Agenda packet, first session — Berkeley City Council, January 20, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 1

REVISED AGENDA
(REVISED TO ADD A TELECONFERENCE LOCATION)

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - 1027 BANCROFT WAY, APT D, BERKELEY, CA 94710

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT
DISTRICT 4 – IGOR TREGUB
DISTRICT 5 – SHOSHANA O’KEEFE
DISTRICT 6 – BRENT BLACKABY
DISTRICT 7 – CECILIA LUNAPARRA
DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person and virtual attendance. Attend this meeting remotely using Zoom. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1-669- 254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 670 2758. To provide public comment, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the public record, email [email protected].

Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream.

All Council meetings are recorded.

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953 . Any member of the public may attend this meeting, however, if you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure and State Law, the presiding officer may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. Prior to removing an individual, the presiding officer shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The presiding officer may then remove the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, a failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body, or engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.

Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act) - Parties to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use are required to disclose if they made contributions over $5 00 within the prior 12 months to any City employee or officer. Parties and participants with a financial interest are prohibited from making more than $500 in contributions to a decisionmaker for the 12 months after the final decision is rendered on the proceeding.

The above contribution disclosures and restrictions do not apply when the proceeding is competitively bid, or involves a personnel or labor contract. For more information, see Government Code Section 84308.

Rev - 1

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Land Acknowledgement Statement: The City of Berkeley recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of xučyun (Huchiun (Hooch-yoon)), the ancestral and unceded land of the Chochenyo (Cho-chen-yo)-speaking Ohlone (Oh-low-nee) people, the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone Tribes and descendants of the Verona Band. As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000 -year history of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shellmound, and the Ohlone people who continue to reside in the East Bay. We recognize that Berkeley’s residents have and continue to benefit from the use and occupation of this unceded stolen land since the City of Berkeley’s incorporation in 1878. As stewards of the laws regulating the City of Berkeley, it is not only vital that we recognize the history of this land, but also recognize that the Ohlone people are present members of Berkeley and other East Bay communities today. The City of Berkeley will continue to build relationships with the Lisjan Tribe and to create meaningful actions that uphold the intention of this land acknowledgement.

Ceremonial Matters: In addition to those items listed on the agenda, the Mayor may add additional ceremonial matters.

City Manager Comments: The City Manager may make announcements or provide information to the City Council in the form of an oral report. The Council will not take action on such items but may request the City Manager place a report on a future agenda for discussion.

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: Up to ten persons will be selected to address matters not on the Council agenda. If five or fewer persons are identified to provide non-agenda comment, each person selected will be allotted two minutes each. If more than five persons are selected to address matters not on the Council agenda, each person selected will be allotted one minute each.

In-person attendees wishing to address the Council on matters not on the Council agenda during the initial ten-minute period for such comment, must submit a speaker card to the City Clerk in person at the meeting location and prior to the moment that the Presiding Officer calls for public comment on non - agenda items. Remote attendees must raise their hand in the videoconference application when the Presiding Officer calls for non-agenda speakers. The first five raised hands on the videoconference application will be selected to speak and the first five cards drawn at the meeting will be selected to speak. The number of in-person and remote speakers selected may be adjusted by the Presiding Officer if fewer than five speakers from either format are identified.

The remainder of the speakers wishing to address the Council on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the agenda.

Public Comment by Employee Unions (first regular meeting of the month): This period of public comment is reserved for officially designated representatives of City of Berkeley employee unions, with five minutes allocated per union if representatives of three or fewer unions wish to speak and up to three minutes per union if representatives of four or more unions wish to speak.

Rev - 2

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 3
Consent Calendar
The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for “Action” or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to “Action.” Three members of the City Council must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar for it to move to Action.

Items that remain on the “Consent Calendar” are voted on in one motion as a group. “Information” items are not discussed or acted upon at the Council meeting unless they are moved to “Action” or “Consent”.

No additional items can be moved onto the Consent Calendar once public comment has commenced. At any time during, or immediately after, public comment on Information and Consent items, any Councilmember may move any Information or Consent item to “Action.” Following this, the Council will vote on the items remaining on the Consent Calendar in one motion.

For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

Public Comment on Consent Calendar and Information Items Only: The Council will take public comment on any items that are either on the amended Consent Calendar or the Information Calendar. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue. A speaker may only speak once during the period for public comment on Consent Calendar and Information items.

Additional information regarding public comment by City of Berkeley employees and interns: Employees and interns of the City of Berkeley, although not required, are encouraged to identify themselves as such, the department in which they work and state whether they are speaking as an individual or in their official capacity when addressing the Council in open session or workshops.

Recess Items

1. Contract No. 32100053 Amendment: Orsolya Kuti, DVM to Provide On-site Veterinary Services for Berkeley Animal Care Services
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during recess to amend Contract No. 32100053 with Orsolya Kuti for on- site veterinary services for Berkeley Animal Care Services (BACS), increasing the contract amount by $45,000 for a new total not to exceed amount of $273,000, and extending the contract term to June 30, 2028.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Peter Radu, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

Rev - 3
Recess Items
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 4

2. Ratification of City Manager Action to Execute a Contract with Lake Research Partners for Community Survey Services in Support of Potential November 2026 Ballot Measures
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during Council recess to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $100,000 with Lake Research Partners to develop and administer up to two community surveys of registered Berkeley voters in support of potential ballot measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election, with a contract term of January 5, 2026, through December 31, 2026.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

3. Ratification of City Manager Action to Accept a Grant from Americans for the Arts (AFTA) for $20,000 to Support the “Arts Programs” Grants Category From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager to accept a grant from the Americans for the Arts (AFTA) National Arts Relief fund during recess to receive $20,000 for the Civic Arts grants program, and to execute any resulting grant agreements and any amendments.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

4. Revenue Agreement: Alameda Alliance for Health Provider Recruitment Initiative
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during recess to accept a grant award, and execute any resultant agreements and amendments, in the amount of $20,000 for Fiscal Year 2026, from the Alameda Alliance for Health Provider Recruitment Initiative to support the development of the City of Berkeley’s Health, Housing, and Community Services Department’s Community Health Worker (CHW) Program.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

Rev - 4
Recess Items
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 5

5. Contract No. 32500142 Amendment: Azul Works, Inc. for the Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during the City Council recess to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32500142 with Azul Works Inc. for the Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project, increasing the contract amount by $39,000, for a total amended amount not to exceed $921,278.

Financial Implications: Measure T1 Fund - $921,278
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

6. Contract No. 32600020 Amendment: Throne Lab Portable Toilet Pilot Program From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during recess to execute an amendment to contract 32600020 with Throne Lab, Inc. to extend the pilot program by four months with one portable toilet unit for a total not to exceed contract amount of $130,000.

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $130,000
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

7. Contract: Bauman Landscape and Construction, Inc. for Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during recess: 1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project; and 2. Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc.; and

3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions or other change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, with Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. for the Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project, in an amount not to exceed $357,000 which includes a contract amount of $297,500, and a 20% contingency in the amount of $59,500.

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $357,000
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

Rev - 5
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 6

8. Amendments to Title 23 (Zoning) to Allow the Retail Sale of Alcohol in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial (C-T) Zoning District
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt the second reading of Ordinance No. 7,996-N.S. amending the BMC Title 23 Section 23.204.020 to allow the retail sale of alcohol in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial (C-T) zoning district.

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

9. Amend Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 14.68 – Bicycle Registration and Licensing
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance repealing Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 14.68, Sections 14.68.020–100 (bicycle licensing and registration), Article II (bicycle establishment permits and dealer reporting), and Article III (general licensing regulations), while retaining definitions (§14.68.010) and operating provisions (§14.68.110–200, including sidewalk restrictions).

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

10. Amend Berkeley Municipal Code Section 14.40.100 – Disability Parking Standards and Accommodations
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code (“BMC”) Section 14.40.100 to align the City’s disability parking provisions with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Vehicle Code § 295.5; clarify that exempt parking privileges apply when a qualifying disabled individual is either the driver or a passenger; and eliminate duplicative local sticker and identification card requirements by deferring to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) for issuance and administration of disability placards and license plates.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

11. Formal Bid Solicitations and Request for Proposals Scheduled for Possible Issuance After Council Approval on January 20, 2026
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Approve the request for proposals or invitation for bids 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.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Rev - 6
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 7

12. 1740 San Pablo Ownership Transfer
From: City Manager
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.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

13. Request for Proposals for Capacity Building for Emerging Nonprofit Affordable Housing Developers
From: City Manager
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.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

14. Acceptance of Fiscal Year 2026 Donations from Meals on Wheels of Alameda County (MOWAC) for the Berkeley Meals on Wheels Program From: City Manager
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).

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

15. Reestablish and Revise Job Class Specification and Pay Scale – Animal Services Supervisor (formerly Animal Services Operations Supervisor) From: City Manager
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.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Janelle Rodrigues, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

Rev - 7
Consent Calendar
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 8

16. Contract: Clariti Cloud Inc. for a Comprehensive Permit Management System, RFP Specification No. 24-11661-C
From: City Manager
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.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400 Council Consent Items

17. Caminos al Éxito: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds to General Fund and Grant of Such Fund
From: Mayor Ishii (Author), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Tregub (Co-Sponsor)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $500 per Councilmember including $250 from Mayor Ishii, $250 from Councilmember Lunaparra, 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.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Adena Ishii, Mayor, (510) 981-7100

18. Refer to the City Manager the Development of Comprehensive Transportation Design Standards
From: Mayor Ishii (Author), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Taplin (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Kesarwani (Co-Sponsor) 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.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Adena Ishii, Mayor, (510) 981-7100

Rev - 8
Council Consent Items
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 9

19. Referral to the City Manager to Allow Tiny Homes on Wheels as Permissible Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
From: Councilmember Kesarwani (Author), Councilmember Tregub (Co- Sponsor), Councilmember Humbert (Co-Sponsor)
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 ADU; -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.

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember, District 1, (510) 981-7110

20. City Council Employee Recognition Program
From: Councilmember Blackaby (Author), Mayor Ishii (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Lunaparra (Co-Sponsor), Councilmember Kesarwani (Co- Sponsor)
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to institute a City Council led Employee Recognition Program.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Brent Blackaby, Councilmember, District 6, (510) 981-7160

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again during the Action Calendar public comment period on the item
The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield the ir time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

The Presiding Officer may open and close an additional comment period for Action items on this agenda (excluding any public hearings, appeals, and/or quasi-judicial matters), at the start of the Action Calendar.

Those who speak on an item during this comment period may not speak a second time when the item is taken up by Council.

Rev - 9
Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 10
Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. For certain hearings, this is followed by five-minute presentations each by first the appellant and then the applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking during a public hearing, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue allocate a block of time to e ach side to present their issue.

When applicable, each member of the City Council shall verbally disclose all ex parte contacts concerning the subject of the hearing. Councilmembers shall also submit a report of such contacts in writing prior to the commencement of the hearing. Written reports shall be available for public review in the office of the City Clerk.

21. Amendments to Title 21 (Subdivisions) to Allow Separate Sale of ADUs (Continued from December 2, 2025) (Item Contains Revised Material) From: City Manager
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.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

22. Fees: Public Health Vital Statistics Vital Records
From: City Manager
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.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

23. Changes to Selected Recreation and Camps Facilities and Program Fees From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution approving new fees and increasing current fees for select recreation programs and facility rentals; and rescinding Resolution No. 71,833-N.S. and all amendatory resolutions.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

Rev - 10
Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 11

24. Amendments to Title 23 (Zoning) to permit by-right approval of qualifying housing projects on sites identified in previous Housing Elements, and revisions related to Design Review
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, adopt a first reading of an ordinance amending Title 23 (Zoning) to permit by-right approval of qualifying housing projects on sites identified in previous Housing Elements, and revisions related to Design Review for such projects and for residential projects in the Multi-Use Residential (MU-R) zoning district.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Information Reports

25. Small Sites Program Update
From: City Manager
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

26. Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 1929 Martin Luther King Jr. Way/#LMIN2025-0002
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

27. Surveillance Technology Ordinance Report Update
From: City Manager
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900

Public Comment – Items Not Listed on the Agenda
Adjournment
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Communications to the 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 to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in Rev - 11

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 12
the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street, and through the City's online records portal:
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/.

Agendas, agenda reports, and revised/supplemental material may be accessed via the online agenda for this meeting at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas
and may be accessed at reference desks at the following locations:

City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at [email protected], (510) 981-6418 (V), or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B -TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.

If you have obtained interpretation services for your use during a City Council meeting and would like to request assistance, please contact the City Clerk Department at (510) 981 -6900, [email protected], or in-person during the meeting.

Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981 -6900 or by email at [email protected].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the agenda for this meeting 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 15, 2026.

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Rev - 12

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 13
Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

Item #21: Amendments to Title 21 (Subdivisions) to Allow Separate Sale of ADUs (Continued from December 2, 2025) (Item Contains Revised Material)

1. Celeste Goyer

BUSD Cell Phone Policy

2. Lori Droste

3. Jennifer Shanoski

4. Carrie Gray

5. Enika Ford Morthel (4)

6. 5 Similarly worded form letters “As a parent in BUSD…”

Housing

7. Margot Smith

8. Heike Helmer

Transportation for Elders

9. Sheila Goldmacher

Third Spaces in Berkeley

10. James Bowden

TBS Today

11. Cac4gente

The Nudge

12. Idea Maker

Long-Term Vacant Housing

13. Richard Pardue

Bancroft and Fulton

14. David Lerman

Food Pantry

15. Carol David

16. Zeph Landau

Street Parking

17. Todd Andrew

18. Rischa Cole

Rev - 13

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 14
Upzoning

19. Wini Williams

20. Margot Smith

21. Barbara Gilbert

22. Robin Kibby

23. Vivian_Dempsey

Holiday Wishes

24. Eids TV and Electronics

25. Falun Gong Practitioners

2025 Cannabis Policy Scorecard

26. Alisa A. Padon on behalf of Getting It Right from the Start

Derby and MLK

27. Ashley Boyd

Measure BB

28. Matt Wickland

Investigation Inquiry

29. Christian Bogado Marsa

Oakland ALPRs

30. Blair Bleekman

Ohlone Greenway Project

31. Clifford Fred

East Lot Ashby BART Station

32. Lynn B. Cooper (2)

33. Linda Franklin

Pedestrian Safety

34. Shirley Kirsten

35. Thijmen de Jong

36. Sandra Sanchez

37. Zora Kitwana Whitfield

New Year’s Greeting Recording

38. David Lam on behalf of Epoch Times

Main Library Display Window

39. Reginald Gilder

Rev - 14

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 15
Oakland Annual General Plan Update

40. Ms. Fowles

Car-Free Telegraph

41. Brandon Yung

Dance Hall Idea

42. Nancy Joachim (2)

Visit Berkeley’s Vision

43. Margot Smith

Haste Street

44. Alfred Twu

West Berkeley Amtrak

45. A. Linck

Housing Shaking Concern

46. Edward

Follow Up

47. Stephen Alpert (3)

Middle Housing

48. Stephen Alpert (4)

Solano Ave

49. Judith Bebelaar

50. Holly M. Smith

51. Bianca Zahrai

Safe Streets

52. Christopher LeBoa

Sidewalk Power Wash

53. Nancy Joachim

Housing Concern

54. Hector91 Phuentes (5)

55. Cath Tumulak

Housing Occupancy Data

56. Gregory Kalkanis

Rev - 15

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 16
Berkeley Taxation

57. Barbara Gilbert

Berkeley Marina

58. Elizabeth Kowal and Constantine Philipides

59. Joan MacQuarrie

Petition for Max

60. Jeff

Holiday Give Away

61. Snuggly Bear

Fire Dept. Reviews

62. Betsy Kopmar

63. Susanne Huttner

Public Health Resources Request for Crossroads

64. Carol Denney

Portable Bathroom

65. Erwan Illian

Outbreak Concern

66. Paw Fund

Berkeley’s Harrison Corridor

67. Marianne Riddle

Appeal

68. Laura Watson on behalf of Andrea Matsuoka and Jolene Kramer

High Rise Buildings

69. Anneherrick

Flock Cameras

70. Charlene M. Woodcock

71. Mimi Main

72. Jeremiah Maller

73. Ethan G.

Surveillance

74. Alan Ramo

Home Affordability

75. Joan
Rev - 16

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 17

Santa Monica Police and Berkeley

76. Senor Gmail

Accountability Report

77. RichardGB Hylton

Stop Signs at Traffic Circles

78. John Rice

Permit Corrections

79. J Nicolis

23 Story Building on University

80. Leanne Hinton

Report

81. Gael Alcock

BMR Processing Team

82. Hekmatullah Ahadi

Bill Error

83. Peter Y. Sussman

Play Slots at Cedar Rose

84. Carmen Padron

HOPS Healthy Checkout Report 2025

85. Monique Blodgett

Plan Bay Area 2050+

86. Susan Kirsch

Rights of Urban Animals

87. Cybersailor

Rezoning

88. Mara Melandry

Cedar and Milvia

89. Nicole Haller-Wilson

Moe’s Books and Holiday Faire

90. Doris Moskowitz

Rev - 17

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 18
Trades Under the Bus

91. John J. Parman

CALGreen Code Amendments

92. Emma Martinez

Sidewalk Repair

93. Nancy Joachim

Delivery Notification

94. Jonnyruel

URL’s

95. John J. Parman (2)

96. Russbumper (5)

97. Doris Nassiry

Newsletters

98. Berkeley Art Center (3)

99. Downtown Berkeley Association

Forwards
100. Russbumper (7)
101. Crustyrusty

Middle East Conflict
102. Aviva Lichentenstein
103. Anatole Besman

Elementary Reading Program
104. Lorraine Meehan

Miscellaneous
105. Chester Allen Arthur Williams

E-Scooters
106. Robert Borghese (6)
107. Carson Lepre (8)
108. Wahid Amiri

Corridor Upzoning
109. Linda Klein
110. Hawley Holmes
111. Lynn Cooper
112. Laurel Coates (2)
113. April Gilbert (10)
Rev - 18

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 19
114. 6 Similarly worded form letters “We applaud…”
115. 22 Similarly worded form letters “We are writing…” Supplemental Communications and Reports
Items received by the deadlines for submission will be compiled and distributed as follows. If no items are received by the deadline, no supplemental packet will be compiled for said deadline.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
Available by 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Available by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Available by 5:00 p.m. two days following the meeting.

Rev - 19
Rev - 20
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 1
AGENDA

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
6:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream.

All Council meetings are recorded.

The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Page 1 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Ceremonial Matters: In addition to those items listed on the agenda, the Mayor may add additional ceremonial matters.

The remainder of the speakers wishing to address the Council on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the agenda.

Page 2 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 3
Consent Calendar
The Council will first determine whether to move items on the agenda for “Action” or “Information” to the “Consent Calendar”, or move “Consent Calendar” items to “Action.” Three members of the City Council must agree to pull an item from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar for it to move to Action.

Recess Items

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Peter Radu, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

Page 3 ends

Recess Items
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 4

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

Page 4 ends

Recess Items
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 5

Financial Implications: Measure T1 Fund - $921,278
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $130,000
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

Financial Implications: Various Funds - $357,000
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

Page 5 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 6

First Reading Vote: All Ayes.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Carianna Arredondo, City Manager's Office, (510) 981-7000

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Henry Oyekanmi, Finance, (510) 981-7300

Page 6 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 7

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Janelle Rodrigues, Human Resources, (510) 981-6800

Page 7 ends

Consent Calendar
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 8

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400 Council Consent Items

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Adena Ishii, Mayor, (510) 981-7100

Page 8 ends

Council Consent Items
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 9

Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Rashi Kesarwani, Councilmember, District 1, (510) 981-7110

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Brent Blackaby, Councilmember, District 6, (510) 981-7160

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

Those who speak on an item during this comment period may not speak a second time when the item is taken up by Council.

Page 9 ends

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 10
Staff shall introduce the public hearing item and present their comments. For certain hearings, this is followed by five-minute presentations each by first the appellant and then the applicant. The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Scott Ferris, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, (510) 981-6700

Page 10 ends

Action Calendar – Public Hearings
Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 11

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

Information Reports

25. Small Sites Program Update
From: City Manager
Contact: Scott Gilman, Health, Housing, and Community Services, (510) 981-5100

26. Landmark Preservation Ordinance Notice of Decision: 1929 Martin Luther King Jr. Way/#LMIN2025-0002
From: City Manager
Contact: Jordan Klein, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7400

27. Surveillance Technology Ordinance Report Update
From: City Manager
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900

Archived indexed video streams are available at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Page 11 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 12
the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981 -6900 or by email at [email protected].

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Page 12 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 13
Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

Item #21: Amendments to Title 21 (Subdivisions) to Allow Separate Sale of ADUs (Continued from December 2, 2025) (Item Contains Revised Material)

1. Celeste Goyer

BUSD Cell Phone Policy

2. Lori Droste

3. Jennifer Shanoski

4. Carrie Gray

5. Enika Ford Morthel (4)

6. 5 Similarly worded form letters “As a parent in BUSD…”

Housing

7. Margot Smith

8. Heike Helmer

Transportation for Elders

9. Sheila Goldmacher

Third Spaces in Berkeley

10. James Bowden

TBS Today

11. Cac4gente

The Nudge

12. Idea Maker

Long-Term Vacant Housing

13. Richard Pardue

Bancroft and Fulton

14. David Lerman

Food Pantry

15. Carol David

16. Zeph Landau

Street Parking

17. Todd Andrew

18. Rischa Cole

Page 13 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 14
Upzoning

19. Wini Williams

20. Margot Smith

21. Barbara Gilbert

22. Robin Kibby

23. Vivian_Dempsey

Holiday Wishes

24. Eids TV and Electronics

25. Falun Gong Practitioners

2025 Cannabis Policy Scorecard

26. Alisa A. Padon on behalf of Getting It Right from the Start

Derby and MLK

27. Ashley Boyd

Measure BB

28. Matt Wickland

Investigation Inquiry

29. Christian Bogado Marsa

Oakland ALPRs

30. Blair Bleekman

Ohlone Greenway Project

31. Clifford Fred

East Lot Ashby BART Station

32. Lynn B. Cooper (2)

33. Linda Franklin

Pedestrian Safety

34. Shirley Kirsten

35. Thijmen de Jong

36. Sandra Sanchez

37. Zora Kitwana Whitfield

New Year’s Greeting Recording

38. David Lam on behalf of Epoch Times

Main Library Display Window

39. Reginald Gilder

Page 14 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 15
Oakland Annual General Plan Update

40. Ms. Fowles

Car-Free Telegraph

41. Brandon Yung

Dance Hall Idea

42. Nancy Joachim (2)

Visit Berkeley’s Vision

43. Margot Smith

Haste Street

44. Alfred Twu

West Berkeley Amtrak

45. A. Linck

Housing Shaking Concern

46. Edward

Follow Up

47. Stephen Alpert (3)

Middle Housing

48. Stephen Alpert (4)

Solano Ave

49. Judith Bebelaar

50. Holly M. Smith

51. Bianca Zahrai

Safe Streets

52. Christopher LeBoa

Sidewalk Power Wash

53. Nancy Joachim

Housing Concern

54. Hector91 Phuentes (5)

55. Cath Tumulak

Housing Occupancy Data

56. Gregory Kalkanis

Page 15 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 16
Berkeley Taxation

57. Barbara Gilbert

Berkeley Marina

58. Elizabeth Kowal and Constantine Philipides

59. Joan MacQuarrie

Petition for Max

60. Jeff

Holiday Give Away

61. Snuggly Bear

Fire Dept. Reviews

62. Betsy Kopmar

63. Susanne Huttner

Public Health Resources Request for Crossroads

64. Carol Denney

Portable Bathroom

65. Erwan Illian

Outbreak Concern

66. Paw Fund

Berkeley’s Harrison Corridor

67. Marianne Riddle

Appeal

68. Laura Watson on behalf of Andrea Matsuoka and Jolene Kramer

High Rise Buildings

69. Anneherrick

Flock Cameras

70. Charlene M. Woodcock

71. Mimi Main

72. Jeremiah Maller

73. Ethan G.

Surveillance

74. Alan Ramo

Home Affordability

75. Joan

Page 16 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 17

Santa Monica Police and Berkeley

76. Senor Gmail

Accountability Report

77. RichardGB Hylton

Stop Signs at Traffic Circles

78. John Rice

Permit Corrections

79. J Nicolis

23 Story Building on University

80. Leanne Hinton

Report

81. Gael Alcock

BMR Processing Team

82. Hekmatullah Ahadi

Bill Error

83. Peter Y. Sussman

Play Slots at Cedar Rose

84. Carmen Padron

HOPS Healthy Checkout Report 2025

85. Monique Blodgett

Plan Bay Area 2050+

86. Susan Kirsch

Rights of Urban Animals

87. Cybersailor

Rezoning

88. Mara Melandry

Cedar and Milvia

89. Nicole Haller-Wilson

Moe’s Books and Holiday Faire

90. Doris Moskowitz

Page 17 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 18
Trades Under the Bus

91. John J. Parman

CALGreen Code Amendments

92. Emma Martinez

Sidewalk Repair

93. Nancy Joachim

Delivery Notification

94. Jonnyruel

URL’s

95. John J. Parman (2)

96. Russbumper (5)

97. Doris Nassiry

Newsletters

98. Berkeley Art Center (3)

99. Downtown Berkeley Association

Forwards
100. Russbumper (7)
101. Crustyrusty

Middle East Conflict
102. Aviva Lichentenstein
103. Anatole Besman

Elementary Reading Program
104. Lorraine Meehan

Miscellaneous
105. Chester Allen Arthur Williams

E-Scooters
106. Robert Borghese (6)
107. Carson Lepre (8)
108. Wahid Amiri

Corridor Upzoning
109. Linda Klein
110. Hawley Holmes
111. Lynn Cooper
112. Laurel Coates (2)
113. April Gilbert (10)

Page 18 ends

Tuesday, January 20, 2026 AGENDA Page 19
114. 6 Similarly worded form letters “We applaud…”
115. 22 Similarly worded form letters “We are writing…” Supplemental Communications and Reports
Items received by the deadlines for submission will be compiled and distributed as follows. If no items are received by the deadline, no supplemental packet will be compiled for said deadline.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
Available by 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Available by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting.

• Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Available by 5:00 p.m. two days following the meeting.

Page 19 ends

Page 20 ends

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/

RECESS ITEM

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Peter Radu, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Contract No. 32100053 Amendment: Orsolya Kuti, DVM to Provide On-site Veterinary Services for Berkeley Animal Care Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution ratifying action taken by the City Manager during recess to amend Contract No. 32100053 with Orsolya Kuti for on-site veterinary services for Berkeley Animal Care Services (BACS), increasing the contract amount by $45,000 for a new total not to exceed amount of $273,000, and extending the contract term to June 30, 2028.

NEGATIVE EFFECT IF ACTION IS DELAYED UNTIL AFTER COUNCIL RECESS Berkeley Animal Care Services does not have a full-time staff veterinarian and critical veterinary services at the shelter are provided through this contract. Veterinary expenses have risen sharply since the pandemic, up 40% since 2020. Amending this contract to bring it in line with market costs is critical if BACS is to retain this veterinarian’s services into the future.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Ratifying this contract will result in a total increase in NTE of $45,000. In FY 2026 $9,000 is available in the Animal Care Services General Fund budget (011-21-203-000- 0000-000-424-612410). The remaining amount of the NTE will be appropriated in the FY 2027 and FY 2028 biennial budget.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On September 1, 2020, the City of Berkeley entered into a three-year contract ending August 31, 2023, with Orsolya Kuti, DVM to provide on-site veterinary care at the Dona Spring Animal Shelter. The contract was amended and extended on September 13, 2022, increasing the hourly rate to the current rate of $85/hr. Incorporating significant annual increases to veterinary expenses over the past several years into the hourly rate, as described below, results in an adjusted rate of $105/hr.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 21 ends

Contract Amendment: Orsolya Kuti, DVM for On-site veterinary services CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND
BACS is a full-service municipal animal care and control agency, enforcing local and state laws throughout the City of Berkeley (COB) and the City of Albany. BACS is also contracted to provide shelter and field services for the City of Emeryville, and shelter services for the City of Piedmont. BACS is an open-door facility which experiences a constant influx of animals that need to receive affordable veterinary care, treatment, and spay/neuter services. The BACS shelter is open to the public seven days a week to receive stray, surrendered and confiscated animals. Additionally, field services are provided seven days a week, during which Animal Control Officers impound stray, surrendered and confiscated animals. Many animals arrive at the shelter sick or injured and in need of immediate veterinary care. On-site veterinary services include but are not limited to:
 Examining and diagnosing shelter animals,
 Treating sick or injured animals,
 Performing spay/neuter surgeries, and
 Performing other routine surgeries.

To ensure that BACS euthanasia rate remains below the national benchmark of 10%, sick or injured animals must obtain necessary treatment so that they have a much better chance of rescue or adoption.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Dr. Kuti has been a practicing veterinarian since 2017. Her first contract with BACS was signed on July 15, 2020, at an hourly rate of $75. She received her only raise during her five years with BACS on September 14, 2022, when her hourly rate was increased to $85. Throughout this time, she has taken significantly less money to work at BACS.

Meanwhile, the cost of veterinary care has increased 40% since 20201, This averages to an annual rise of around 8%, translating to a 24% increase since the last adjustment in 2022. Applying this increase since Dr. Kuti's last contract adjustment results in a $105 hourly cost. This is commensurate with Bay Area veterinary costs and remains significantly lower than those in comparable positions. 1 See: Why are veterinarian bills getting so ruff on the wallet? : The Indicator from Planet Money : NPR

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 22 ends

Contract Amendment: Orsolya Kuti, DVM for On-site veterinary services CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Failure to bring Dr. Kuti’s contract to a rate that is more consistent with current market pricing risks a loss of her services altogether. Were this to happen, BACS would be forced to outsource surgeries (which will result in significant and unavoidable cost increases to the organization of up to an estimated $90,000 annually) or to find a relief vet (again resulting in unavoidable cost increases of up to an estimated $18,000 annually).

CONTACT PERSON
Mike St Pierre, Manager, Berkeley Animal Care Services, (510) 981-6603.

Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 23 ends

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

CONTRACT NO. 32100053 AMENDMENT: ORSOLYA KUTI, DVM TO PROVIDE ON-

SITE VETERINARY SERVICES FOR BERKELEY ANIMAL CARE SERVICES (BACS) WHEREAS, BACS has a constant influx of animals that need to receive immediate and affordable veterinary care and treatment; and
WHEREAS, sick or injured animals that obtain necessary procedures and/or treatment/s have a much better chance of rescue or adoption; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Orsolya Kuti is a highly qualified veterinarian with extensive experience and expertise in shelter medicine, and has been providing on-site veterinary services to BACS since 2020; and
WHEREAS, the costs of veterinary expenses have risen significantly in the past several years, necessitating an adjustment to Dr. Kuti’s hourly rate to remain competitive with comparable market pricing; and
WHEREAS, the contract will be funded as a General Fund allocation, the full funding for which will be subject to the City’s FY27-28 Biennial Budget adoption and annual appropriation process.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council ratifies the action taken by the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32100053 with Orsolya Kuti for on-site veterinary services for Berkeley Animal Care Services (BACS), increasing the contract amount by $45,000 for a new total not to exceed amount of $273,000, and extending the contract term to June 30, 2028.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 24 ends

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/

RECESS ITEM

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office Subject: Ratification of City Manager Action to Execute a Contract with Lake Research Partners for Community Survey Services in Support of Potential November 2026 Ballot Measures

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during Council recess to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $100,000 with Lake Research Partners to develop and administer up to two community surveys of registered Berkeley voters in support of potential ballot measures for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election, with a contract term of January 5, 2026, through December 31, 2026.

NEGATIVE EFFECT IF ACTION IS DELAYED UNTIL AFTER COUNCIL RECESS Delaying ratification of the contract until after Council recess would slow the City’s ballot-measure development timeline by delaying survey design, fielding, and analysis.

Such delay would limit the City Council’s ability to receive survey results in time to inform decisions regarding potential ballot measures.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The contract with Lake Research Partners has a not-to-exceed amount of $100,000 for a contract term of January 5, 2026, through December 31, 2026. Funds are available within existing appropriations in the General Fund. No additional appropriation is required because of this action.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City is evaluating potential initiatives and revenue measures for possible placement on the November 3, 2026, ballot. Consistent with prior ballot cycles, the City relies on professionally administered community surveys to assess voter satisfaction with City services, identify community priorities, and evaluate voter support for potential funding mechanisms.

To maintain alignment with the City Council’s ballot-measure schedule and ensure sufficient time for survey development and analysis, the City Manager executed a

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 25 ends

Ratification of Contract with Lake Research Partners for Community Survey Services in Support of Potential November 2026 Ballot Measures CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

contract during Council recess with Lake Research Partners, following a competitive solicitation process, to conduct up to two community surveys.

This effort advances the City’s Strategic Plan goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily-accessible service and information to the community, by ensuring major policy and funding decisions are informed by transparent, data-driven public input.

BACKGROUND
The City Manager’s Office oversees periodic community surveys to inform City Council consideration of potential ballot measures and broader policy priorities. For the November 2026 election cycle, the City will initiate a community survey process to assess voter satisfaction with City services, identify community investment priorities, and evaluate voter support for potential funding mechanisms.

On November 18, 2025, the City Council authorized issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 2026 Community Survey (Specification No. 26-11772-C). The RFP was issued to potential bidders on November 19, 2025, with questions due on December 2, 2025, and proposals due on December 9, 2025.

The city received four completed proposals in response to the RFP. A city staff evaluation panel reviewed the proposals and identified two (2) finalist firms to advance to interviews. Finalist interviews were conducted during the week of December 15, 2025, and the selection process was completed on December 19, 2025.

Following the evaluation process, the City Manager selected Lake Research Partners based on demonstrated understanding of the scope of services, proposed methodology, relevant experience, qualifications of key staff, references, and overall value to the City.

To maintain alignment with the City Council’s ballot-measure development timeline and ensure sufficient time for survey design, fielding, analysis, and presentation of results, the City Manager executed a contract with Lake Research Partners during Council recess.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
While this action does not directly fund or construct infrastructure, the community survey will inform City Council decisions regarding potential investments that advance Berkeley’s climate and sustainability goals, consistent with the Climate Action Plan and Vision 2050 Framework. The survey will be conducted using electronic and/or telephone methodologies, minimizing paper use and supporting the City’s environmental sustainability objectives.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Ratifying the City Manager’s action ensures continuity in the City’s ballot-measure planning process, preserves critical election timelines, and supports informed City Council decision-making. Proceeding during Council recess was necessary to avoid

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 26 ends

Ratification of Contract with Lake Research Partners for Community Survey Services in Support of Potential November 2026 Ballot Measures CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

delays that could compromise the City’s ability to engage voters and meet required election deadlines.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City Council could decline to ratify the City Manager’s action, which would delay the community survey process and risk limiting the City’s ability to develop informed and viable ballot measures for the November 2026 election.

CONTACT PERSON
Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office, 510-981- 7000
Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 27 ends

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

RATIFYING ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY MANAGER DURING COUNCIL RECESS

TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH LAKE RESEARCH PARTNERS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 FOR COMMUNITY SURVEY SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF POTENTIAL NOVEMBER 2026 BALLOT MEASURES
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is evaluating potential initiatives and revenue measures for possible placement on the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, professionally administered community surveys are an important tool to assess voter satisfaction with City services, identify community priorities, and evaluate voter support for potential funding mechanisms; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the City Council authorized issuance of a Request for Proposals for the 2026 Community Survey (Specification No. 26-11772-C); and WHEREAS, following a competitive solicitation process, the City received four proposals, interviewed two finalist firms, and selected Lake Research Partners based on qualifications, experience, methodology, and overall value to the City; and WHEREAS, to maintain alignment with the City Council’s ballot-measure development timeline and meet statutory deadlines for the November 2026 election, the City Manager executed a contract with Lake Research Partners during Council recess.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council ratifies the action taken by the City Manager to execute a contract with Lake Research, in an amount not to exceed $100,000 to develop and administer up to two community surveys of registered Berkeley voters in support of potential ballot measures for the November 2026 General Municipal Election, with a contract term of January 5, 2026, through December 31, 2026.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 28 ends

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/

RECESS ITEM

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Ratification of City Manager Action to Accept a Grant from Americans for the Arts (AFTA) for $20,000 to Support the “Arts Programs” Grants Category

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager to accept a grant from the Americans for the Arts (AFTA) National Arts Relief fund during recess to receive $20,000 for the Civic Arts grants program, and to execute any resulting grant agreements and any amendments.

NEGATIVE EFFECT IF ACTION IS DELAYED UNTIL AFTER COUNCIL RECESS If action is delayed until after the Council recess, the City will be unable to execute the grant agreement within the Americans for the Arts deadline. As a result, the City would forgo $20,000 in National Arts Relief funding, reducing the total funding available for the Arts Programs Grant category. The funds will be regranted to nonprofit organizations for arts and cultural programming within the City of Berkeley.

SUMMARY
The City of Berkeley can partially restore previously rescinded National Endowment for the Arts funding by applying to and accepting funds from the Americans for the Arts National Arts Relief Fund. Approval of this item would authorize submission of the application, acceptance of up to $20,000 in grant funding, and execution of the associated grant agreement to support the Civic Arts Programs Grant category in Fiscal Year 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
There is no negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund. The $20,000 grant from Americans for the Arts represents one-time, restricted funding that will be regranted through the existing Civic Arts Grants Program in Fiscal Year 2026. No City match is required. With this funding the City can provide an additional category of Civic Arts Programs grants.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 29 ends

Ratification of City Manager Action to Accept a Grant from AFTA for $20,000 to Support the “Arts Programs” Grants Category CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley was awarded $40,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for FY26 to support the Civic Arts grant program known as the Arts Programs grant. Changes in the NEA’s administration led to the agency’s withdrawal of the award in May of 2025.

In October of 2025, Americans for the Arts offered NEA awardees whose grants were rescinded the option to apply for the National Arts Relief fund for half of the withdrawn award. The City of Berkeley can recover $20,000 of the withdrawn NEA award by applying to and contracting with the National Arts Relief fund. The $20,000, in addition to a recently awarded California Arts Council grant for $15,900, will be awarded to the highest-scoring applicants for the FY26 Arts Programs grant. Applications for this category were collected January through March of 2025, and adjudicated by a grant review panel in May of 2025.

BACKGROUND
Funding was requested from the NEA in 2023 to establish a new “Arts Programs Grant” category in the Civic Arts Grants offerings and better support a wide range of arts and cultural activities taking place in Berkeley.

The Civic Arts Grants have an annual budget of $658,500 from the City's General Fund (011), and annually the Civic Arts Grants Program awards funding in three distinct categories:
1) Individual Artist Projects;
2) Community Festivals, and
3) General Operating Support.

With funding from the NEA along with the local match, the City of Berkeley has established a fourth Civic Arts Grants funding category – the Arts Programs Grant – administered in conjunction with the annual Civic Arts Grants process. Arts Program grants support non-arts nonprofit organizations located in the City of Berkeley that produce arts or cultural programming in Berkeley led by a Berkeley-based partnering arts organization or teaching artist, and arts nonprofit organizations located in the Greater Bay Area (outside of Berkeley) producing arts and cultural programming in the City of Berkeley.

The Arts Programs grant was anticipated to have a total of $80,000 allocated with a $40,000 NEA award and a $40,000 required City match. Though the program was cancelled upon the NEA rescinding the award, applicants can be awarded with the National Arts Relief funds ($20,000) and California Arts Council fund ($15,900).

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 30 ends

Ratification of City Manager Action to Accept a Grant from AFTA for $20,000 to Support the “Arts Programs” Grants Category CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental sustainability or climate impacts associated with this recommendation.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Accepting funding from the Americans for the Arts’ National Arts Relief Fund would help the City accomplish one of the five high-level goals articulated in The City of Berkeley’s Arts and Culture Plan (2018-2027): “Increase Investment in a Vibrant Arts Community, Strengthen and support Berkeley’s inclusive and culturally rich arts sector by expanding funding and marketing opportunities for a broader array of arts organizations.”

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City Council could choose not to accept the grant. If the grant is not accepted, fewer resources would be available for the Arts Programs Grant category in Fiscal Year 2026, resulting in reduced funding awards to eligible nonprofit arts and cultural organizations.

CONTACT PERSON
Hilary Amnah, Civic Arts Coordinator, 510-981-7539
Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 31 ends

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

ADOPT A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY MANAGER DURING RECESS TO ACCEPT A $20,000 GRANT FROM AMERICANS FOR THE

ARTS (AFTA) TO SUPPORT ACCESS TO ARTS AND CULTURAL PROGRAMMING IN

THE CITY OF BERKELEY BY PARTIALLY RESTORING THE CIVIC ARTS GRANTS PROGRAM FUNDING CATEGORY KNOWN AS THE ARTS PROGRAMS GRANT.

WHEREAS, the Arts and Culture Plan for the City of Berkeley (2017-18) includes the goal of increasing investment in a vibrant arts community by expanding funding and marketing opportunities for a broader array of arts organizations; and WHEREAS, an Arts Program Grant category supports the City’s ability to create increased access to arts and cultural programming taking place in Berkeley; and WHEREAS, funding from Americans for the Arts’ National Arts Relief Fund is available to organizations that had their National Endowment for the Arts grants withdrawn; and WHEREAS, the City is implementing the second year of the Arts Program Grants in Fiscal Year 2026 with $20,000 from this grant and $15,900 from a California Arts Council grant.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council ratifies the action taken by the City Manager to accept a grant from the Americans for the Arts to receive to $20,000 for the above purpose; and execute any resultant agreements and amendments.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 32 ends

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/

RECESS ITEM

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: Revenue Agreement: Alameda Alliance for Health Provider Recruitment Initiative

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during recess to accept a grant award, and execute any resultant agreements and amendments, in the amount of $20,000 for Fiscal Year 2026, from the Alameda Alliance for Health Provider Recruitment Initiative to support the development of the City of Berkeley’s Health, Housing, and Community Services Department’s Community Health Worker (CHW) Program.

NEGATIVE EFFECT IF ACTION IS DELAYED UNTIL AFTER COUNCIL RECESS Alameda Alliance for Health is mandating that all recipients of the Provider Recruitment Incentive complete a signed agreement by January 23, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The Health, Housing, and Community Services Department (HHCS) is currently developing a CHW Program as part of the California Advancing and Innovating Medi- Cal (CalAIM) initiative. The allocated funds will be used to support implementation costs related to the CHW certificate training for staff in the Public Health Division.

Training costs of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000) per staff member are eligible for reimbursement, provided they complete certification that is approved by Alameda Alliance for Health and comply with Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) requirements. Funding in the amount of $20,000 will be deposited in One-Time Grants Fund 336.

Per the terms of the agreement, CHW certificate training must begin within one (1) year of the Memorandum of Understanding signature date and must be completed within two (2) years of the MOU signature date, no later than end of Fiscal Year 2028.

Spending of the referenced grant funds is subject to Council approval of the budget and the Annual Appropriations Ordinances. The grant budget will be adjusted as part of the Second Amendment to the FY 2026 Annual Appropriations Ordinance.

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 33 ends

Alliance for Health Provider Recruitment Initiative CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Community Health Worker Program is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily- accessible service and information to the community.

BACKGROUND
Alameda Alliance is a not-for-profit community-based healthcare organization that contracts with the State of California to provide Medi-Cal services in Alameda County.

The City of Berkeley is a local health jurisdiction within the Alliance provider network serving Medi-Cal enrolled adults, children, and families in Berkeley. Over the past decade, Medi-Cal has undergone significant evolution and expansion, particularly through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and various federal and state policy changes.

DHCS has launched several initiatives to enhance the beneficiary experience, emphasizing the integration of delivery systems, alignment of funding, data reporting, quality, and infrastructure. This strategic shift led to the creation of California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal, or CalAIM.

DHCS added CHW services as a Medi-Cal benefit starting July 1, 2022. CHW services are preventive health services to prevent disease, disability, and other health conditions or their progression; to prolong life; and promote physical and mental health and well- being. CHW services may assist with a variety of concerns impacting Managed Care Plan members, including but not limited to, the control and prevention of chronic conditions or infectious diseases, behavioral health conditions, and need for preventive services. Additionally, CHW services can help Medi-Cal members receive appropriate services related to perinatal care, preventive care, sexual and reproductive health, environmental and climate-sensitive health issues, oral health, aging, injury, and domestic violence and community violence prevention services.

As a local health jurisdiction with a history of serving high-need Medi-Cal beneficiaries, HHCS’s participation in CalAIM as CHW providers aligns with its strategic objectives.

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The recommended action provides the City with funding to support staff certification, which is a prerequisite for providing reimbursable CHW services. Investing in CHW workforce development strengthens the City’s ability to address health disparities, improve community engagement, and expand preventive services without drawing on local funds. Adoption of this recommendation allows the City to fully participate in the CHW benefit and draw Medi-Cal reimbursement for CHW activities that HHCS already conducts.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 34 ends

Alliance for Health Provider Recruitment Initiative CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were identified.

CONTACT PERSON
Tamiko Huey, Senior Management Analyst, HHCS, (510) 725-2243.

Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 35 ends

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

ALAMEDA ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH PROVIDER RECRUITMENT INITATIVE GRANT

AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), through the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) initiative, has created the Community Health Worker (CHW) benefit to expand preventive and whole-person care services; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Alliance for Health Provider Recruitment Incentive funds have been awarded to the City of Berkeley Health, Housing, and Community Services Department to support development of the City’s Community Health Worker Program; and
WHEREAS, this grant agreement requires these funds be used to cover CHW certificate training costs of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000) per eligible staff member for a maximum of $20,000 through Alliance-approved programs that meet DHCS requirements; and
WHEREAS, use of these funds will allow the City to meet state training requirements, build internal workforce capacity, and prepare to deliver Medi-Cal reimbursable CHW services at no cost to the General Fund, and
WHEREAS, funding in the amount of $20,000 will be deposited in One-Time Grants Fund 336 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 the Council ratifies the action taken by the City Manager or designee to receive the funds up to the maximum grant award which may be larger or smaller than and the $20,000 and execute any resultant agreements and amendments resulting from this grant award. A record signature copy of said agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 36 ends

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/your-government/about-us/departments/city- managers-office

RECESS ITEM

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contract No. 32500142 Amendment: Azul Works, Inc. for the Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project

RECOMMENDATION
Ratify the action taken by the City Manager during the City Council recess to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32500142 with Azul Works Inc. for the Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project, increasing the contract amount by $39,000, for a total amended amount not to exceed $921,278.

NEGATIVE EFFECT IF ACTION DELAYED UNTIL AFTER COUNCIL RECESS A delay in action until after council recess would delay the completion of the Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting project.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for this contract amendment is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure T1 Fund (511). No other funding is required, and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The contract with Azul Works, Inc. for the Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project was approved on December 3, 2024 for a total amount not to exceed $882,278.

In June 2024, staff submitted the project plans to PG&E for a change to electrical services. PG&E determined no change was needed and closed the application. In August 2025, PG&E identified an error in its prior determination and required the project to resubmit the lighting plans and reinitiate PG&E review. PG&E provided additional project requirements in November 2025 which required additional trenching and related site work at a cost of $39,000 for which a contract amendment is needed.

BACKGROUND
This project includes a new pre-fabricated, two-stall restroom at Ohlone Park located on the block between California Street and McGee Avenue, between the Ohlone Park

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 37 ends

RECESS ITEM
Amending Contract 32500142: Azul Works, Inc. for the CONSENT CALENDAR Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project January 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

soccer field and volleyball court. This project also includes the addition of dark sky- compliant light fixtures in existing dark spots along the Ohlone Park pathway.

The Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project is funded by Measure T1, the 2016 Berkeley voter-approved bond to pay for improvements to City infrastructure and facilities.

The project was advertised for bids on Friday, September 6, 2024, and bids were opened on Tuesday, October 17, 2024. The City received 5 bids, from a low base bid of $698,000 to a high base bid of $1,012,133. The City determined that Azul Works, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and awarded a construction contract for the work with Resolution No. 71,589.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The construction contract includes requirements to comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy and Construction and Demolition Waste program of at least 50%.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City and Azul Works, Inc. have negotiated a price within the City’s budget to complete the installation of the basketball court lights and work related to changes to the site’s PG&E service. This increase to the contract is necessary to complete the project. The City does not have in-house labor or equipment resources to complete this renovation project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront,510-981-6700 Evelyn Chan, Supervising Civil Engineer, Parks Recreation & Waterfront, 510-981-6430 Attachments:
1: Resolution

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 38 ends

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

AMENDING CONTRACT NO. 32500142: AZUL WORKS, INC. FOR THE OHLONE

PARK RESTROOM AND LIGHTING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project is a Measure T1- funded project; and
WHEREAS, the City has neither the in-house labor nor the equipment necessary to undertake this project; and
WHEREAS, invitation for bids was duly advertised on September 6, 2024, bids were opened on October 17, 2024, and the City received 5 bids; and WHEREAS, Azul Works Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, and references for Azul works Inc. were provided and were satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2024, by Resolution No. 71,589-N.S. the City Council authorized Contract No. 32500142 with Azul Works Inc. in an amount not to exceed $882,278 for the Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project; and WHEREAS, a contract amendment to increase the total contract amount by $39,000 for a total amended amount not to exceed $921,278 is necessary to complete the project; and
WHEREAS, funds are available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure T1 Fund (511).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council ratifies the action taken by the City Manager during the City Council recess to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32500142 with Azul Works Inc. for the Ohlone Park Restroom and Lighting Project, increasing the contract amount by $39,000, for a total amended amount not to exceed $921,278. A record signature copy of any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 39 ends

Page 40 ends

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 • Tel: 510.981.6700 • TDD: 510.981.6903 • Fax: 510.981.6710 E-mail: [email protected] Website : http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

RECESS ITEM

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Amending Contract 32600020: Throne Lab Portable Toilet Pilot Program

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during recess to execute an amendment to contract 32600020 with Throne Lab, Inc. to extend the pilot program by four months for a total not to exceed contract amount of $130,000.

NEGATIVE EFFECT IF ACTION IS DELAYED UNTIL AFTER COUNCIL RECESS The current funding for the Throne smart portable toilet pilot program would have expired on January 5, 2026. The pilot has been extremely successful based on data on the effectiveness of smart portable toilets at two City parks – Cesar Chavez and Civic Center. It is critical that the City continue to collect this type of information, especially at a high- volume non-park location such as the 4th Street business district to better understand the City’s needs for public restroom services. A delay would interrupt this highly effective and essential public service and restarting the service after an interruption would result in the City incurring additional mobilization costs.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funds for the four-month contract extension will be provided by the General Fund (011) ($30,000) and Parks Tax Fund (138) ($30,000).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On September 5, 2025, the City began a four (4) month pilot program to operate two Throne Lab smart portable restrooms and collect usage data at two high-volume City parks – Cesar Chavez and Civic Center. The City currently has sufficient funds to continue the pilot program whereby the current smart portable restroom at Civic Center Park will remain in-place and the smart portable toilet at Cesar Chavez Park will be relocated to a high- volume non-park location at the 4th Street business district. At the conclusion of the pilot program, city staff will have the data to evaluate the effectiveness of smart portable restrooms in various locations and help the City develop next steps to improve the provision of essential public restroom service in Berkeley.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 41 ends

RECESS ITEM
Amending Contract 32600020: Throne Lab Portable Toilet Pilot Program CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND
The Citywide Restroom Study of 2020 performed an evaluation of existing public restrooms, a community input process, and research into ecologically-friendly restrooms with the goal of providing recommended locations and types and conceptual designs for upgrades of existing and new public restroom solutions in Berkeley.1 The study recommended monitoring permanent and portable restrooms to provide information about how many people use which restrooms when, and what was their experience. This information can help the City better meet the needs of the public with optimized hours of operation and frequency of cleaning.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Providing public restrooms may help reduce open defecation which impacts stormwater and public health. There are no identifiable negative climate impacts associated with the recommendation contained in this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Throne Labs, Inc. has been successful in providing effective smart portable public toilets with electronic access controls and data monitoring capabilities in Los Angeles, Michigan, and Washington, D.C., and the Bay Area. The four-month pilot program in two Berkeley parks has been highly successful and there remains a need to understand their utility in nonpark settings to evaluate how best meet the City’s needs in the future.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront Department, 981-6700 Attachments:
1: Resolution
1 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Citywide%20Restroom%20Study%20and%20Executi ve%20Summary%20-%202020-10-06%20-%20Final.pdf

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 42 ends

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

AMENDING CONTRACT 32600020: THRONE LAB PORTABLE TOILET

PILOT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Citywide Restroom Study of 2020 performed an evaluation of existing public restrooms, a community input process, and research into ecologically-friendly restrooms with the goal of providing recommended locations and types and conceptual designs for upgrades of existing and new public restroom solutions in Berkeley; and WHEREAS, the study recommends understanding how many people use which restrooms when, and what was their experience. This information can help the City better meet the needs of the public with optimized hours of operation and frequency of cleaning; and WHEREAS, in the summer of 2025, after reviewing a range of vendors of portable restrooms, staff found Throne Labs, Inc., a vendor with high quality smart portable restrooms wit
h electronic access controls and data monitoring capabilities already being successfully operated in Los Angeles, Michigan, and Washington D.C., and the Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2025, the City began a four (4) month pilot program to

operate two Throne Lab smart portable restrooms and collect usage data at two high- volume City parks – Cesar Chavez and Civic Center; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has sufficient funds to continue the pilot program whereby the current smart portable restroom at Civic Center Park wi ll remain in-place and the smart
portable toilet at Cesar Chavez Park will be relocated to a high-volume non-park location at the 4th Street business district using the General Fund 011 ($30,000) and the Parks Tax Fund 138 ($30,000).

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the

Council ratifies the action taken by the City Manager during recess to execute an amendment to contract 32600020 with Throne Lab, Inc. to extend the pilot program by four months for a total not to exceed contract amount of $130,000. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 43 ends

Page 44 ends

RECESS ITEM

CONSENT CALENDAR
JANUARY 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contract: Bauman Landscape and Construction, Inc. for Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution ratifying the action taken by the City Manager during recess:

1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project; and

2. Accepting the bid of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc.; and

NEGATIVE EFFECT IF ACTION DELAYED UNTIL AFTER COUNCIL RECESS The Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements project is partially funded by Measure T1 which is approaching a spending deadline. If action is delayed until after Council recess, the construction project would be delayed. This would in turn delay the expenditure of Measure T1 funds. Awarding this contract as soon as possible will increase the City’s ability to complete the work by the spending deadline.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for this contract is available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure T1 Fund (Fund 511) and Parks Tax Fund (Fund 138). No other funding is required, and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure.

Page 1 of 5 ends

Page 45 ends

RECESS ITEM
Contract: Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project JANUARY 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

Construction Contract
Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. (lowest bid) $ 297,500 20% Contingency $ 59,500
Total Construction Cost $ 357,000
Funding
Measure T1 Phase 2 (Fund 511) $ 191,799 Parks Tax (Fund 138) $ 165,201
Total Funding $ 357,000

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This improvement project is located along the eastern edge of Adeline Street at Martin Luther King Jr. Way near the Berkeley/Oakland City limit. It is located along one of the busiest corridors and entry points to the City from the south. This high-profile site is in need of improvement and beautification.

The project will include planting of perennials and flowering shrubs, tree removal, installation of new irrigation, fencing, decorative boulders, and ancillary work in accordance with the Project plans and specifications.

The contract will include a 20% contingency of the base bid to cover related unexpected or miscellaneous construction services.

BACKGROUND
The project was advertised for bids on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, and bids were opened on Tuesday, December 16, 2025. The City received 11 bids, from an apparent low base bid of $297,500 to an apparent high base bid of $501,847. The determination of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder was based on the price for base bid work, as indicated in the bid documents.

Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Staff conducted references checks and received satisfactory feedback. Staff recommends that a contract for this project be awarded to Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc.

The Living Wage Ordinance does not apply to this project since construction contracts are, pursuant to City policy, subject to State prevailing wage laws. The contractor will need to submit a certification of Compliance with Equal Benefits Ordinance. The contract will be subject to the First Source Construction Agreement.

Page 2 of 5 ends

Page 46 ends

RECESS ITEM
Contract: Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. for CONSENT CALENDAR Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project JANUARY 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

program. The project is a renovation of a developed urban site and therefore will not negatively affect natural habitat.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project is needed as part of the City’s ongoing program to repair, renovate, improve, and beautify aging park facilities and City-owned green spaces. The City does not have in-house labor or equipment resources to complete this improvement project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront, 510-981-6700 Evelyn Chan, Supervising Civil Engineer, Parks Recreation & Waterfront, 510-981-6430 Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Bid Results

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 47 ends

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

CONTRACT: BAUMAN LANDSCAPE AND CONSTRUCTION INC. FOR ADELINE

STREET LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Adeline Streetscape is in need of improvement and beautification; and WHEREAS, the City has neither the in-house labor nor the equipment necessary to undertake this project; and
WHEREAS, invitation for bids was duly advertised on November 12, 2025, bids were opened on December 16, 2025, and the City received 11 bids; and WHEREAS, Bauman Landscape and Construction was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, and references for Bauman Landscape and Construction were provided and checked out satisfactorily; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the FY 2026 budget in the Measure T1 Phase 2 Fund (Fund 511), and Parks Tax (Fund 138).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Council ratifies the action taken by the City Manager during recess approving the Plans and Specifications for Specification No. 26-11768-C for the Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project are approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the construction contract is awarded to Bauman Landscape and Construction as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments, extensions, or change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications with Bauman Landscape and Construction Inc. for the Adeline Street Landscaping Improvements Project in an amount not to exceed $357,000, which includes a contract amount of $297,500 and a 20% contingency in the amount of $59,500 for unforeseen circumstances. A record signature copy of the agreement and any amendments to be on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

Page 4 of 5 ends

Page 48 ends

Attachment 2: Bid Results

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 49 ends

Page 50 ends

Ordinance No. 7,996-N.S. Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 7,996-N.S.

AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC CHAPTER

23.204) TO ALLOW THE RETAIL SALE OF ALCOHOL IN THE TELEGRAPH AVENUE

COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That the line named “Alcoholic Beverage Retail Sale” in Table 23.204-1 in BMC Section 23.204.020 is amended to read as follows:

ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative
Use Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
NP = Not Permitted
-- = Permitted with
AUP, see

23.204.020(B)
[#] = Table Note Permit
Requirement
* Use-Specific
Regulations Apply
Commercial Districts USE-SPECIFIC

REGULATIONS

C-C C-U C-N C-E C-NS C-SA C-T C-SO C-DMU C-W C-AC
Alcoholic
Beverage Retail
Sale
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*
UP(PH)
*

23.310
Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley held on December 2, 2025, this Ordinance was passed to print and ordered published by posting by the following vote:

Ayes: Bartlett, Blackaby, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, O’Keefe, Taplin, Tregub, and Ishii.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Page 51 ends

Page 52 ends

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: Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Amend Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 14.68 – Bicycle Registration and Licensing

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance repealing Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter

14.68, Sections 14.68.020–100 (bicycle licensing and registration), Article II (bicycle establishment permits and dealer reporting), and Article III (general licensing regulations), while retaining definitions (§14.68.010) and operating provisions (§14.68.110–200, including sidewalk restrictions).

SUMMARY
BMC Chapter 14.681 was adopted in the 1970s to establish bicycle licensing, theft- prevention requirements, and operating rules within the City of Berkeley. Since that time, changes in state law have rendered the licensing requirements obsolete, and the City has not actively administered or enforced a licensing program for many years.

California Vehicle Code (CVC) § 39002(a)2 prohibits municipalities from enforcing penalties for operating an unlicensed bicycle, making Berkeley’s licensing mandate unenforceable.

This ordinance updates the code by:
 Repealing obsolete bicycle licensing requirements (§14.68.020–100);  Repealing Article II (permit and reporting requirements for bicycle establishments);
 Repealing Article III (general license-related provisions); and 1 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/14_DivII
2 https://california.public.law/codes/vehicle_code_section_39002

Page 1 of 60 ends

Page 53 ends

Amend BMC 14.68 – Bicycle Registration and Licensing CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

 Retaining core definitions (§14.68.010) and bicycle operation and safety provisions (§14.68.110–200, including sidewalk and accident reporting requirements).

This approach preserves relevant safety and operational rules while eliminating unenforceable and outdated licensing provisions.

Updating Chapter 14.68 will:
 Bring the City’s municipal code into compliance with state law;  Remove an outdated provision that may disproportionately impact youth and low- income residents;
 Reduce administrative workload by eliminating an unused program; and  Support the City’s transportation, equity, and climate goals by removing potential barriers to bicycle use.

The proposed repeal aligns with the recommendations of the 2025 Fines and Fees Report: Advancing Equity in Berkeley, California3, prepared in partnership with the Goldman School of Public Policy, which identified this section of the BMC as both unenforceable and inequitable in practice.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No fiscal impact, as the associated license program has not been administered or enforced for more than a decade. Minor staff time savings from removing outdated code provisions. No additional appropriation is required.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Under the existing code, any person operating or using a bicycle in the City is required to register and license their bicycle with BPD, provide proof of ownership, and display a City-issued license sticker. The code also sets out fees, renewal requirements, dealer reporting obligations, and penalties for noncompliance.

Over time, changes in state law have made the City’s licensing requirement unenforceable. CVC § 39002(a) explicitly prevents municipalities from prohibiting the operation of an unlicensed bicycle, allowing only for voluntary registration.

BPD does not maintain an active licensing program, and no administrative systems exist to process applications, renewals, or dealer reporting. Retaining operational sections ensures continued enforceability of key safety standards, such as prohibitions 3https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FINAL_Reimagining%20Public%20Safety%20July%2022_Comp anionAppendix.pdf (See pp. 26-68)

Page 2 of 60 ends

Page 54 ends

Amend BMC 14.68 – Bicycle Registration and Licensing CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

on unsafe sidewalk riding, requirements for accident reporting, and conformity with traffic rules. Repealing licensing provisions aligns the code with state law and reduces confusion for residents.

This action advances the City’s Strategic Plan goals to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity; and be a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

BACKGROUND
Mandatory bicycle licensing was once common in many U.S. cities, including Berkeley, as a means to deter theft and identify stolen bicycles. Berkeley’s ordinance dates back to the 1970s and includes annual renewal requirements, proof-of-ownership rules, and penalties for noncompliance. Experience over several decades—both in Berkeley and in other jurisdictions—has shown that mandatory registration programs have limited theft- prevention impact and can create barriers for those who purchase bicycles second- hand, particularly youth and low-income riders. In California, CVC § 39002(a) prohibits municipalities from requiring bicycle licenses as a condition of use, limiting programs to voluntary registration only. Many cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, have repealed similar requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Encouraging bicycle use supports greenhouse gas reduction targets, Vision Zero transportation safety goals, and the City’s Climate Action Plan. Removing barriers to bicycle ownership and use is consistent with these objectives.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
This amendment to BMC Chapter 14.68 will:
 Ensure consistency with California law;
 Remove outdated and unused licensing requirements;
 Reduce administrative complexity and potential confusion;  Retain necessary bicycle safety and operational standards; and  Support the City’s transportation equity and climate goals.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff considered amending Chapter 14.68 to establish a voluntary bicycle registration program. This option was not recommended due to lack of administrative infrastructure and minimal theft-prevention benefit.

Page 3 of 60 ends

Page 55 ends

Amend BMC 14.68 – Bicycle Registration and Licensing CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 4 ends

CONTACT PERSON
Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office, 510-981- 7007
Attachments:
1: Ordinance Repealing Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 14.68 – Bicycle Registration and Licensing
2: California Vehicle Code § 39002(a)
3: Fines and Fees Report: Advancing Equity in Berkeley, California (Daniel V. Muñoz, 2025)

Page 4 of 60 ends

Page 56 ends

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 14.68 – BICYCLE

REGISTRATION AND LICENSING
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 14.68 is amended as follows:

Chapter 14.68

BICYCLES AND BICYCLE ESTABLISHMENTS
Sections:

14.68.010 Definitions.

Article I.

Bicycles and Motorized Bicycles

14.68.020 License and registration required.

14.68.030 Applicability of provisions.

14.68.040 License--Application required.

14.68.050 License--Proof of ownership.

14.68.060 License--Bicycle to be presented.

14.68.070 License--Examination of applicant required when.

14.68.080 License--Renewal procedures.

14.68.090 License--Fees.

14.68.100 License--Issuance.

14.68.110 Operation--Conformity with chapter provisions required.

14.68.120 Riding motorized bicycles and motorized scooters on sidewalk prohibited.

14.68.130 Riding bicycles on sidewalk permitted when.

14.68.140 Operation restrictions--Playgrounds, parks, school grounds.

14.68.150 Operation restrictions--Public places.

14.68.160 Stunt riding.

14.68.170 Procedures on emerging from driveway or alley.

14.68.180 Parking Restrictions.

14.68.190 Accidents--Procedures required.

14.68.200 Accidents--Report required when.

Page 5 of 60 ends

Page 57 ends

Page 2 ends

Article II.

Bicycle Establishments

14.68.210 Business license and permit required.

14.68.220 Permit--Application.

14.68.230 Permit--Not transferable.

14.68.240 Weekly secondhand buy report required.

14.68.250 Dealer’s report of sale required weekly.

14.68.260 Holding period for bicycles and parts.

14.68.270 Bicycle register--Required--Contents.

14.68.280 Bicycle register--Disposition of purchased items.

14.68.290 Bicycle register--Safekeeping--Inspection.

14.68.300 Permit--Revocation conditions.

Article III.

General Regulations

14.68.310 Provisions supersede other regulations.

14.68.320 License transfer prohibited.

14.68.330 Dismantled or junked bicycles--Return of registration certificate.

14.68.340 Bicycle rental agency--Licensing requirements.

14.68.350 Abandoned or unidentified bicycles.

14.68.360 Violation of provisions by persons under eighteen--Penalty.

14.68.370 Violations Generally--Penalty.

14.68.010 Definitions.

A. "Bicycle" means a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain or gears, and having either two or three wheels in a tandem or tricycle arrangement.

B. "Bicycle establishment" means and includes a business operated by any person, partnership, association or corporation, wherein new or used bicycles or bicycle parts are purchased, sold, dismantled or junked.

Page 6 of 60 ends

Page 58 ends

Page 3 ends

C. "Motorized bicycle" means any two-wheeled or three-wheeled device having fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy, and an automatic transmission and a motor which produces less than two gross brake horsepower and is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than thirty miles per hour on level ground.

D. "Motorized scooter" means any two-wheeled device that has handlebars, has a floorboard that is designed to be stood upon when riding and is powered by a motor. (Ord. 7786-NS § 3, 2021; Ord. 4957-NS §§ 1-3, 1976)
Article I. Bicycles and Motorized Bicycles

14.68.020 License and registration required.

It is unlawful for any person to operate or use a bicycle or motorized bicycle in the city which has not been registered and licensed in accordance with Section 39002(a) of the Vehicle Code of the state. (Ord. 4957-NS § 4, 1976)

14.68.030 Applicability of provisions.

Any bicycle or motorized bicycle not subject to the provisions of Division 16.7 of the Vehicle Code of the state of California shall be subject to this chapter, as provided by Section 39002(b) of the Vehicle Code of the state. (Ord. 4957-NS § 5, 1976)

14.68.040 License--Application required.

Every person making application for a bicycle license or registration in the City shall make application to the Chief of Police, either directly or through a bicycle establishment, upon forms provided by the Chief of Police. Said application form shall contain such information as may be required by the Chief of Police as to the applicant and the description of the bicycle licensed. (Ord. 6230-NS § 1, 1994: Ord. 4957-NS § 6, 1976)

Page 7 of 60 ends

Page 59 ends

Page 4 ends

14.68.050 License--Proof of ownership.

For each bicycle license issued, the applicant may be required to provide proof of ownership to the Chief of Police. Said proof shall be in any form designated by the Chief of Police to be satisfactory for such purpose. (Ord. 4957-NS § 7, 1976)

14.68.060 License--Bicycle to be presented.

Upon making application for a bicycle license or bicycle license renewal, the applicant shall present the bicycle at such place designated by the Chief of Police as a licensing facility. (Ord. 4957-NS § 8, 1976)

14.68.070 License--Examination of applicant required when.

Upon making an application for a first bicycle license, the applicant may be required to be examined by an examining officer designated by the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police may further designate the manner of examination. Upon completion of said examination, the examining officer may refuse to issue a license to the applicant if the said examination discloses to the examining officer that the applicant does not have a reasonable knowledge of the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of Division 11 (commencing with Section 21220) of the Vehicle Code of the state, or that the applicant is unable to exercise reasonable control in operating a bicycle. (Ord. 4957-NS § 9, 1976)

14.68.080 License--Renewal procedures.

Application for a bicycle license renewal shall be made by presentation of the licensed bicycle and the registration certificate last issued for the bicycle, and by payment of the full annual fee for said bicycle as provided by this chapter. (Ord. 4957-NS § 10, 1976)

14.68.090 License--Fees.

The fees required to be paid pursuant to the provisions of this chapter are:

Page 8 of 60 ends

Page 60 ends

Page 5 ends

A. For each new bicycle license and registration certificate, the sum shall be two dollars per year or any portion thereof;
B. For each transfer of registration certificate, the sum shall be one dollar; C. For each replacement of a bicycle license and registration certificate, the sum shall be one dollar;
D. For each replacement of a registration certificate only, there shall be no fee; E. For each bicycle license renewal, the sum shall be one dollar. (Ord. 5181-NS § 1, 1979: Ord. 4957-NS § 11, 1976)

14.68.100 License--Issuance.

Upon approval of the application and payment of the license fee, the Chief of Police will issue a license and a copy of the registration certificate to the applicant pursuant to Section 39003 of the Vehicle Code of the state. (Ord. 4957-NS § 12, 1976)

14.68.110 Operation--Conformity with chapter provisions required.

It is unlawful for any person to operate a bicycle or motorized bicycle in the City in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 4957-NS § 13, 1976)

14.68.120 Riding motorized bicycles and motorized scooters on sidewalk prohibited.

No person shall ride or operate a motorized bicycle or motorized scooter on any sidewalk in the City. (Ord. 7786-NS § 4, 2021; Ord. 4957-NS § 14, 1976)

14.68.130 Riding bicycles on sidewalk permitted when.

No person shall ride or operate a bicycle on any sidewalk in the city except:

A. Juveniles, exercising the due care and giving the pedestrian the right-of-way, may ride and operate their bicycles upon the sidewalk, except such sidewalks as are in front of schools, stores or buildings used for business purposes;

Page 9 of 60 ends

Page 61 ends

Page 6 ends

B. Juveniles riding or operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall do so in single file; C. Peace officers who determine in good faith that riding or operating a bicycle on the sidewalk is necessary to perform official duties. (Ord. 6113-NS § 1, 1992: Ord. 4957-NS § 15, 1976)

14.68.140 Operation restrictions--Playgrounds, parks, school grounds.

No person shall ride or operate a bicycle or motorized bicycle upon any playground, park, or school ground where children are playing, without the permission of the person having supervision of said playground, park or school ground. (Ord. 4957-NS § 16, 1976)

14.68.150 Operation restrictions--Public places.

No person shall ride or operate a bicycle or motorized bicycle upon any public place in the City other than a public street or highway, without due regard for the safety of the operator and other persons upon such public place. (Ord. 4957-NS § 17, 1976)

14.68.160 Stunt riding.

No person riding or operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle shall perform or attempt to perform any acrobatic, fancy or stunt riding upon any public place, other than a street or highway, in the City. (Ord. 4957-NS § 18, 1976)

14.68.170 Procedures on emerging from driveway or alley.

The operator of a bicycle or motorized bicycle, on leaving a driveway or alley when the operator’s view of either the sidewalk or street area is obstructed, shall stop such bicycle or motorized bicycle immediately prior to riding upon or across such sidewalk or street area. (Ord. 4957-NS § 19, 1976)

14.68.180 Parking Restrictions.

Page 10 of 60 ends

Page 62 ends

Page 7 ends

No person shall park any bicycle, motorized bicycle, or motorized scooter against windows or parking meters or on the main-traveled portion of the sidewalk, nor in such manner as to constitute a hazard to pedestrians, traffic or property. (Ord. 7786-NS § 5, 2021; Ord. 4957-NS § 20, 1976)

14.68.190 Accidents--Procedures required.

The operator of any bicycle or motorized bicycle involved in an accident shall take reasonable steps to ascertain whether or not anyone was injured, and shall give their name, and address and the license number of their bicycle or motorized bicycle to the person with whom they had the accident, and shall obtain the same information from the other person. (Ord. 4957-NS § 21, 1976)

14.68.200 Accidents--Report required when.

It shall be the duty of the operator of any bicycle or motorized bicycle to make a written report of any accident resulting in death or injury to the Police Department immediately after such accident. (Ord. 4957-NS § 22, 1976)
Article II. Bicycle Establishments

14.68.210 Business license and permit required.

No person or persons in the city shall establish, carry on or operate a bicycle establishment, except as authorized by this chapter, and without first obtaining a business license as provided in Ordinance 2805-NS of the City, and a permit from the Chief of Police. (Ord. 4957-NS § 23, 1976)

14.68.220 Permit--Application.

A. The application for such permit shall be in writing and signed by the applicant and shall set forth the following information: The name, age and residence address of the applicant if a natural person, or if a corporation, its name, date and place of

Page 11 of 60 ends

Page 63 ends

Page 8 ends

incorporation, address of its principal place of business and the names of all its officers with their respective residence addresses, or if a partnership, association or unincorporated company, the names of the partners or persons comprising the partnership, association or company with their respective residence addresses. The application shall state whether the applicant had conducted a bicycle establishment prior to the current filing. If so, the applicant shall specify each and every such business, its location and dates of operation.

B. The application shall be made on forms provided by the Chief of Police and filed in duplicate with the Chief of Police. (Ord. 4957-NS § 24, 1976)

14.68.230 Permit--Not transferable.

No person having a bicycle establishment permit under the provisions of this chapter shall transfer, sell, assign, loan or permit any person to have or use such permit. (Ord. 4957-NS § 25, 1976)

14.68.240 Weekly secondhand buy report required.

A. All persons operating a bicycle establishment are required to make a weekly report to the Chief of Police upon forms provided for that purpose by the Chief of Police, giving the true name and address of the person from whom each bicycle or bicycle part is purchased, and a description of each bicycle, its frame number and the number of any license found thereon, if any. If the bicycle does not have a license, the buyer shall require the seller to obtain the approval of the Chief of Police to complete such sale or exchange. This report shall be known as the "secondhand buy report," and shall be made in triplicate. The original shall be mailed or delivered to the Chief of Police, the duplicate shall remain with the dealer, and the triplicate shall be given to the seller. It shall be the duty of the dealer to mail or deliver to the Chief of Police all reports at the close of each business week.

B. This section shall not apply to new bicycles or bicycle parts purchased at wholesale. (Ord. 4957-NS § 26, 1976)

14.68.250 Dealer’s report of sale required weekly.

Page 12 of 60 ends

Page 64 ends

Page 9 ends

All persons operating a bicycle establishment shall make a weekly report to the Chief of Police upon forms provided for that purpose by the Chief of Police, to report all sales made, including the name and address of each person to whom a bicycle is sold, together with the make, frame number and license number found thereon, if any. These reports shall be known as the "dealer’s report of sale," and shall be made in triplicate.

The original shall be mailed or delivered to the Chief of Police, the duplicate shall be retained by the dealer, and the triplicate shall be given to the seller. It shall be the duty of the dealer to make or deliver all reports to the Chief of Police at the close of each business week. (Ord. 4957-NS § 27, 1976)

14.68.260 Holding period for bicycles and parts.

No person operating a bicycle establishment shall alter, repair or dispose of any bicycle or bicycle part purchased or taken in exchange as secondhand bicycle or bicycle part thereof until after the expiration of thirty days from the date of purchase or exchange, and during those thirty days the bicycle or bicycle part so obtained shall remain without alteration on the premises of such bicycle establishment, shall be kept separate from bicycles or bicycle parts previously purchased, and shall be subject to inspection at any time during business hours by the Chief of Police, or any police officer or other person designated by the Chief of Police. (Ord. 4957-NS § 28, 1976)

14.68.270 Bicycle register--Required--Contents.

A. The Chief of Police shall furnish free of charge to every person operating a bicycle establishment a book known as the "bicycle register" in which shall be entered in plain and legible handwriting a record of all bicycles or bicycle parts purchased or taken in exchange. The entry must be made at the time of purchase or immediately thereafter and shall include, in addition to the date and hour of purchase, a full description of the bicycle or bicycle part, the price paid therefor, and the name, address, age, height, weight and complexion of the seller. In entering the description of the bicycle, the name of the manufacturer and the factory serial number thereof shall in every case be recorded if known or if it can be ascertained.

B. This section shall not apply to new bicycles or bicycle parts purchased at wholesale. (Ord. 4957-NS § 29, 1976)

Page 13 of 60 ends

Page 65 ends

Page 10 ends

14.68.280 Bicycle register--Disposition of purchased items.

The operator of a bicycle establishment shall also enter in the bicycle register a record showing the disposition of each bicycle purchased, indicating whether such bicycle was resold or dismantled. (Ord. 4957-NS § 30, 1976)

14.68.290 Bicycle register--Safekeeping--Inspection.

The operator of a bicycle establishment shall keep the bicycle register in a safe place and see that it is not mutilated or destroyed. The bicycle register shall remain the property of the City, and shall be opened to inspection by the Chief of Police or any police officer at any time the establishment is open for business, and it may be taken by such police officer from the possession of the operator of a bicycle establishment if deemed necessary. (Ord. 4957-NS § 31, 1976)

14.68.300 Permit--Revocation conditions.

A. Bicycle establishment licenses issued pursuant to this chapter may be revoked by the Chief of Police after notice and hearing for any of the following reasons:

1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or any false statement contained in the application for a permit;

2. Any violation of any provision of this chapter or any provisions of any other chapter or law relating to and regulating the bicycle establishment;

3. Conviction of the permit holder of any felony or lesser crime reasonably related to the purposes of this chapter.

B. Any hearing on revocation or suspension conducted by the Chief of Police shall be conducted pursuant to written rules of procedure adopted by the City Council. (Ord. 4957-NS § 32, 1976)
Article III. General Regulations

Page 14 of 60 ends

Page 66 ends

Page 11 ends

14.68.310 Provisions supersede other regulations.

The provisions of this chapter with reference to bicycles shall supersede and be in lieu of any other ordinance or section of any other ordinance which is in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 4957-NS § 40, 1976)

14.68.320 License transfer prohibited.

It is unlawful to transfer a bicycle license from one bicycle or motorized bicycle to another. (Ord. 4957-NS § 34, 1976)

14.68.330 Dismantled or junked bicycles--Return of registration certificate.

Upon dismantling or disposing of a bicycle or motorized bicycle as junk, the licensee shall turn in the registration certificate for such bicycle or motorized bicycle to the Chief of Police within ten days of the date of said disposal indicating that the bicycle or motorized bicycle was junked. (Ord. 4957-NS § 35, 1976)

14.68.340 Bicycle rental agency--Licensing requirements.

All persons engaged in operating a bicycle rental agency for the purpose of renting or lending bicycles or motorized bicycles to patrons shall first obtain a bicycle license and registration certificate for each bicycle or motorized bicycle prior to renting or lending such bicycle or motorized bicycle. (Ord. 4957-NS § 36, 1976)

14.68.350 Abandoned or unidentified bicycles.

All bicycles and motorized bicycles that are abandoned or unidentified remaining in the hands of the Chief of Police shall at the end of six months be sold at auction and the proceeds therefrom deposited in the general fund of the City. (Ord. 4957-NS § 37, 1976)

14.68.360 Violation of provisions by persons under eighteen--Penalty.

Page 15 of 60 ends

Page 67 ends

Page 12 ends

Where this chapter has been violated by juveniles under the age of eighteen years, in lieu of such fine and imprisonment provided in Section 14.68.370, and in lieu of filing charges in the juvenile court, the Chief of Police may prohibit the operation upon the streets, alleys and public places in the City for a period not to exceed thirty days of a bicycle so used in such violation, in which event the bicycle so used in such violation shall be impounded by the Chief of Police and retained by them during the period of the operation which is prohibited, and the owner’s registration card shall be held for a like period. (Ord. 4957-NS § 39, 1976)

14.68.370 Violations Generally--Penalty.

Any person found to be in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, except for Section 14.68.130, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of this code. Any person found to be in violation of Section 14.68.130 shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of this code. (Ord. 6921-NS § 1, 2006: Ord. 5716-NS § 3 (part), 1986: Ord. 4957-NS § 38, 1976) Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page 16 of 60 ends

Page 68 ends

DIVISION 16.7. REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF BICYCLES [39000 - 39011] ( Heading of Division 16.7 amended by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1250. ) 39002.

VEHICLE CODE - VEH

(a) A city or county, which adopts a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution, shall not prohibit the operation of an unlicensed bicycle. (b) It is unlawful for any person to tamper with, destroy, mutilate, or alter any license indicia or registration form, or to remove, alter, or mutilate the serial number, or the identifying marks of a licensing agency’s identifying symbol, on any bicycle frame licensed under this division. (Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 343, Sec. 7. (AB 1909) Effective January 1, 2023.)

Page 17 of 60 ends

Page 69 ends

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.

Page 18 of 60 ends

Page 70 ends

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

Page 19 of 60 ends

Page 71 ends

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

Page 20 of 60 ends

Page 72 ends

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

Page 21 of 60 ends

Page 73 ends

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

Page 22 of 60 ends

Page 74 ends

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

Page 23 of 60 ends

Page 75 ends

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

Page 24 of 60 ends

Page 76 ends

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

Page 25 of 60 ends

Page 77 ends

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

Page 26 of 60 ends

Page 78 ends

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

Page 27 of 60 ends

Page 79 ends

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

Page 28 of 60 ends

Page 80 ends

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

Page 29 of 60 ends

Page 81 ends

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

Page 30 of 60 ends

Page 82 ends

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

Page 31 of 60 ends

Page 83 ends

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

Page 32 of 60 ends

Page 84 ends

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

Page 33 of 60 ends

Page 85 ends

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

Page 34 of 60 ends

Page 86 ends

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

Page 35 of 60 ends

Page 87 ends

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

Page 36 of 60 ends

Page 88 ends

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

Page 37 of 60 ends

Page 89 ends

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

Page 38 of 60 ends

Page 90 ends

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

Page 39 of 60 ends

Page 91 ends

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

Page 40 of 60 ends

Page 92 ends

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

Page 41 of 60 ends

Page 93 ends

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

Page 42 of 60 ends

Page 94 ends

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

Page 43 of 60 ends

Page 95 ends

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

Page 44 of 60 ends

Page 96 ends

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

Page 45 of 60 ends

Page 97 ends

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

Page 46 of 60 ends

Page 98 ends

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

Page 47 of 60 ends

Page 99 ends

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

Page 48 of 60 ends

Page 100 ends

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

Page 49 of 60 ends

Page 101 ends

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

Page 50 of 60 ends

Page 102 ends

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

Page 51 of 60 ends

Page 103 ends

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

Page 52 of 60 ends

Page 104 ends

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

Page 53 of 60 ends

Page 105 ends

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

Page 54 of 60 ends

Page 106 ends

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

Page 55 of 60 ends

Page 107 ends

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

Page 56 of 60 ends

Page 108 ends

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

Page 57 of 60 ends

Page 109 ends

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

Page 58 of 60 ends

Page 110 ends

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

Page 59 of 60 ends

Page 111 ends

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

Page 60 of 60 ends

Page 112 ends

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: Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Amend Berkeley Municipal Code Section 14.40.100 – Disability Parking Standards and Accommodations

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code (“BMC”) Section

14.40.100 to align the City’s disability parking provisions with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Vehicle Code (CVC) § 295.5; clarify that exempt parking privileges apply when a qualifying disabled individual is either the driver or a passenger; and eliminate duplicative local sticker and identification card requirements by deferring to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) for issuance and administration of disability placards and license plates.

SUMMARY
BMC 14.40.1001, adopted in the 1950s, narrowly defines “disabled person” and limits parking privileges to a vehicle “owned and operated” by the disabled person. This language no longer reflects federal and state standards. The ADA, as amended, defines disability broadly, and CVC § 295.52 recognizes a wider range of qualifying conditions and permits the use of disabled-person placards when a qualifying individual is a passenger.

Amending BMC 14.40.100 will harmonize local law with the ADA and CVC by referencing current definitions and clarifying that parking privileges apply when the disabled person is the driver or a passenger. The amendment eliminates duplicative City-issued stickers and ID cards and instead defers to DMV placards and plates as the basis for eligibility. This will improve equitable access to metered and time-limited spaces and reduce confusion for the public and enforcement staff.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
A modest reduction in meter revenue may occur due to expanded eligibility for parking privileges. Any impact is anticipated to be limited. Staff training and public education 1 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/14.40.100
2 https://california.public.law/codes/vehicle_code_section_295.5

Page 1 of 49 ends

Page 113 ends

Amend BMC14.40.100 – Disability Parking Standards and Accommodations CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

can be incorporated into existing workflows. No additional General Fund appropriation is required.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
BMC 14.40.100 presently restricts eligibility to individuals with specific limb loss or paralysis and requires the disabled person to operate the vehicle to receive the benefit.

These provisions:
 Are narrower than ADA and CVC standards;
 Exclude, for example, residents with blindness, cardiopulmonary conditions, mobility impairments, or episodic disabilities; and
 Conflict with state practices permitting DMV placards to be used when a caregiver or support person drives.

Amending the ordinance will align City practice with governing law, improve consistency in enforcement, and enhance accessibility. This update is consistent with the City’s Strategic Plan priority to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

BACKGROUND
Berkeley’s current disability parking ordinance, BMC 14.40.100, was adopted in the early 1950s and defines a “disabled person” narrowly, limiting eligibility to individuals with paralysis or amputation of the feet or legs. It also requires that the qualifying individual operate the vehicle to receive exempt parking privileges.

This definition and driver-only restriction are more limited than federal and state standards. The ADA broadly defines disability to include a range of physical and mental impairments, and California Vehicle Code § 295.5 recognizes additional qualifying conditions such as blindness, severe cardiopulmonary disease, and mobility-impairing conditions. State law also allows disabled-person placards to be used when the qualifying person is a passenger in a vehicle driven by a caregiver or other support person.

Federal and state laws take precedence over conflicting local ordinances. Therefore, the BMC is preempted and not being enforced. In addition, maintaining such a law could create barriers to daily activities for individuals with disabilities, increase their reliance on paratransit, and limit equitable access to City services and amenities.

The City’s 2025 Fines and Fees Report: Advancing Equity in Berkeley, California recommended updating BMC 14.40.100 to align with federal and state definitions, and to allow use of privileges when a support person is driving in order to improve consistency with governing law and expand access for residents with disabilities.

Page 2 of 49 ends

Page 114 ends

Amend BMC14.40.100 – Disability Parking Standards and Accommodations CONSENT CALENDAR January 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Improved access to destinations for persons with disabilities supports compact, accessible communities and may decrease unnecessary paratransit trips. The amendment is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan and multimodal transportation goals.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed amendment reflects modern legal definitions, promotes equity, and enhances accessibility. The City’s recent review of municipal codes and associated fees highlighted the importance of removing outdated provisions that create barriers for residents, particularly those in protected classes.

Updating BMC 14.40.100 will:
 Modernize the ordinance to match federal and state definitions of disability;  Expand eligibility to residents currently excluded under the outdated definition;  Ensure exempt parking privileges extend when a caregiver or support person is driving;
 Eliminate duplicative City-issued sticker and ID requirements by deferring to DMV placards and plates; and
 Promote equity, accessibility, and consistency across City policies.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff considered leaving BMC 14.40.100 unchanged, but this would perpetuate outdated language inconsistent with law and policy. Staff also considered updating only the definition of “disabled person” while retaining local sticker issuance; however, this would duplicate DMV processes and create unnecessary administrative burden.

CONTACT PERSON
Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office, 510-981- 7007
Attachments:
1: Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 14.40.100 – Disabled persons--Exempt parking.
2: California Vehicle Code §295.5
3: Fines and Fees Report: Advancing Equity in Berkeley, California (Daniel V. Muñoz, 2025)

Page 3 of 49 ends

Page 115 ends

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 14.40.100 TO UPDATE THE DEFINITION OF “DISABLED PERSON” AND EXTEND PARKING PRIVILEGES TO

INCLUDE VEHICLES OPERATED BY A CAREGIVER OR SUPPORT PERSON, AND

DEFER TO DMV-ISSUED IDENTIFIERS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 14.40.100 is amended to read as follows:

14.40.100 Disabled persons--Exempt parking.

Disabled person, as used in this section, shall mean any person who 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.

Disabled person, as used in this section, shall mean any person who meets the definition of disability under California Vehicle Code § 295.5.

The provisions of this section regulating overtime parking shall not apply to any vehicle in which a disabled person, as herein defined, is either the driver or a passenger, provided the vehicle is displaying a valid disabled person placard or license plate when parked by said persons in any area limiting parking, nor shall they be required to operate any parking meter, subject to the following requirements:

A. The disabled person shall complete an application on a form furnished by the Police Department. Upon approval of the application by the Police Department the disabled person will be issued one special vehicle identification windshield sticker and one personal identification card. The disabled person shall possess a valid placard or license plate issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

B. The disabled person, or their authorized caregiver or support person, shall have a valid driver’s license and the personal identification card placard identification card in their immediate possession at all times when driving or parking a motor vehicle and shall display said driver’s license and identification card to any police officer upon request.

C. The disabled person, or their authorized caregiver or support person, shall display the special vehicle identification windshield sticker in compliance with the provisions of Section 676(a) of the Vehicle Code. DMV-issued placard or license plate in compliance with applicable provisions of the California Vehicle Code.

D. The disabled person, or their authorized caregiver or support person, shall operate the motor vehicle themselves when expecting the benefits herein stated. shall only claim the privileges herein when the disabled person is either operating or being transported in the vehicle.

Page 4 of 49 ends

Page 116 ends

Page 2 ends

E. The disabled person, or their authorized caregiver or support person, will not be permitted to park a motor vehicle in any zone where it is otherwise unlawful to park, nor to claim the benefits of this section while parked in a 24-minute parking zone.

Abuse of privileges, or noncompliance with any of the above mentioned requirements by disabled persons, or their authorized caregiver or support person, will constitute sufficient grounds for enforcement and penalties as provided in Chapter 1.20 of the BMC. (Ord. 3314-NS § 1, 1953: Ord. 3262-NS § 10.7, 1952)
Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Page 5 of 49 ends

Berkeley City CouncilJanuary 20, 2026

Berkeley City Council
January 20, 2026