to different county, state, and federal programs.

Additional revenue will be deposited in Fund 011.

Item Current Fee Proposed Fee
Birth Certificate Public $31.00 $33.00
Birth Certificate County $24.00 $26.00
Death Certificate Public/County $26.00 $28.00
Fetal Death Certificate $23.00 $25.00
Stillbirth Certificate $23.00 $23.00
Disposition Permit $12.00 $12.00
Transit Letter $4.00 $4.00

Fees: Public Health Vital Statistics Vital Records PUBLIC HEARING January 20, 2026

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
As a local health jurisdiction, the City of Berkeley is required by state law to provide this service and collect/distribute these fees.

Vital Records fees are increasing by $2.00 due to AB 64, which requires the use of diacritical marks—such as accents and tildes—on English letters in names listed on vital records (e.g., birth, marriage, and death certificates).

The fee increase is required to help fund the system and process changes necessary for the state and local governments to implement this law, starting on July 1, 2026.

This service is a priority for the City to ensure the community receives accurate, timely, and accessible birth, death, and other vital records.

BACKGROUND
The Public Health Vital Statistics Program is responsible for managing birth and death records for births and deaths occurring within the City of Berkeley. This includes filing, preserving, and issuing:
 Birth certificates
 Death certificates
 Fetal death and stillbirth certificates
 Permits and transport letters for the disposition of human remains The program operates under the supervision of the City of Berkeley Health Officer and fulfills the following mandates:
 Establish permanent legal records recognized as prima facie evidence in court  Prevent fraud by reporting birth and death data to other government agencies; and
 Support public health by analyzing statistical data for health evaluation and planning.

Certificates are available from the City of Berkeley for up to two years after the date of the event. After two years, records must be requested from Alameda County.

Certificates can be obtained in person, online via VitalChek.com, or by mail.

Vital Statistics provides free certificates to individuals who can verify homeless status (H&S Code Section 103577) and to youth in foster care who can verify foster status (H&S Code Section 103578).

Since 2005, certain fees have also included a $2 fee to support domestic violence programs. After this requirement was established by the State in Health and Safety Code § 103627.5, the Berkeley City Council adopted on December 13, 2005,

Fees: Public Health Vital Statistics Vital Records PUBLIC HEARING January 20, 2026

Resolution No. 63,165-N.S., which approved the fee increase and established Fund 231 for this revenue.

Pursuant to H&S Code Section 103625 (a) and (b), the City of Berkeley Vital Statistics fees are used to offset the cost of record generation and maintenance, including staff, facility, equipment, and general office costs. Fees for certificates and permits are mandated to be distributed to the following funds:
 County Children's Trust Fund
 Umbilical Cord Blood Collection Program
 Domestic Violence Prevention
 Peace Officers Training Fund
 County treasury for indigent burials
 Department of Justice Missing Persons DNA Database Fund

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The services provided and fees collected are required by the California Health and Safety Code. Approving the $2 increase per certificate will allow the City to continue offering these essential services locally and to meet its financial obligations to the State.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered as staff have not identified another source of funds that could cover the fee increases mandated by AB 64.

CONTACT PERSON
Alexandra Deitch, Sr. Health Services Program Specialist, HHCS 510-981-5379 Attachments:
1: Resolution
Exhibit A: City of Berkeley Vital Records Fee Schedule and Allocation of Vital Records
2: Public Hearing Notice

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

ESTABLISHING AND INCREASING CURRENT VITAL RECORDS FEES
WHEREAS, City of Berkeley Vital Statistics Program manages vital records for birth and death events that occur within the City limits; and
WHEREAS, effective February 1, 2026, vital records fees will increase pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 64 and Health and Safety (H&S) Code § 103625(f); and WHEREAS, vital records fees collected by the City of Berkeley Vital Statistics Program are set by statute and require periodic updates, with the associated revenue deposited into Fund 011 and Fund 152; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes in fees will allow the City of Berkeley Vital Statistics Program to continue to meet all Federal, State, and County health, safety, and regulatory requirements, while providing continued community access to birth and death certificates and permits, and transport letters for the disposition of human remains.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the proposed Published Charges, detailed in Exhibit A, are hereby established, effective February 1, 2026, for vital records offered by the City’s Vital Statistics Program of Health, Housing, and Community Services department.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 70,116-N.S. is rescinded effective February 1, 2026.

Exhibit:

A: City of Berkeley Vital Records Fee Schedule and Allocation of Vital Records

Exhibit A

CITY OF BERKELEY VITAL RECORDS FEE SCHEDULE AND ALLOCATION OF

VITAL RECORDS
Effective February 1, 2026
I. CERTIFIED COPIES, SEARCHES, AND CERTIFICATION OF NO PUBLIC RECORD
(Search/No Record fees are the same as copy fees -- Health and Safety (H&S) Code, Section 103650)
Birth - General Public Fee Allocation
H&S Code, § 103625(b)(f) $19.05 Retained by City of Berkeley H&S Code, 103525.5, 100425
and Welfare & Institutions (W&I)
Code, § 18966
$6.35 To State Registrar each month
W&I Code, § 18966 and
H&S Code, § 103625(b)
$3.60 To County Children's Trust Fund
H&S Code, § 103625(b) $2.00 To Umbilical Cord Blood Collection Program
H&S Code, § 103627 $2.00 To Domestic Violence Prevention Fee Total $33.00
Birth - Government Agency Fee Allocation
H&S Code, § 103625(b)(f), $17.80 Retained by City of Berkeley H&S Code, § 100425, and
103525.5
$6.20 To State Registrar each month
H&S Code, § 103627 $2.00 To Domestic Violence Prevention Fee Total $26.00
Death – Government Agency
and General Public
Fee Allocation
H&S Code, § 103625(a)(f),
100425 103525.5, and Penal
Code, § 14251
$17.90 Retained by City of Berkeley
H&S Code, § 103625(a)(f),
100425 103525.5, and Penal
Code, § 14251
$6.20 To State Registrar each month
Surcharge: Penal Code, § 14251 $1.90 To Dept of Justice Missing Persons DNA Data Base Fund
H&S Code, § 103627 $2.00 To Domestic Violence Prevention Fee Total $28.00

Vital Records Fee Schedule and Allocation of Vital Records Page2 of 2
Death – Government Agency
and General Public Fee Allocation
Fetal Death – Government
Agency and General Public Fee Allocation
H&S Code, § 103625(a)(f),
100425 103525.5, and Penal
Code, § 14251
$17.45 Retained by City of Berkeley
H&S Code, § 103625(a)(f),
100425 103525.5, and Penal
Code, § 14251
$5.55 To State Registrar each month
H&S Code, § 103627 $2.00 To Domestic Violence Prevention Fee Total $25.00
Stillbirth Fee Allocation
H&S Code, § 103040.1(f) $21.00 Retained by City of Berkeley H&S Code, § 103627 $2.00 To Domestic Violence Prevention Fee Total $23.00
II. PERMIT FOR DISPOSITION OF HUMAN REMAINS
Regular Permit Fee Allocation
H&S Code, § 103675 $2.50 Retained by City of Berkeley
H&S Code, § 100430 and
103692 $6.50 To State Registrar quarterly
Surcharge: H&S Code, § 103680 $1.00 To Peace Officers Training Fund Surcharge: H&S Code, § 103680 $2.00
Retained by City of Berkeley for
deposit into county treasury for
indigent burials
Fee Total $12.00