Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Visitor
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 14, 2026, 4:01 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94702
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 14, 2026, 6:33 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
408 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94702
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 14, 2026, 6:47 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly disagree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Neutral
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
409 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
• Business Owner
Question 11
• Rideshare
Question 12
94702
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 14, 2026, 8:15 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94709
Name not available
March 14, 2026, 8:19 PM
410 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Disagree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Visitor
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Other - Drive w kids
Question 12
94556
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 14, 2026, 8:20 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
411 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94703
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 14, 2026, 8:21 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Take public transit
Question 12
94704
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
412 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
March 14, 2026, 8:28 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Walk
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 14, 2026, 8:37 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
413 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Unlikely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Neutral
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
• Employee
Question 11
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94703
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 14, 2026, 9:26 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Unlikely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Unlikely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94703
414 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Name not available
March 14, 2026, 10:17 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Neutral
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Neutral
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94702
Name not available
March 14, 2026, 11:40 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 6
415 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
• Employee
• Visitor
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Take public transit
• Walk
Question 12
94709
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 1:01 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Disagree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very unlikely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
• Student
Question 11
416 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• Drive alone
• Walk
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 7:24 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Neutral
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Neutral
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Visitor
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
No response
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 9:06 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
417 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Walk
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 9:53 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
418 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94702
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 10:28 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Unlikely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
• Employee
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94707
Mathison Ott
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 10:58 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly disagree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly disagree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
419 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Unlikely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Neutral
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very likely
Question 10
• Resident
• Other - Work at UC Berkeley
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94703
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 11:30 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
420 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• Resident
Question 11
• Walk
Question 12
94705
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 11:39 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94707
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 1:48 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
421 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
No response
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 2:45 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Neutral
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Neutral
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very unlikely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very likely
422 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Walk
Question 12
94704
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 2:46 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly disagree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly disagree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• Yes, I would be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very unlikely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Unlikely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Walk
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94708
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 3:35 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Neutral
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
423 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Unlikely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Neutral
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Other - Drive with a passenger
Question 12
94703
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 4:12 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
424 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94707
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 4:23 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Employee
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94608
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 5:23 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
425 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Employee
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94608
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 6:24 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Neutral
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
426 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94709
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 15, 2026, 6:34 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very unlikely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94708
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 6:37 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
427 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94708
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 6:41 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
428 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Employee
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94608
Name not available
March 15, 2026, 10:39 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Neutral
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Unlikely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94703
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 6:36 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Neutral
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
429 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Walk
Question 12
94705
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 7:08 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Disagree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Disagree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Unlikely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
430 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Rideshare
• Take public transit
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94710
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 9:14 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Neutral
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Neutral
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Student
• Visitor
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Take public transit
Question 12
94550
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 9:31 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
431 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Walk
Question 12
94707
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 10:25 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Disagree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
432 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Take public transit
• Walk
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94709
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 12:24 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Neutral
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94707
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 2:19 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly disagree
433 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly disagree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly disagree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Take public transit
• Walk
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94703
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 2:23 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
434 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Walk
Question 12
94708
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 3:17 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
• Employee
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Rideshare
• Walk
Question 12
435 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
94703
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 3:40 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly disagree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Visitor
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94706
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 4:10 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly disagree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly disagree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
436 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Other - drive with spouse
Question 12
94707
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 4:10 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
No response
437 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 5:29 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Take public transit
• Walk
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 5:43 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
438 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Unlikely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Other - Depends - car and scooter mostly, sometimes walk Question 12
94706
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 6:11 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94702
439 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 6:18 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Walk
Question 12
94705
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 6:35 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
440 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Other - walk to Elmwood, otherwise drive usually alone Question 12
94704
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 8:06 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Take public transit
Question 12
94707
441 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Name not available
outside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 8:30 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Unlikely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Visitor
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Take public transit
Question 12
94706
Name not available
March 16, 2026, 10:42 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
442 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Walk
Question 12
94705
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 16, 2026, 10:49 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
443 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
94708
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 17, 2026, 12:49 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Disagree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94708
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 17, 2026, 1:03 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
444 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94710
Name not available
March 17, 2026, 6:05 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly disagree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly disagree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
445 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 12
94703
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 17, 2026, 6:51 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94707
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 17, 2026, 7:57 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Neutral
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
446 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Take public transit
Question 12
94704
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 17, 2026, 9:52 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Disagree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
447 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• Drive alone
Question 12
94703
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 17, 2026, 10:40 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94707
Name not available
March 17, 2026, 11:48 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Neutral
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
448 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Walk
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94703
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 17, 2026, 1:56 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
449 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• Business Owner
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Rideshare
• Walk
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94703
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 17, 2026, 2:23 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Other - Mix: drive with family, drive by self, bike and take transit.
Question 12
94702
Name not available
March 17, 2026, 2:29 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
450 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Neutral
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
• Business Owner
Question 11
• Take public transit
• Walk
• Ride bicycle
• Other - Drive with a friend or family member
Question 12
94703
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 17, 2026, 2:48 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
451 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very unlikely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 17, 2026, 3:50 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Unlikely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very unlikely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Employee
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94704
Name not available
March 17, 2026, 6:10 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
452 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly disagree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 17, 2026, 8:30 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
453 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Neutral
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
• Employee
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94702
Name not available
March 17, 2026, 9:49 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Disagree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94710
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 18, 2026, 1:05 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
454 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94707
Name not available
outside City Council Districts
March 18, 2026, 4:46 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would not support this
455 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Visitor
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94608
Name not available
March 18, 2026, 8:08 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly disagree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Neutral
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Take public transit
Question 12
94705
Name not shown
inside City Council Districts
March 18, 2026, 8:11 AM
Question 1
456 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Disagree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Neutral
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Walk
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 18, 2026, 9:34 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
457 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Visitor
Question 11
• Take public transit
Question 12
94530
Name not available
outside City Council Districts
March 18, 2026, 9:48 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Other - Current employee, about to become a resident (moving from El Cerrito)
Question 11
• Other - Even split between driving & bike
Question 12
94530
Name not available
March 18, 2026, 9:58 AM
458 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Disagree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Neutral
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Unlikely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Unlikely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very unlikely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 18, 2026, 10:24 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Neutral
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
459 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Visitor
Question 11
• Rideshare
Question 12
94530
Name not available
March 18, 2026, 11:18 AM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Neutral Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Neutral
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
• Take public transit
• Walk
Question 12
94708
Name not available
March 18, 2026, 1:45 PM
Question 1
460 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Strongly agree ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very likely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Very likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very likely
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94704
Name not available
March 18, 2026, 1:52 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Strongly agree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
461 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Unlikely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Rideshare
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 18, 2026, 3:54 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Neutral
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.:
Disagree
SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Strongly agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I oppose this proposal
Question 5
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Neutral
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Neutral
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Very unlikely
Question 10
• Employee
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94703
Name not available
March 18, 2026, 4:00 PM
462 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Neutral
Question 2
• I support this proposal
Question 3
• I oppose this proposal
Question 4
• I am unsure of this proposal/I need more information
Question 5
• I oppose this proposal
Question 6
• I oppose this proposal
Question 7
• I would support this
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Very unlikely Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very unlikely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Drive alone
Question 12
94707
Name not available
inside City Council Districts
March 18, 2026, 4:11 PM
Question 1
AVAILABILITY: Make it easier to find a parking space near your destination.: Strongly agree
SUSTAINABILITY: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the time drivers spend "circling" for parking.: Agree
ECONOMIC VITALITY: Increase "turnover" of parked cars in high-demand areas so more customers can access local shops and restaurants.: Agree SAFETY: Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing distracted driving (drivers looking for parking spaces) and double- parking.: Agree
Question 2
• I oppose this proposal
Question 3
• I support this proposal
Question 4
• I support this proposal
Question 5
• I support this proposal
Question 6
• I support this proposal
Question 7
• I am unsure of this/I need more information
463 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
Question 8
• No, I would not be willing to pay this amount
Question 9
Free garage parking for the first 20 minutes: Likely
Brighter lighting and more visible security presence: Very likely Real-time signs on Shattuck Avenue showing exactly how many spaces remain: Likely
Improved signage at nearby streets and clearer exit paths for pedestrians:
Very likely
Lower hourly rates for the first 2 hours compared to nearby street meters: Very likely
More Electric Vehicle charging stations or expanded bike valet services:
Neutral
Question 10
• Resident
Question 11
• Rideshare
• Take public transit
• Walk
• Ride bicycle
Question 12
94704
464 | communityfeedback.opengov.com/14889 Created with OpenGov | March 18, 2026, 5:06 PM Parking Management Program Potential Adjustments
Weigh in on proposals to improve availability and efficiency of on-street parking in high-demand areas.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
PREFERENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM PERMIT FEES AND PARKING
METER TRANSACTION FEES
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.
Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that a public hearing will be conducted by said city council of the City of Berkeley at which time and place all persons may attend and be heard upon the following:
The Department of Public Works is proposing to increase the Preferential Parking Program permit fees and charge parking meter transaction fees to reduce the RPP and goBerkeley programs’ operational deficit and recover program costs.
The hearing will be held on May 19, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.
For further information, please contact at Elliott Schwimmer, Senior Planner, 510.981.7066.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.
Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to ensure
delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk
Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 12 days prior to the public hearing.
Published: May 1 and May 8, 2026 – The Berkeley Voice
Published pursuant to Government Code Section 6062a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 7, 2026.
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 1
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
Item Number: 29
Item Description: Zero Waste Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works The Resolution for this item was updated to include Exhibit A, a list of the Plan Check and Compliance Inspection Fees, as previously presented in the Staff Report.
Additionally, an implementation date of July 1, 2026 (FY 2027) has been included in the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###N.S.
ZERO WASTE PLAN CHECKS AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS FEES
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the following ordinances into the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) to address State mandates such as the California State Building Code (CALGreen 4.408.2 and 5.408.1.1), as well as, SB-1383, AB-2176, AB-1826, and AB- 341:
• Ordinance No 7,988-N.S. and Ordinance No 7,839-N.S Berkeley Green Code into BMC 19.37 on November 18, 2025 and November 11, 2022, • Ordinance No 7,790-N.S. Organics Reduction and Recycling adopted into BMC
12.35 on July 28, 2021,
• Ordinance No 7,252-N.S, Curbside Refuse, Organics, and Recycling Collection adopted into BMC 12.34 on June 12, 2012,
• Ordinance No 6319-N.S Storage Collection and Disposal of Waste adopted into (BMC 12.32 on April 30, 1986,
And Council has adopted the following City specific ordinances:
• Ordinance No. 7,639-N.S. Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance adopted into BMC 11.64 on January 22, 2019,
• Ordinance No. 5625A‑N.S. Recycling Policy adopted into the BMC 12.38 on January 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, these inspections and enforcement requirements are unfunded mandates and place an additional burden on the Zero Waste Fund (601) to cover the cost of plan check and compliance monitoring; and
WHEREAS, required funding to perform these tasks is not included in Zero Waste Fund collections rates, and are not supported by Proposition 218; and WHEREAS, staff have monitored time spent on plan check and compliance inspections from the start of Fiscal Year 2023 to the conclusion of Fiscal Year 2025, having completed 1,676 compliance related reviews and inspections and demonstrated the need to recover two hours of staff time per required review and inspection; and WHEREAS, staff is proposing a flat fee of $250 per activity (Exhibit A), which would generate approximately $419,000 annually for the Zero Waste Fund (Fund 601)
WHEREAS, the previously referenced 1,676 compliance related reviews and inspections conducted from the start of Fiscal Year 2023 to the conclusion of Fiscal Year 2025, are associated with the following activities:
Construction and Demolition Green Halo Plan Checks,
New Construction Accela & Clariti Plan Checks,
Zero Waste Events Plan Checks,
Foodware Ordinance Compliance Inspections, and
Food Recovery Agreement Inspections; and
WHEREAS, staff have no current cost recovery mechanism for staff time to conduct compliance reviews and inspections associated with permits issued and existing City ordinances; and have calculated a $250 fee that would cover associated staff time; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the cost recovery fees for $250; as outlined in Exhibit A; to cover staff time required to perform compliance reviews and inspections are adopted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to take all necessary administrative actions to update software and public notification materials accordingly to implement the fees effective July 1, 2026 (FY 2027).
Attachments:
Exhibit A
Exhibit A: Zero Waste Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees Fee Type Proposed Amount
C&D Compliance Plan Check $250
Trash Room/Space Allocation Plan Check $250
SB 1383 Events Compliance $250
SB 1383 Food Recovery Inspections $250
Foodware Ordinance Inspections $250
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
PUBLIC HEARING
June 9, 2026
(Continued from May 19, 2026)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Wahid Amiri, Interim Director, Public Works Subject: Zero Waste Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution establishing new cost recovery fees in the Public Works Department’s Zero Waste Plan Check and Compliance Inspections; authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to collect such fees to recover staffing costs.
SUMMARY
The Public Works Department routinely performs plan checks and inspections for construction and demolition (C&D) recycling compliance. Introducing a cost recovery fee program for Zero Waste will formalize the plan check process by associating a cost for the staff time spent complying with City, County, and State requirements. This $250 cost will be a flat fee for each permit listed below in Table 1. Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees will be collected at the time of permit issuance for C&D, Accela and Events Plan Checks. Services will be invoiced separately for foodware and food recovery compliance inspection at completion. These fees are intended only to recover the reasonable cost of staff time required to perform direct plan check and compliance inspection services and are not intended to generate revenue beyond the cost of providing these services.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff have monitored time spent on plan check and compliance inspections from the start of Fiscal Year 2023 to the conclusion of Fiscal Year 2025, having completed 1,676 compliance related reviews and inspections and demonstrated the need to recover two hours of staff time per required review and inspection. Staff is proposing a flat fee of $250 per activity listed below (see Table 1 on following page) to cover the associated two hours, which would generate approximately $419,000 annually for the Zero Waste Fund (Fund 601).
Zero Waste Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
Table 1: Zero Waste Compliance Fee Revenue Table
Program Area 2025 Activity
Volume
Fee per
Activity ($)
Projected FY
2027 Revenue
Projected FY
2028 Revenue
C&D
Compliance
Plan Checks
320 $250 $80,000 $80,000
Trash Room /
Space
Allocation Plan
Checks
550 $250 $137,500 $137,500
SB 1383
Events
Compliance
113 $250 $28,250 $28,250
SB 1383 Food
Recovery
Inspections
45 $250 $11,250 $11,250
Foodware
Ordinance
Inspections
648 $250 $162,000 $162,000
TOTAL 1,676 $419,000 $419,000
Note: Each activity requires an average of approximately two hours of staff time.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Public Works Department currently performs plan checks and compliance inspections for the C&D permit process, interdepartmental coordination, and ongoing ordinance implementation. Without a dedicated cost-recovery mechanism, these direct compliance services must be absorbed by the Zero Waste Fund, reducing available resources for core Zero Waste operations and other regulatory compliance needs.
Implementation of new fees associated with staff time spent on permit compliance processes will allow Public Works to recover costs for compliance plan checks and inspections. In accordance with California State Proposition 218, the activities associated with the proposed fee cannot be paid for through the solid waste collection rates since the activities are not associated with the cost of providing collection services. Using the Zero Waste Fund to cover plan checks and inspections will continue to draw down the fund balance if not reimbursed through an associated fee.
Due to increased coordination with the Planning and Development Department, and additional capacity needed to support inspections that the Health, Housing and Community Services Department has not been able to perform (as a result of staffing shortages), Public Works is proposing a fee of $250 (Table 1) for each of the following compliance and inspection activities:
C&D Green Halo Plan Checks
Zero Waste Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
New Construction Accela Plan Checks
Zero Waste Events Plan Checks
Foodware Ordinance Compliance Inspections
Food Recovery Agreement Inspections
To maintain cost recovery for these direct staff services, staff may return to council to increase fees to accurately reflect real costs for staff time.
Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees will be collected at the time of permit issuance for C&D, Accela and Events Plan Checks. Services will be invoiced separately for foodware and food recovery compliance inspection at completion. Public Works routinely performs plan checks and compliance inspections during its C&D interdepartmental meetings and weekly ordinance outreach. Introducing the fee program for plan checks and compliance inspections will emphasize the importance of complying with City, County, and State requirements and recognize the associated cost.
The associated cost of flat fee of $250, (Table 1), includes the total hourly cost of the planning approval process by tracking the professional staff time spent providing an estimated two hours of direct services, such as reviewing permit applications, permits, and performing field inspections.
The following activities would be covered by the $250 fee:
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Green Halo Plan Checks The C&D Plan Checks ensure projects are compliant with CALGreen, which mandates that at least 65% of non-hazardous C&D waste generated by new construction, demolition, and certain additions/alterations projects be recycled or salvaged for reuse, as detailed in Sections 4.408, 5.408, 301.1.1, and 301.3 of the California Green Building Standards Code. Currently, 17% of contractors are out of compliance with state diversion requirements, according to the City’s Green Halo compliance tracking.
New Construction Accela & Clariti Plan Checks
During inspections conducted from 2024-2026, staff found that architects and contractors of new construction projects were not including plans for complying with City, County, and State requirements to recycle and compost. Consequently, new construction projects struggled to meet diversion requirements as found in the City’s Accela compliance tracking, while creating safety concerns for Zero Waste collections staff due to improperly placed refuse receptacles. Public Works staff worked with Planning and Development staff to become included in the Accela workflow plan check process to address these issues. Public Works staff are now able to discuss space allocation requirements directly with architects and contractors during the design phase to ensure compliance with compliance requirements.
Zero Waste Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
Zero Waste Events Plan Checks
In September 2004, the California Legislature passed AB 2176, which requires operators and organizers of large events and venues to develop and implement waste reduction plans that include recycling strategies and reporting on the results of their efforts to the designated local agency. AB 2176’s requirement is also superseded by SB 1383, which similarly requires post event food donation. To comply with both AB 2176 and SB 1383, Public Works staff require event organizers to submit Zero Waste Event Plans to staff for review. Staff coordinate short-term dumpster rentals for event organizers, manage the City’s Clearstream rental program, and ensure compliance with SB 1383 and Single Use Disposable Ordinance (BMC 11.64). The number of annual City-wide events has increased by 37 percent since the pandemic, according to City events staff, and the increasing number of requests do not currently have a dedicated funding stream to support compliance checks.
Foodware Ordinance Compliance Inspections
In 2019, City Council adopted BMC 11.64, which requires all businesses selling prepared food to have on-site reusable foodware, color-coded recycling and compost bins, BPI-Certified compostable foodware, $0.25 Charge for Disposable Cups, and Disposable Accessory Items Upon Request. This task was originally to be handled by the Health, Housing and Community Services Department, which already inspects food generators through their environmental Health Division, however, due to staffing shortages, these tasks have been re-allocated to Public Works’ staff.
Food Recovery Agreement Inspections
SB1383 is an unfunded state mandate that aims to reduce methane emissions caused by food and other organic materials going into landfills. Edible food generators such as grocery stores, restaurants, and hotels are required to donate food fit for human consumption that was purchased or prepared in excess. As a result, Public Works staff must inspect edible food generators to verify they have a food donation agreement with a food recovery organization. This task was originally to be handled by the Health, Housing and Community Services Department, which already inspects food generators through the Environmental Health Division, however, due to staffing shortages, these tasks have been re-allocated to Public Works.
These Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees are in alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan to provide an efficient and financially-healthy City government.
BACKGROUND
The City has adopted the following ordinances into the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) to address State mandates such as the California State Building Code (CALGreen 4.408.2 and 5.408.1.1), as well as, SB-1383, AB-2176, AB-1826, and AB- 341:
Zero Waste Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
• Ordinance No 7,988-N.S., and Ordinance No 7,839-N.S Berkeley Green Code into BMC 19.37 on November 18, 2025 and November 11, 2022, • Ordinance No 7,790-N.S., Organics Reduction and Recycling adopted into BMC 12.35 on July 28, 2021,
• Ordinance No 7, 252-N.S, Curbside Refuse, Organics, and Recycling Collection adopted into BMC 12.34 on June 12, 2012,
• Ordinance No 6319-N.S, Storage Collection and Disposal of Waste adopted into BMC 12.32 on April 30, 1986,
Council has adopted the following ordinances in addition to the aforementioned State requirements to achieve City waste management goals and diversion targets:
• Ordinance No. 7,639-N.S., Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance adopted into BMC 11.64 on January 22, 2019,
• Ordinance No. 5625A‑N.S., Recycling Policy adopted into the BMC 12.38 on January 1, 1984
These City ordinances require staff monitoring for compliance to avoid enforcement action by the State of California and to meet stated City waste diversion goals.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Additional program adherence by permit holders may result in an increase of diversion from the City’s landfill to recycling, composting and edible food redistribution, which may have the positive environmental benefit of reducing landfill methane emissions that exacerbate climate change effects.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Increased funding through fees would reduce reliance on the Zero Waste Fund.
Compliance with State requirements may increase diversion from landfill to help meet the City’s Zero Waste Goals and mandates.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Alternatives include taking no action, which could result in depletion of the Zero Waste Division fund.
CONTACT PERSON
Wahid Amiri, Interim Director of Public Works, 510 981-6396 Leticia Jauregui, Solid Waste and Recycling Division Manager, 510 981-6362 Julia Heath, Recycling Program Manager, 510-981-6357
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Public Hearing Notice
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###N.S.
ZERO WASTE PLAN CHECKS AND COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS FEES
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the following ordinances into the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) to address State mandates such as the California State Building Code (CALGreen 4.408.2 and 5.408.1.1), as well as, SB-1383, AB-2176, AB-1826, and AB- 341:
• Ordinance No 7,988-N.S. and Ordinance No 7,839-N.S Berkeley Green Code into BMC 19.37 on November 18, 2025 and November 11, 2022, • Ordinance No 7,790-N.S. Organics Reduction and Recycling adopted into BMC
12.35 on July 28, 2021,
• Ordinance No 7,252-N.S, Curbside Refuse, Organics, and Recycling Collection adopted into BMC 12.34 on June 12, 2012,
• Ordinance No 6319-N.S Storage Collection and Disposal of Waste adopted into (BMC 12.32 on April 30, 1986,
And Council has adopted the following City specific ordinances:
• Ordinance No. 7,639-N.S. Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance adopted into BMC 11.64 on January 22, 2019,
• Ordinance No. 5625A‑N.S. Recycling Policy adopted into the BMC 12.38 on January 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, these inspections and enforcement requirements are unfunded mandates and place an additional burden on the Zero Waste Fund (601) to cover the cost of plan check and compliance monitoring; and
WHEREAS, required funding to perform these tasks is not included in Zero Waste Fund collections rates, and are not supported by Proposition 218; and WHEREAS, staff have monitored time spent on plan check and compliance inspections from the start of Fiscal Year 2023 to the conclusion of Fiscal Year 2025, having completed 1,676 compliance related reviews and inspections and demonstrated the need to recover two hours of staff time per required review and inspection; and WHEREAS, staff is proposing a flat fee of $250 per activity, which would generate approximately $419,000 annually for the Zero Waste Fund (Fund 601) WHEREAS, the 1,676 compliance related reviews and inspections conducted from the start of Fiscal Year 2023 to the conclusion of Fiscal Year 2025, are associated with the following activities:
Construction and Demolition Green Halo Plan Checks,
New Construction Accela & Clariti Plan Checks,
Zero Waste Events Plan Checks,
Foodware Ordinance Compliance Inspections, and
Food Recovery Agreement Inspections; and
WHEREAS, staff have no current cost recovery mechanism for staff time to conduct compliance reviews and inspections associated with permits issued and existing City ordinances; and have calculated a $250 fee that would cover associated staff time; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Department of Public Works will implement cost recovery fees for $250 to cover staff time required to perform compliance reviews and inspections.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
Zero Waste Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections Fees
The public may participate in this hearing by remote video or in-person.
Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that a public hearing will be conducted by said city council of the City of Berkeley at which time and place all persons may attend and be heard upon the following:
The Department of Public Works is proposing to implement new fees to support Zero Waste Plan Checks and Compliance Inspections.
The hearing will be held on May 19, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the School District Board Room, located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at https://berkeleyca.gov/ as of May 7, 2026. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.
Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, or e-mailed to
[email protected] in order to ensure
delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Background information concerning this proposal will be available at the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 12 days prior to the public hearing.
Published: May 8 and May 15, 2026 – The Berkeley Voice Published pursuant to Government Code Section 6062a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on May 7, 2026.
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/
PUBLIC HEARING
June 9, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Appeal of the Housing Advisory Commission decision to deny the appeal and affirm the Determination by the Building Official for 1615 Fairview Street Regarding the Applicability of Exterior Elevated Elements Inspection Requirement
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution affirming the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) decision to (1) deny the Appeal and affirm the Building Official’s determination that 1615 Fairview Street is not in compliance with the Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) Inspection Program; and (2) uphold the associated fees consistent with Council-adopted policy and State law.
SUMMARY
This report is in response to an appeal submitted by Andrew Marowitz, regarding the applicability of E3 Inspection Program requirements for his property at 1615 Fairview Street. Mr. Marowitz previously appealed the Building Official’s determination regarding E3 inspection requirements to the Housing Advisory Commission. After conducting a public hearing in January 2026, the appeal was denied and the Building Official’s determination was upheld.
State law requires E3 inspections of all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units with existing exterior elevated elements, regardless of whether they are owner-occupied, tenant-occupied, or vacant. The structure at 1615 Fairview Street is an existing building with four multi-family dwelling units, and exterior elevated elements located six feet or more above grade, and is therefore subject to E3 Inspection Program requirements.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
None.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The E3 Inspection Program advances the Strategic Plan goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.
Appeal of E3 Determination for 1615 Fairview PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
The City of Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.40.040, and State Law Health & Safety Code Section 17973(a), require owners of all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units, considered Group R-1 and R-2 Occupancy buildings as defined in the most recent edition of the California Building Code, with existing exterior elevated elements, to retain the services of a licensed or certified professional to verify that the existing exterior elevated elements are in general safe condition and do not exhibit signs of deterioration.
State and City laws do not exempt buildings with dwelling units that are owner- occupied. Even condominium buildings with three or more condominiums, considered R-2 occupancy buildings, are required to verify that existing E3 elements are certified safe per California Civil Code Division 4, Part 5, Chapter 7, Article 3 Section 5551. Most condominiums are owner-occupied.
On January 15, 2026, the HAC conducted a public hearing and denied the appeal of Determination by the Building Official for 1615 Fairview Street regarding the applicability of exterior elevated elements inspection requirements. The HAC’s action (1) affirmed the Building Official’s determination that 1615 Fairview Street is not in compliance with the E3 Inspection Program, and (2) upheld the associated fees consistent with Council- adopted policy and State law.
On February 17, 2026, Mr. Marowitz, the legal property owner of 1615 Fairview St., submitted an appeal of the Housing Advisory Commission’s Notice of Decision by the designated deadline of February 20, 2026.
BACKGROUND
Following the tragic collapse of a balcony at 2020 Kittredge St. in 2015, the City of Berkeley passed Urgency Ordinance No. 7,432-N.S. requiring that all buildings with three or more dwelling units and exterior elevated elements be inspected by a licensed professional on a cyclical basis, to prevent future structural failures from causing fatalities and injuries. In 2018, the State of California (SB 721) adopted a similar requirement. Berkeley’s requirement, based on state law, is codified in BMC Section
19.40.040. When first enacted, Berkeley’s law required owners to have E3 inspections every three years. The requirement was later amended to change the inspection frequency to every five years, then amended again to align with state law, which set an inspection frequency for existing buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units of every six years.
E3 Inspection Program – Case History
In 2016, Mr. Marowitz submitted an E3 Exemption Declaration Form, signed March 1, 2016, declaring under penalty of perjury that the Inspection Certification requirements did not apply to his property at 1615 Fairview St because:
“Wood-framed or steel-framed exterior elements (i.e. exterior balconies, decks, stairs, landings, terraces, walkways, guardrails, handrails, or similar
Appeal of E3 Determination for 1615 Fairview PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
appurtenances) elevated more than six feet above adjacent grade DO NOT EXIST at this building.”
Subsequently, Mr. Marowitz submitted a completed E3 Inspection Certification form signed by a licensed professional on June 30, 2016, verifying that the building at 1615 Fairview is, in fact, a four unit multi-family dwelling with exterior elevated elements subject to the City of Berkeley’s E3 Inspection Program. The completed 2016 E3 Inspection Certification form brought 1615 Fairview into compliance with the 2016 E3 Inspection cycle.
Under the 2021 E3 Inspection cycle, Mr. Marowitz again submitted an E3 Exemption Declaration Form, signed August 1, 2021, declaring under penalty of perjury that Inspection Certification requirements do not apply to his property at 1615 Fairview St because:
1. “Wood-framed or steel-framed exterior elements (i.e. exterior balconies, decks, stairs, landings, terraces, walkways, guardrails, handrails, or similar appurtenances) elevated more than six feet above adjacent grade DO NOT EXIST at this building”
2. “This building is not an R-1 or R-2 occupancy. It does not have 3 or more dwelling units and is not one of the other building types listed above.”
3. Mr. Marowitz also checked the box indicating the building type to be “Residential Condo Building” and added a notation that the building is a “Multi-Unit Home House”.
Subsequently, Mr. Marowitz did not submit a completed E3 Inspection Certification form signed by a licensed professional for the 2021 E3 Inspection Cycle.
On September 16, 2025, staff issued a Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation to notify Mr. Marowitz he was in violation of Section 19.40.040 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. Mr. Marowitz was given until October 16, 2025, to comply with the Notice of Violation. The exemption declaration and inspection certification forms submitted and the Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation are part of the administrative record, included as Attachment 8 to this staff report.
In response to the Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation, Mr.
Marowitz submitted a letter to staff on September 25, 2025, confirming that Apartment #4 does have exterior elevated elements, but stating that it is exempt from E3 Inspection Program requirements because it is owner occupied.
On October 9, 2025, the Building Official sent a determination to Andrew Marowitz regarding 1615 Fairview and E3 Inspection requirements under Health and Safety Code (HSC) 17973 and Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 19.40.040. The determination is summarized below, and is included in its entirety as Attachment 5.
Appeal of E3 Determination for 1615 Fairview PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
Summary of Determination of the Building Official
The Building Official determined that the property at 1615 Fairview Street contains four multifamily dwelling units, is classified as an R-2 occupancy and is not exempt from E3 inspection requirements, regardless of owner occupancy. The owner was directed to provide a completed inspection certification form by October 16 (extendable to November 14 upon proof of hiring a qualified professional), or face citations for noncompliance.
On Oct 27, 2025, Mr. Marowitz appealed the Building Official’s determination. At the time the appeal was submitted, the HAC was the designated Board of Appeals to hear and decide appeals of any notice and order or any action of the Building Official under the Housing Code, pursuant to BMC Chapter 19.44. The HAC heard the appeal at its January 15, 2026 meeting, and took the following action:
Action: M/S/C (Shere/Haycox) to deny the appeal and affirm the Building Official’s determination that (1) 1615 Fairview Street is not in compliance with the Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) Inspection Program and (2) uphold the associated fees consistent with Council-adopted policy and State law.
Vote: Ayes: Chupina, Haycox, Micael, Mirvish, Shere, and Simon-Weisberg.
Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Bell (excused), Potter (excused), Scott (excused).
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The issues raised in the appellant’s letter (Attachment 2) and staff’s responses are detailed below. For the sake of brevity, the appeal issues are summarized and not restated in their entirety, with duplicative points combined.
ISSUE 1: The appellant contends that the Rental Housing Safety Program (RHSP) has active protocols with an “already included provision and inspection program for Exterior Elevated Elements with annual inspections.” The appellant also highlights RHSP provisions for self-certification, as well as exemptions for vacant units and owner- occupied units.
RESPONSE 1: The appellant is conflating two distinct programs. The E3 Inspection Program is distinct from RHSP, and any exemptions applicable to RHSP are not applicable and irrelevant to the E3 program. The RHSP requires inspection of all rental units, with owner occupied units being exempt. In contrast, State and local laws require inspection of exterior elevated elements in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units, regardless of whether the building or any of the units are owner occupied or vacant.
Appeal of E3 Determination for 1615 Fairview PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Article 2.2 states that “Exterior elevated elements that include load-bearing components in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units shall be inspected.” Neither Health and Safety Code Section 17973 nor Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.40.040 provide exemptions for owner- occupied or vacant units. Accordingly, all multifamily buildings, including those containing rental units, owner-occupied units, or condominiums, must comply with the E3 inspection and certification requirements. Inspections must be performed by a licensed or certified professional, and state law further requires that the individual performing the inspection not be employed by the local jurisdiction at the time of the inspection.
ISSUE 2: The appellant contends that City Council “delegated the Planning Department and Building Official to create a set of provisions and protocols, which resulted in a set of rules that far exceeded the scope of balconies and decks, in which thousands of properties were now included, and as a direct result, the building official created massive amounts of revenue for the City of Berkeley”.
RESPONSE 2: Following the balcony collapse at 2020 Kittredge Street, the City of Berkeley adopted an urgency ordinance requiring all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units with exterior elevated elements, to be inspected by a licensed professional on a cyclical basis.
E3 Inspection requirements apply to exterior elevated elements located 6 feet or more above grade and include weather-exposed elevated wood and metal decks, walkways, balconies, landings, stairway systems, guardrails, and handrails. Berkeley’s inspection requirements are based on State Law and codified under BMC 19.40.040. These regulations are enforced under the City’s Exterior Elevated Elements Program, or “E3 Program” for short.
Revenues collected by the E3 program are restricted to program administration.
Currently, a fee of $375 is assessed per multifamily building every six years to administer the program, which breaks down to $62.50 per year. For condominiums, E3 cycle fees are assessed once on a 9-year cycle. Citation fees and property liens are the only code enforcement tools available to ensure compliance with E3 inspection requirements.
To date, the appellant has neither been assessed an E3 cycle fee or been issued a citation under the current E3 inspection cycle, due in part to the submittal of misleading Exemption Declaration Forms that did not accurately represent the actual site conditions.
Appeal of E3 Determination for 1615 Fairview PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
ISSUE 3: The appellant asserts that “the Building Dept and the Planning Dept were the creators of the balcony collapse” and that “the balcony collapse was due to too much weight/ too many people”.
RESPONSE 3: The design of the balcony that failed at the 2020 Kittredge Street building was found to have been compliant with the building code under which it was constructed. Investigations by subject matter experts found dry-rot and water intrusion to be the cause of the balcony collapse.
Regardless of the details of the tragedy that precipitated the adoption of local and state legislation that underly the E3 program, the City of Berkeley’s Building and Safety Division is responsible for enforcing those local and state codes and has properly applied the code in the case of 1615 Fairview Street.
ISSUE 4: The appellant questions application of the Hardship Exemption for low-income property owners who cannot easily afford the appeal fee and asserts the Building Official imposed a $1,000 Appeal Fee.
RESPONSE 4: Local and State Law does not provide an exception for low-income property owners. The E3 program requirements apply to buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units of Group R-1 and R-2 occupancies with exterior elevated elements, regardless of the property owner’s income level or whether units are rented, vacant or owner-occupied. The appellant, by his own admission, has chosen not to rent the three other units in the building at 1615 Fairview Street.
It is not clear which exemption fee the appellant is referring to in his appeal letter; staff assume it is the Miscellaneous Fee adopted in Planning Fee Schedule Resolution No. 71,834-N.S. found under Chapter A – Building & Safety section XVII. The hourly fee can be applied to Requests for Unreasonable Hardship Exemptions. A request for an Unreasonable Hardship Exemption is specific in the Building Code to be applied for mandated accessibility upgrades when alterations to a public accommodation such as a commercial space or office are proposed under a building permit, and where the cost to comply would cost more than 20% of the overall project cost. This code provision, found in California Building Code 11B-202.4 Exception 8, only applies to non-residential public accommodations and public housing. The miscellaneous fee to review unreasonable hardship exceptions does not apply to this case.
For property owners appealing a citation, there is an advance deposit hardship waiver process provided per BMC 1.28.070, but in this case, no administrative citations have been issued, therefore this does not apply.
The $1,000 Appeal of Building Official Determination fee is explicitly listed on the Planning Department fee schedule (Attachment 5), adopted on June 17, 2025 by City
Appeal of E3 Determination for 1615 Fairview PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
Council with Resolution No. 71,834-N.S. The following explanation for the fee was included in the staff report for Council:
Appeals of Building Official Determinations. Certain decisions under the authority of the City Building Official are subject to appeal, including violations and penalties under BMC Chapter 19.40, the Housing Code. While not common, the City does on occasion receive appeals of these determinations, which require staff to research and prepare hearing materials and the conduct of the hearing itself. The proposed rate for this new fee is $1,000, representing four hours of staff time at the standard department hourly rate.
ISSUE 5: The appellant questions the impartiality of staff and prior hearing bodies.
RESPONSE 5: State and local laws require E3 inspections for all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units with existing exterior elevated elements. Staff have correctly identified and applied the appropriate E3 inspection requirements for 1615 Fairview St.
CONCLUSION: The appellant’s principal concerns relate to fees, hardship relief, perceived bias, and regulatory burden rather than error in interpretation of the regulations and enforcement. The E3 Program is mandated by BMC Section 19.40.040 and California Health and Safety Code 17973. Staff find no procedural irregularities or statutory basis for fee reduction or exemption. All property owners in Berkeley with buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units with exterior elevated elements are required to retain the services of a licensed or certified professional to inspect the exterior elevated elements and complete and sign an E3 Inspection Certification form. The inspection requirement applies to multifamily properties as well as condominium projects. The appellant’s property at 1615 Fairview St. is an existing building that contains three or more multifamily dwelling units and is considered an R-2 Occupancy Building as defined in the California Building Code. The building has existing E3 elements, under the owner’s own admission and verified by a licensed professional in 2016, and therefore both local and State regulations require compliance.
Staff recommends denying the appeal and affirming the Building Official’s determination to uphold enforcement of the Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) Inspection Program at 1615 Fairview Street and uphold associated fees consistent with Council-adopted policy and State law.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
Appeal of E3 Determination for 1615 Fairview PUBLIC HEARING June 9, 2026
CONTACT PERSONS
David Lopez, Chief Building Official, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7441 Galadriel Burr, Community Services Specialist III, Planning and Development, (510) 981-7475
Attachments:
1: Resolution
2: Appeal from Mr. Marowitz
3: Staff Report Packet to Housing Advisory Commission 1-15-2026 4: HAC Notice of Decision and Approved Minutes 1-15-2026 5: Building Official Determination, included in email dated 10-9-25
6. State and Local Exterior Elevated Elements Legislation:
BMC 19.40.040 Section 404 Structural Maintenance
California Health and Safety Code Section 17973
California Building Code 2025, R-1 and R-2 Occupancy and Use Definitions 7: Building and Safety Division Fees, Pages 3-8 from 2025 Planning Department Fee Schedule
8: Administrative Record and Email Correspondence between Mr. Marowitz and Building and Safety staff
9: Public Hearing Notice
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.
AFFIRMING THE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION DECISION TO 1) DENY THE APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL’S DETERMINATION THAT 1615
FAIRVIEW STREET IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXTERIOR ELEVATED ELEMENTS (E3) INSPECTION PROGRAM AND 2) UPHOLD THE ASSOCIATED FEES CONSISTENT WITH COUNCIL-ADOPTED POLICY AND STATE LAW.
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2025, staff issued a Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation to notify Mr. Marowitz he was in violation of Section 19.40.040 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, which requires owners of buildings with three or more multifamily dwelling units to retain the services of a licensed or certified professional to inspect the building’s exterior elevated elements and verify that the elements are in general safe condition; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation, Mr. Marowitz submitted a letter to staff on September 25, 2025, stating Apartment #4 does have exterior elevated elements, but is exempt from E3 Inspection Program requirements because it is owner occupied; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2025, the Building Official issued a written determination to Andrew Marowitz indicating that the property at 1615 Fairview Street contains four dwelling units, is classified as an R-2 occupancy and is not exempt from E3 inspection requirements, regardless of owner occupancy; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2025, Mr. Marowitz appealed the Building Official’s determination regarding the applicability of the Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) inspection requirement; and
WHEREAS, at the time the appeal was submitted, the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) served as the Board of Appeals to hear and decide appeals of any notice and order or any action of the Building Official under the Housing Code, pursuant to BMC Chapter 19.44; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2026, the HAC, after conducting a public hearing, denied the Appeal of Determination by the Building Official for 1615 Fairview Street regarding the applicability of exterior elevated elements inspection requirements and affirmed the Building Official’s determination that (1) 1615 Fairview Street is not in compliance with the Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) Inspection Program and (2) upheld the associated fees consistent with Council-adopted policy and State law; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026, Mr. Marowitz submitted an appeal of the HAC’s decision; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the HAC’s decision, and in the opinion of this Council, the facts stated in, or ascertainable from the public record, including the staff report and comments made at the public hearing, warrant upholding the decision of the HAC.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Council hereby affirms the Housing Advisory Commission decision to (1) deny the Appeal and affirm the Building Official’s determination that 1615 Fairview Street is not in compliance with the Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) Inspection Program; and (2) uphold the associated fees consistent with Council-adopted policy and State law.
Attachment 2
1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7451 TDD: 510.981.6903 e-mail: [email protected]
No
Planning and Development Department
Building and Safety Division
STAFF REPORT
Date: January 15, 2026
To: Members of the Housing Advisory Commission
From: David A. Lopez, Chief Building Official, Building and Safety Division Manager Galadriel Burr, Community Services Specialist III
Subject: Appeal of Determination by Building Official for 1615 Fairview St regarding the Applicability of Exterior Elevated Elements Inspection Requirement
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, deny the appeal and affirm the Building Official’s determination that (1) 1615 Fairview Street is not in compliance with the Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) Inspection Program and (2) uphold the associated fees consistent with Council-adopted policy and State law.
CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City of Berkeley Municipal Code and State Law requires owners of buildings of Group R-1 and R-2 Occupancies, as defined in the most recent edition of the California Building Code, with existing exterior elevated elements, to retain the services of a licensed professional to verify that the existing exterior elevated elements are in general safe condition and do not exhibit signs of deterioration.
On October 9, 2025, the Building Official sent a determination to Andrew Marowitz, which is summarized below. The complete determination is included as Attachment 2.
Summary of Determination of the Building Official
The Building Official determined that the property at 1615 Fairview Street contains four dwelling units, is classified as an R-2 occupancy and is not exempt from E3 inspection requirements, regardless of owner occupancy. The owner was directed to provide a completed inspection certification form by October 16 (extendable to November 14 upon proof of hiring a qualified professional), or face citations for noncompliance.
On Oct 27, 2025 Mr. Marowitz, the legal property owner of 1615 Fairview St., appealed the Building Official’s determination regarding the applicability of the Exterior Elevated Elements HAC 01/15/2025
Attachment 5
HAC PAGE 39
Attachment 3
Internal
p. 2
inspection requirement. The Housing Advisory Committee serves as the Board of Appeals to hear and decide appeals of any notice and order or any action of the Building Official under the Housing Code, pursuant to BMC Chapter 19.44.
Staff researched and confirmed that the building at 1615 Fairview St. is, in fact, a four-unit building and therefore is considered an R-2 Occupancy Building and a Multifamily Dwelling Building. State law requires E3 inspections in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units with existing E3 elements. The laws apply to buildings with existing exterior elevated elements six feet or more above grade, regardless of whether they are owner- occupied, tenant-occupied or vacant. Mr. Marowitz asserts that the E3 requirement does not apply to his property, since the exterior elevated elements were part of an owner-occupied unit. State and City law do not exempt dwelling units that are owner occupied. Even condominium buildings with three or more condominiums, considered an R-2 occupancy, are required to certify that existing E3 elements are certified safe per California Civil Code Division 4, Part 5, Chapter 7, Article 3 Section 5551. Condominiums are for the most part owner occupied.
BACKGROUND
Following the tragic collapse of a balcony at 2020 Kittredge St. in 2015, the City of Berkeley passed a requirement that all buildings with three or more dwelling units and exterior elevated elements be inspected by a licensed professional on a cyclical basis to prevent future structural failures from causing fatalities and injuries. In 2018, the State of California adopted a similar requirement. Berkeley’s requirement is codified in BMC 19.40.040 Section 404. When first enacted, Berkeley’s law required owners to have their E3 inspected every three years. It was amended to change the frequency to every five years, then amended again to align with state law, which set an inspection frequency for existing multifamily rental properties every six years.
E3 Inspection Program – Case History
In 2016, Mr. Marowitz submitted an E3 Exemption Declaration Form, signed March 1, 2016, declaring under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that Inspection Certification requirements do not apply to his property at 1615 Fairview St because:
• “Wood-framed or steel-framed exterior elements (i.e. exterior balconies, decks, stairs, landings, terraces, walkways, guardrails, handrails, or similar appurtenances) elevated more than six feet above adjacent grade DO NOT EXIST at this building.” Subsequently, Mr. Marowitz submitted an E3 Inspection Certification form signed by a licensed professional on June 30, 2016, verifying that the building at 1615 Fairview is, in fact, a four-unit apartment house with exterior elevated elements subject to the City of Berkeley’s E3 Inspection Program. The completed 2016 E3 Inspection Certification form brought 1615 Fairview into compliance with the 2016 E3 Inspection cycle.
Under the 2021 E3 Inspection cycle, Mr. Marowitz again submitted an E3 Exemption Declaration Form, signed August 1, 2021, declaring under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that Inspection Certification requirements do not apply to his property at 1615 Fairview St because:
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachment 5
HAC PAGE 40
Internal
p. 3
1. “Wood-framed or steel-framed exterior elements (i.e. exterior balconies, decks, stairs, landings, terraces, walkways, guardrails, handrails, or similar appurtenances) elevated more than six feet above adjacent grade DO NOT EXIST at this building”
2. “This building is not an R-1 or R-2 occupancy. It does not have 3 or more dwelling units and is not one of the other building types listed above. (Please note, R-1 and R-2 occupancies as defined in the California Building Code do not correspond to Berkeley’s R-1 and R-2 zoning districts.)”
3. Mr. Marowitz also checked the box indicating the building type to be “Residential Condo Building” and added a notation that the building is a “Multi-Unit Home House”.
Subsequently, Mr. Marowitz did not submit a completed E3 Inspection Certification form signed by a licensed professional for the 2021 E3 Inspection Cycle.
On September 16, 2025 staff issued a Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation to notify Mr. Marowitz that he was in violation of Section 19.40.040 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, which requires owners of buildings with three or more dwelling or sleeping units to retain the services of a licensed or certified professional to inspect the building’s exterior elevated elements and verify that the elements are in general safe condition. Mr.
Marowitz was given until October 16, 2025 to comply with the Notice of Violation. The exemption declaration and inspection certification forms submitted and the Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation are part of the administrative record, Attachment 5.
In response to the Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation, Mr. Marowitz submitted a letter to staff on September 25, 2025, stating Apartment #4 does have exterior elevated elements, but is exempt from E3 Inspection Program requirements because it is owner occupied. On October 9, 2025, the Building Official sent a determination to Mr. Marowitz regarding 1615 Fairview and E3 Inspection requirements under Health and Safety Code (HSC) 17973 and Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 19.40.040.
RATIONALE FOR THE RECOMMENDATION
The issues raised in the appellant’s letter (Attachment 1) and staff’s responses are detailed below. For the sake of brevity, the appeal issues are summarized and not restated in their entirety, with duplicative points combined.
ISSUE 1: The Rental Housing Safety Program (RHSP) exempts units from inspections if they are owner occupied. The appellant asserts that this exemption should also apply to the E3 program.
RESPONSE 1: The E3 inspection program has no relation to the Rental Housing Safety Program, so any exemptions applicable to RHSP are irrelevant to E3 inspections. California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Article 2.2. requires that “Exterior elevated elements that include load-bearing components in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units shall be inspected.” These inspections are required regardless of whether they are occupied by tenants or owners. There are no exemptions for owner-occupied properties or vacant units under Health and Safety Code Section 17973 or Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 19.40.040. State law requires owner-occupied units, including condominiums, to HAC 01/15/2025
Attachment 5
HAC PAGE 41
Internal
p. 4
comply with the inspection certification requirement by hiring a licensed professional to do an inspection of exterior elevated elements.
The Rental Housing Safety Program is a separate program which conducts inspections of rental units for compliance with the Berkeley Housing Code to ensure tenant safety. While that program does exempt owner-occupied units from housing inspections, such exemption carries no relevance with the present issue.
ISSUE 2: The appellant contends the 2015 Berkeley balcony collapse was caused partly by occupant overload overcrowding, not moisture intrusion. He argues the City ignored this factor and used the tragedy to justify the costly E3 program, which he says serves mainly as a revenue generator benefiting staff salaries rather than safety.
RESPONSE 2: The design of the balcony that tragically failed at the Kittredge Street building was found to have been compliant with the building code it was constructed under.
Investigations by subject matter experts found dry-rot and water intrusion to be the cause of the balcony collapse.
Regardless of the details of the tragedy that precipitated the adoption of local and state legislation that underly the E3 program, the City of Berkeley’s Building and Safety Division is responsible for enforcing those local and state codes and have done so correctly in this case.
Revenues collected by the E3 program are restricted to program administration.
ISSUE 3: The appellant asserts that because he is low income and chooses not to rent out his rental units, his rental units should not be subject to compliance with the E3 program.
RESPONSE 3: The E3 program requirements apply to Group R-1 and R-2 occupancies with exterior elevated elements at least 6 feet above grade, regardless of the property owner’s income level or whether units are rented, vacant or owner-occupied.
ISSUE 4: The appellant alleges the appeal fee of $1,000 was arbitrarily decided upon by the Building Official.
RESPONSE 4: The $1,000 Appeal of Building Official Determination fee is explicitly listed on the Planning Department fee schedule, adopted on June 17, 2025 by City Council with Resolution 71,834-N.S. The following explanation for the fee was included in the staff report for Council:
Appeals of Building Official Determinations. Certain decisions under the authority of the City Building Official are subject to appeal, including violations and penalties under BMC Chapter 19.40, the Housing Code. While not common, the City does on occasion receive appeals of these determinations, which requires staff to research and prepare hearing materials and the conduct of the hearing itself. The proposed rate for this new fee is $1,000, representing four hours of staff time at the standard department hourly rate.
ISSUE 5: The appellant objects to the non-refundable nature of the $1,000 fee and questions the impartiality of the Building Official and Commission. He requests that the Planning HAC 01/15/2025
Attachment 5
HAC PAGE 42
Internal
p. 5
Commission order his appeal fee returned and state by ordinance that the appeal fee shall be specifically defined and a reasonable fee so an appeal is not deterred. He requests an exception or hardship exemption to reduce the appeal fee amount, because he is a low- income senior.
RESPONSE 5: The appeal fee was adopted by the City Council and was specifically defined.
The fee is not refundable as its purpose is to offset the cost of staff time spent responding to the appeal.
There is no exception for low-income seniors. The appellant, by his own admission, has chosen not to rent the three other units in his property at 1615 Fairview Street.
In the Building Code, an unreasonable hardship exception is specific to mandated accessibility upgrades when alterations to a building are proposed under a building permit, and where the cost to comply with accessibility requirements would cost disproportionately to the overall cost of the project and only applies to non-residential public accommodations and public housing.
See the California Building Code 11B-202.4 Exception 8. The miscellaneous fee to review unreasonable hardship exceptions does not apply to this case. For property owners appealing a citation, there is an advance deposit hardship waiver (BMC 1.28.070), but in this case, no administrative citation has been issued, so this does not apply.
ISSUE 6: The appellant expresses a desire to convert the four-plex into a single-family dwelling since he uses the other units only for storage, claims that state and local housing mandates (e.g., housing homeless people, released prisoners, and illegal immigrants) result in restrictions on his freedom, and characterizes these regulations as a government “taking” through over-regulation.
RESPONSE 6: Conversion from multi-unit to single-family occupancy requires discretionary zoning review and is generally prohibited under BMC 23.326 Demolition and Dwelling Unit Controls. Regardless, this has no bearing on or relevance to the Building Official’s determination of the need for an E3 inspection.
CONCLUSION
The appellant’s principal concerns relate to fees, hardship relief, and regulatory burden rather than error in interpretation of the regulations and enforcement. The Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) Program is mandated by BMC 19.40.040 and California Health and Safety Code 17973.
Staff find no procedural irregularities or statutory basis for fee reduction or exemption. All property owners in Berkeley with buildings containing three or more dwelling units and exterior elevated elements are required to retain the services of a licensed professional to inspect the exterior elevated elements and complete and sign an E3 Inspection Certification form. The inspection requirement applies to multifamily rental properties as well as condominium projects. Mr. Marowitz’s property at 1615 Fairview St. is an existing R-2 Occupancy Building as defined in the Berkeley Building Code with four dwelling units. The building has existing E3 elements and does not meet the criteria for an exemption.
Due to the clarity of the law on this matter, staff recommends denying the appeal and affirming the Building Official’s determination to uphold enforcement of the Exterior Elevated Elements HAC 01/15/2025
Attachment 5
HAC PAGE 43
Internal
p. 6
(E3) Inspection Program at 1615 Fairview Street and uphold associated fees consistent with Council-adopted policy and State law.
Attachments:
1: Appeal from Mr. Marowitz
2: Building Official Determination, included in email dated 10-9-25 3: State and Local Exterior Elevated Elements Legislation:
• BMC 19.40.040 Section 404 Structural Maintenance
• California Health and Safety Code Section 17973
4: Building and Safety Division Miscellaneous Fees, Page 8 from 2025 Planning Department Fee Schedule
5: Administrative Record and Email Correspondence between Mr. Marowitz and Building and Safety staff
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachment 5
HAC PAGE 44
To: Mr. David Lopez, Building Official City of Berkeley CC: Mr. Ben Bartlett, City Council District 3
CC: Andrew'Marowitz, Appellant/ Impacted Stakeholder/ Property Owner 1615 Fairview St.
Berkeley, CA 94703
Mr. Lopez:
Given that you intend to impose a $1000 non compliiance penalty fee on October 29th,2025, after substantial thought and consideration, I am NOW preparing to Appeal, regardlessofyour truly obscene Appeal fee of $1000, which is arbitrary and capricious on yur part, as wewll as a undeniable deterrent to my original intentions to Appeal.
Accordingly, I will RE document and Re-Submit my Appeal and , I will pay the $1000 Appeal fee, though it will cause me to be unable to pay my property taxes in full. I will deliver the $1000 Appeal Fee, UNDER EMPHATIC PROTEST AND OBJECTION ON MONDAY OCTOBER 27TH, 2025, AND HAND IT TO YOU OR THE INDIVIDUAL AT THE FRONT COUNTER 3RD FLOOR, IF YOU AREUNABLE TO RECEIVE IT I will now prepare the various basies , in the form of bullet points, to set forth the NUMEROUS issues that you have genrated, in addition to my bases for Appeal as tp the EEE enforement .
You shall not mandate how the form of my Appeal should be prepared ,so that you can find fault with it.·
1) I am Appealingt based on you ,as building dire3ctor have arrbitrarily decided that the Appeal fee shall be $1000, which is an overwhelming deterrent to anyone submitting an Appeal/. As previously statd by me, I discovered in your City Council Resolution Fee Schedule 71, 834 N.S., ,dated July 17,2025, on Page 5, Chapter XVII, under miscellanious, "Any Fee NOT Explicitly Covered in THis Fee Schedule, , shall have a Fee of $250. You willfully disregarded that documented component, and arbitrarily stated that the Appeal would take hours and require 4 City employees. However, interestingly, I spoke only to Guilelead Burr AND You .. Yet here you are saying Four people. If Four People will be involved and take numerous hours, then Ms.
Burr AND YOU deprived me of Full and Complete Due Process,as addressed by the U.S.
Constitution, under the 14th Amendment. However, this specific basis for Appeal will be addressed in detail later on in this Appeal.
2) I also asked you ,regarding 71,834 N.S. ,Page 5 Misscellanious XVII, the guidlines for " UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP EXCEPTION". iI asked you what was the criteria for eligibility, as I I believe that I was financially eligible, being a low income senior citizen.
You responded by stating in your email, that you would need 3-5 days to provide said criteria.
If you were immediately aware of the criteria, you would have disclosed it immediately in a few sentences. However, 3-5 days later, you responded by email, that the criteria, whatever it was, was only for Commercial-Properties, and not for Residential Properties. Why did you delay that simple response? Of course, as building director, you made it up / created it to deny any opportunity by me, to be eligible for said exceeption. And then you followed up by staating that Attachment 1 Appeal from Mr. Marowitz
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 45
you would not respond to any further emails. Ironically, you stated that ,simply, you follow the laws that the State and City ZCouncil provided to you. But tha5t was a lie. You fabricated this eleigibility issue, and imposed it on me, to motivate me, along with the $1000 Appeal Fee, to falll in line and beggrudgingly comply with the EEE compliance mandate. Y ou,sir, are abusing your authority, as City Council and the State laws, allow you to make artitrary and capricious determinations and interpretations, ANY WAY YOU WANT, without regard for the impact on the impacted propertyt owner .. As such, you,come off as a bully. • 3) I am a low income senior, retired,, refuse to rent out my Berkeley property, because the City of Berkeley knowingly victimizes landlords, in so many ways, that being a landlord in the City of Berkeley is a most terrible experience, and no one in the City will even address said topic.
Tjhere is a Tenant Protection Ordinance, but no Landlord Protection Ordinance,. There are a expansive mine field of Ordinances that benefit tenants, but there are no ordinances that benefit landlords, AND statutory attorney fees against landlords, if they fail to do, or do in violation , while there are no such statutory attorney fees that protect landlords. There is no equal protection, there is nothing that aids and benefots landlords, so I have refused to rent out my units, and as far as City Council and State laws, mum's the word. Eviction Moratorium? And then the Vacancy Parcel Tax, if a landlord was victimized. It is obscene and unjust, and no one addresses such injustices. It ought to be a crime, but it isn't.Tenants make up 65% of the voters, and our legislators cater to the majority of voters for re-election, so City Council will never raise a finger in support oflandlords. Is that Corrruption?
4) I raised and relied on the issues of the Rental Housing SAFETY Program, for it benefits to landlords, specifically, the Owner Occupoancy Exemption if he resides in a subject unit. I addressed the Owner's right to seld certify his property, based on a cprinted checklist, which includes the same EEE components. However, I spoke to the Supervising Housing Inspector, Andre Sineran (sp), and he states that you are his boss, so whatever you disctate, he will defer to ( or you will descipline him) But that is an Abuse of Process, as the RHSP clearly provides an Owner with documented rights and protections, which you clearly refuse to recognize and willfully ignore as an arbitrary and capricious act, on your part, yet another arguable abuse and violation of Due Process.
5) When being addressed by Galadriel Burr, "Community Services Specialist III, When I asked the process of Appeal and the cost of Appeal, she indicated that she would forward my emails to her supervisor. I then asked her the name and title of the supervisor who she forwarded my emails to, and sjhe repeatedly failed / refused to respond. Anmd I am certain you are not her direct supervisor, which means that her supervisor, her manager, and the director of EEE were, somehow bypassed , when I was intending on following through on my intended Appeal. I have heard the names Jenson, as manager, I have not heard the name of her direct supervisor. I have heard the name of the ddirector of EEE as Mcnulty(?) and all of them ,apparently have you as their booss. Accordingly, arguably, I was deprived of Due Process by Ms .. Burr's direct supervisor, , Mr. Jensen, and Ms. Mcnulty/ McNealy? of a name that sounds similar.
So, how and why' did my intended Appeal wind up on your desk/ for the building official attention, without any Due Process from these intermediate supervisors, manager, and directir of EEE? Is it becauseonly YOU, as bui;lding official, with unlimited interpretation and determination to decide any way youwant , any fee you might decide on, and decide what is and HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 46
isn't in the building services component of the City? I submit that the fact that I Ms. Burr,, her direct supervisor, Mr. Jensen as EEE manager, and the Director ofEEE all refused to address my concerns, refused to address my rights and protections of RHSP, and refused to provide me with an Appeal fee, all relate to a deprivation of my rights to Due Process, while you arbitrarily and capriciously impose a $1000 Appeal fee, the same fee amount at non compliance penalty fee .. I respectfully believe that you regularly abuse your authority, because the City and State have decided to not create specfic detail of laws, ordinances and regulations, thereby allowing you to interpret any which way you want, and disregard the interests of the property owner , while benefitting the City, especially the revenues genrated by the EEE program. 6) I elect yto Appeal the fact that both the City and the State have arbitrarily chosen to disregard the truth, as it pertains to the tragic balcony collapse that occurred in 2015. The City sttled lawsuits for defective building standards, but no less significant , and perhaps more significant, the City and State never mentioned one word about the fact that the incident/ event occurred because there were at least 12 adults that were on that 4'x8' balcony at one time, a serious overload of load bearing weights, that, either in part ,or in whole, caused the collapse of that balcony . according to the news article , six people died instantly and 6 others were critically injued. The weight of those people were more than 2000 pounds. The load was simply too much that is was major component, of the failure of that balcony. Yet there was not one word of mention of this component. I expect that pointing to this component was too emotionally a n ugly issue, regardless of tsuch truths. So, the City and the news pointed to a lack of caulk, leading to entry of mositure, leading to structure weakness, which was also a component, but not the root cause. I honest;ly believe the root cause was too many people and too much weight.
Had there been 1/2/3/4 people on that balcony, on that fateful day, the collapse would never have occurred. Just like elevators, there should be warning signs, stating person and weight limits, but to vthis day, no such warning signs are posted, unlike elevators. This then, is yet another arguable failure that led to the collapse.
And,as building official, you arbitrarily refuse to address this issue, despite my requests that you calculate the load bearing limits of said balcony. Should such a balcony be sufficient to support a !moving load of 2000 poiunds, or more? Your refuslal to address this issue is yet further irresponsibility and arbitrary discretion of the building official.
If my assessment is correct, then property owners are being unjustly subjected to thousands of dollars of cost burden to comply with EEE mandates,. All the while, the EEE program is raking in millions of dollars of revenue to the general fund, allegedly to pay the cost of operation of the EEE program. But said costs are relatively minimal, but pays the salaries, benefits, and pensions of related city staff, as well as city wide staff general funding. I submit, this is one of dozens, if not hundred or more taxes, fees, and penalties for the City employee funding .. This is especially unjust, if the source reason for the tragic incident was in paart or in whole, the overload issue of that balcony ..
It is unjust enrichment by the City to require property owners to pay and pay and pay for something that these well intended young adults unknowingly might have caused.
In fact, I inquired with you, as building official, why the Building Department refuses to engage in performing these same inspections. It would relieve property owners of the cost of hiring an independent 3rd party to inspect. You response was the City doesn't have the manpower to inspect the EEE program. II question if that is the real reason. The Building Department doesn't want to engage in inspectionds, for the potential liability, if the inspection is HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 47
,somehow less than effecitve. The building department could 1) spread the workload amongst the RHSP personaell, the biuilding inspectors, or even hire another inspector, on a temorary basis, to accommodate the workload. Isn't that the truth? The City, time and time agqin, has no problem making the size and cost of government larger and more expensive. Suddenly, on this concern, they cannot add an employee? That sounds pretty far fetched to me, by itself.
You have stated that you rely on State laws, but the truth is that you mix, match, apply to either and both State law and City Ordinances, whichever provides you with full and complete authority, to do and say, whatever you choose, in maximizing your authority and discretion, and , the property owner and the cost burden, be damned. Who cares how much this costs the burdened property? Not the building official, that is for certain. And much of the cost finds its way to City revenues,as prviously stated, another revenue funding tool to pay for city staff, including , but not limited to, City employees having more paid holidays than any other city in the State, also dollar for dollar matching staff retirement funding, and also the benefit of working from home 2-3 days per week. Recently I observed a person , who was working from home, walking the dog 4 times a day, most likely to de-stress, but paid by the employer. Working from home, emloyees rarely pick up the phone when the public calls. calls back at THEIR convenience in 24/48 hours. And there is a ton of abuse, long breaks and lunches, bathroom breaks, cooking and washing, smoking whatever, drinking alcohol, naps, and the potential abuses are limitless .. As a City employee myself, decades ago, as a City employee, just do the job, ( 4=5 hours a day maximum. Alll paid bgy taxpayers. iin my opinion the City of Berkeley pampers and spoils City stafff, all paid by ever rising taxes., but that is only an educated opinion. City staff, always say they work long and hard. As ,an ex-City employee, Why do I tend to disbelieve that? 7) If I were allowed to apply certain components of the Rental Housing SAFETY Program, my second floor flat, Apt. #4, as Owner Occupied, would be exempt. If my second flloor flat were exempt, then the entire property would be exempt, as there are no EEE components on the first/ ground floor that exceed the six foot height limits. In fact, the ground floor units #1/#2/ and #3 have no EEE elements at all, being two feet about the soil. Accordingly, lam Appealing on this basis. If I caused injury to myself as the sole occupant of #4, I couldn't and wouldn't file a lawsuit against myself. Yet the EEE department is adament to mandate that I correct anything on the second floor, of which I am the sole occupant. All the while, the EEE program is gernerating millions of dollars in revenue. How many buildings are subjected to the mandates of the EEE program? Thousands? Fees, building permits, the cost of the 3rd party contractor, architect, engineer. I attempted tto have a 3rd party inspector come and do a visual inspection.
For an official inspection, the ii;ispectors charge $800-1000. The building Permit costs , minimum $365, repairs and materials? I refuse to rent out my units, and will never do so, and waiting for interests rates to come down, and sell my property. So, my income is low, and I am a senior with low income? How can I afford these costs? I can't.. And what is depressing is the building official, and apparently, the City of Berkeley doesn't carein the least. What ifthere are some noteworthy corrections that are required to be addressed? What if the corrections cost $10,000 or more? How could I possibly have the money to pay for such costs? I can't.. Will the building department place a lien on my property? Will they take my property, because I cannot afford to make such exhorbitant c01Tections? This is also a basis for my Appeal.
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 48
8) The rules state that the Appeal Fee is non-refundable. But, what if the Building Official is arbitrarily charging anAppeal Fee that is obscenely too much. ie $260? I ask that the the Administrative authority, apparently, the Berkeley Planning Commission consider and / or order my Appeal fee refunded/ returned, and state by Ordiinance, that the Appeal Fee shall be specifically and explicitly defined, and a reasonable fee, so that an Appeal is not detered, as the building official has arbitrarily and unilaterally has deicided. I believe that THIS was why the intended Appeal bypassed all of the intermediate staff, and went straight to the building official; because he, and only he has the authority to impose whatever fee he deicides, and he calculates a deterent of any Appeal. The building official should never have been involved until the Appeal was already in process. Accoredingly, the supervisor, or the manager, or the EEE director should have set/decided on the amount of the Appeal fee, not the building Official. I asked Mr. Lopez to recuse himself, and to allow an independent individual, who would not be BIASED, to referee the processes ofmy Appeal, but ,clearly, Mr. Lopez has refused. He enjoys his power, and his authority to decide any way and anyhow, that he chooses.
I wanted someone else who would be fair and impartial, as that is how the Due Process Rights work. But, Mr. Lopez, as Building Officiial, is anything BUT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. It is a completely rigged game. Every employee within the building department answers toi him, including the Rental Housing SAFETY program supervising Housing Inspector, and that individual will never diagree with Mr. Lopez, the Building Official. Accordingly, he defers to anything the Building Official decides, every time. THAT ... , is NOT FAIR and/OR IMPARTIAL.
I respectfully, inquire, is the Planning Commissiuon FAIR AND IMPARTIAL? Respec5tfully, under Due Process Rights, under the 14th Amendment, I am entited to a Fair and Impartial Hearing/Appeal.. Respectfully, I am unsure if the Planning Commission is/ can be Fair and Impartial?
Accordingly, this is a basis for my Appeal.
9). Does the City I the Planning Commission regulations have a basis for allowing the subject property owner some form of Low Income Senior exception /exemption, that provides avoidancer of the cost budens of this extremely expensive program? Does the XVII Miscellanious provision of "Unreasonable Hardhip Exception " as stated in the Fee Schedule of City Council, under 71, 834 N.S. apply to me, as the subject property owner, especially when factoring in the totolity of the circumstnances of Apartments # 1/#2/and #3 as exempt from EEE as having no EEE components and the owner occupying the 2nd floor #4? Aside from having to pay property taxes, my recurring expenses are Food and Drink, Fuel, Insurance, Internet, Utilities, , Vehicle Registration, and some etc ..... 10) Another arguable issue in this dispute, that is valid, is that I could/ were allowed, I would prefer to convert my 4plex into a single family dwelling, as I treat it currently, using the three vacant units as storage only. But, as alway the government runs the show, and my freedom to do what I wish with my property. But, instead, both the City and the WState refuse to allow me to downsize/ reduce to a single family dwelling, becaiuse of the housing shortage that the State has created, by housing the homeless who flooded California, housing early release jail inmates, because it costs the state too much money to maintain the prison stystem, anmd allowing/ require housing so many illegal immigrnats into the State of California. And so, government has taking control of my housing choices and opportunties. Freedom, or the lack thereof, just the way I HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 49
pictured it. I I have no say in my property, Only to put my naame on the title, and to pay tax, after tax, after tax. Freedom? Where? Is this a Taking by over-regulation? The Courtshave interpreted , NOT unless such a taking has cause my property and property value to lose 90%.
What a disgraceful system We/ I live in.
This is yet another basis formy Appeal, of course. I would very much choose to convert my building into a single family dwelling.
In closing, I just want to be left alone, in peace, in my property, that I live alone in, until I sell, or die, whichever comes first. But, government is simply not ever going to leave me alone.
Government is paid and authorized to make people miserable, in particular property owners, with the never ending parcel taxes, Government is the owner of my property, when one strips away all the pretense and get real. Freedom? Where. Local government taxes everything. There is no freedom. There is government authority , control, and a hundred different taxes, or fees, and/ or penalties for not complying with government control and taxation. The majority of people's wallets are constantly near empty/ ie living paycheck to paycheck.As such, life sucks, thanks to government.
This is a basis for Applealing, but no one in government is listening. or cares. Who is watching the watcher? Not the legislators. In my opinion, The legislators never say no to government Government is not the public interest, it is government serving the interests of government, and embedding itself in the public interest.
RespectfulJy ~ Marow· z 510-356-6813
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 50
E3 requirements for 1615 Fairview St.
From Lopez, David <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/9/2025 4:37 PM
To '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc Jensen, Jeff <[email protected]>
� 4 attachments (6 MB)
2025-09-16 E3 Warning Letter_ 1615 Fairview.pdf; 2016 Inspection Certification 052 154301400_ 1615 Fairview.pdf; 2016 ED 052 154301400_ 1615 Fairview.pdf; Property Detail Report_ 1615 Fairview St.pdf; Good afternoon Mr. Marowitz,
Your numerous recent communications have been forwarded to me by staff. I understand that you were frustrated while awaiting my response.
First, I must address the tone of your communications to staff. Your messages have been unprofessional and discourteous. This is unacceptable. If similar communications continue, I will cease direct correspondence and refer the matter to my Director. City staff must be treated with respect.
Second, the information provided to you by Ms. Burr-both by email and in person-is accurate. She has reviewed your case with me, and I have confirmed that her guidance reflects the City's interpretation of applicable codes.
To clarify the matter: this is my formal determination. If you disagree, you may appeal my interpretation of the code in accordance with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Title 19.28.020, Section 113 and 19.44. The notice of appeal shall be filed, along with the payment of the appeal fee, at my office within 30 days of this email and must contain the information listed in BMC Section 19.44.40.
1. There seems to be some confusion and comingling of Berkeley Municipal Code programs in your communications. You frequently refer to RHSP when addressing E3 compliance concerns. The two programs are two different and distinct programs. Ms. Burr is not associated with RHSP. She is only associated with the E3 program. a. The Rental Housing Safety Program is tasked with enforcing the housing code and the City requires that all rental units in the City of Berkeley be inspected for conformance to the housing code per BMC 19.40. The authority is provided by the State under California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5 Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation, Sections 1179101, 17920, and 17970, and other housing related Codes as adopted by the City.
i. Owner-occupied units are exempt from RHSP inspections because the program's intent is to protect tenants from substandard housing conditions. https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/ AAQkAGE 1 Y2JIZGE4LWE2M2EtNGVkNC05M2E3L T JiNjgyY2U0YWU 1 MwAQAEo Y0wS7PBtJtzxkeM41yos%3... 1 /3
Attachment 2 Building Official Determination
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 51
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 52
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 53
The Berkeley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 7977-NS, passed July 8, 2025.
19.40.040 Structural Requirements.
404--Structural Maintenance
A. Pursuant to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 17973 ( inspection
deadlines in subsection (d) notwithstanding) projecting exterior elevated wood and metal decks, balconies, landings, stairway systems, guardrails, handrails, or any parts thereof in weather-exposed areas of Group R-1 and R-2 Occupancies, as defined in the most recent edition of the California Building Code, shall be inspected within six months of adoption of this section, and every six years thereafter by a licensed general contractor, licensed architect, licensed civil or structural engineer, or certified building inspector or building official who are not employees of the City of Berkeley to verify that the elements are in general safe condition, adequate working order, and do not exhibit signs of deterioration, decay, corrosion or similar damage that could pose a safety concern and there is no evidence of active water intrusion in concealed spaces of the inspected elements. The inspection schedule set forth above shall apply retroactively to the original enactment of the City’s Exterior Elevated Elements inspection program on July 14, 2015; cyclical inspections shall be completed by March 31, 2022 and every six years thereafter.
B. Pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 5551, projecting exterior elevated wood and metal decks, balconies, landings, stairway systems, guardrails, handrails, or any parts thereof in weather-exposed areas of condominium projects containing 3 or more dwelling units shall be inspected by January 1, 2025, and then at least once every nine years. The inspection shall be conducted by a licensed structural engineer or architect of a random and statistically significant sample of exterior elevated elements for which the association has maintenance or repair responsibility.
The inspection reports shall comply with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 17973 Subsections (c) and (d). The property owner shall be responsible for complying with the repair requirements set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 17973 Subsections (g), (h) and (i). Property owners shall provide proof of compliance with this section by submitting an affidavit form provided by the City. The affidavit shall be signed by the responsible inspecting party and submitted to the Housing Code Enforcement Office. If the inspector indicates corrective work is required, a second affidavit form shall be submitted once the work is completed. For the purpose of this section, elevated "weather-exposed areas" mean those areas which are not interior building areas, extend beyond exterior walls and are located more Attachment 3 State and Local Exterior Elevated Elements Legislation BMC 19.40.040, Structural Requirements
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 54
BMC 19.40.040, Structural Requirements Page 2 of 2
The Berkeley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 7977-NS, passed July 8, 2025. than six feet above adjacent grade. For newly constructed residential buildings, inspections shall occur no later than six years following issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for such buildings. (Ord. 7840-NS § 2, 2022)
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 55
Code: Select Code Section: 1 or 2 or 1001 Search
DIVISION 13. HOUSING [17000 - 19997] ( Division 13 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 60. ) PART 1.5. REGULATION OF BUILDINGS USED FOR HUMAN HABITATION [17910 - 17998.3] ( Part 1.5 added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1844. )
CHAPTER 5. Administration and Enforcement [17960 - 17992] ( Chapter 5 added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1844. ) 17973.
Up^ << Previous Next >> cross-reference chaptered bills PDF | Add To My Favorites Search Phrase: Highlight
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE - HSC
ARTICLE 2.2. Exterior Elevated Elements: Inspections. [17973- 17973.] ( Article 2.2 added by Stats. 2018, Ch. 445, Sec. 2. ) (a) Exterior elevated elements that include load-bearing components in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units shall be inspected. The inspection shall be performed by a licensed architect; licensed civil or structural engineer; a building contractor holding any or all of the “A,” “B,” or “C-5” license classifications issued by the Contractors State License Board, with a minimum of five years’ experience, as a holder of the aforementioned classifications or licenses, in constructing multistory wood frame buildings; or an individual certified as a building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association, as determined by the local jurisdiction. These individuals shall not be employed by the local jurisdiction while performing these inspections. The purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered. The person or business performing the inspection shall be hired by the owner of the building. (b) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following definitions:
(1) “Associated waterproofing elements” include flashings, membranes, coatings, and sealants that protect the load-bearing components of exterior elevated elements from exposure to water and the elements. (2) “Exterior elevated element” means the following types of structures, including their supports and railings:
balconies, decks, porches, stairways, walkways, and entry structures that extend beyond exterior walls of the building and which have a walking surface that is elevated more than six feet above ground level, are designed for human occupancy or use, and rely in whole or in substantial part on wood or wood-based products for structural support or stability of the exterior elevated element. (3) “Load-bearing components” are those components that extend beyond the exterior walls of the building to deliver structural loads from the exterior elevated element to the building. (c) The inspection required by this section shall at a minimum include:
(1) Identification of each type of exterior elevated element that, if found to be defective, decayed, or deteriorated to the extent that it does not meet its load requirements, would, in the opinion of the inspector, constitute a threat to the health or safety of the occupants.
(2) Assessment of the load-bearing components and associated waterproofing elements of the exterior elevated elements identified in paragraph (1) using methods allowing for evaluation of their performance by direct visual examination or comparable means of evaluating their performance. For purposes of this section, a sample of at least 15 percent of each type of exterior elevated element shall be inspected. (3) The evaluation and assessment shall address each of the following as of the date of the evaluation:
(A) The current condition of the exterior elevated elements.
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites 9/30/25, 11:01 AM California Code, HSC 17973
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=17973 1/3 HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 56
(B) Expectations of future performance and projected service life. (C) Recommendations of any further inspection necessary. (4) A written report of the evaluation stamped or signed by the inspector presented to the owner of the building or the owner’s designated agent within 45 days of completion of the inspection. The report shall include photographs, any test results, and narrative sufficient to establish a baseline of the condition of the components inspected that can be compared to the results of subsequent inspections. In addition to the evaluation required by this section, the report shall advise which, if any, exterior elevated element poses an immediate threat to the safety of the occupants, and whether preventing occupant access or conducting emergency repairs, including shoring, are necessary.
(d) (1) The inspection shall be completed by January 1, 2026, and by January 1 every six years thereafter. The inspector conducting the inspection shall produce an initial report pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) and, if requested by the owner, a final report indicating that any required repairs have been completed. A copy of any report that recommends immediate repairs, advises that any building assembly poses an immediate threat to the safety of the occupants, or that preventing occupant access or emergency repairs, including shoring, are necessary, shall be provided by the inspector to the owner of the building and to the local enforcement agency within 15 days of completion of the report. Subsequent inspection reports shall incorporate copies of prior inspection reports, including the locations of the exterior elevated elements inspected. Local enforcement agencies may determine whether any additional information is to be provided in the report and may require a copy of the initial or final reports, or both, be submitted to the local jurisdiction. Copies of all inspection reports shall be maintained in the building owner’s permanent records for not less than two inspection cycles, and shall be disclosed and delivered to the buyer at the time of any subsequent sale of the building. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the owner of the building confirms the presence of asbestos containing material (ACM) during the inspection process and is unable to complete the inspection as a result, the owner of the building shall have up to nine months to complete the necessary ACM abatement in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws. Upon completion of ACM abatement, the owner of the building shall have no more than three months to complete the inspection in paragraph (1). The owner of the building shall retain records confirming the presence of ACM and its abatement for three years after completion of the inspection. (e) The inspection of buildings for which a building permit application has been submitted on or after January 1, 2019, shall occur no later than six years following issuance of a certificate of occupancy from the local jurisdiction and shall otherwise comply with the provisions of this section. (f) If the property was inspected within three years prior to January 1, 2019, by an inspector as described in subdivision (a) and a report of that inspector was issued stating that the exterior elevated elements and associated waterproofing elements are in proper working condition and do not pose a threat to the health and safety of the public, no new inspection pursuant to this section shall be required until January 1, 2026. (g) An exterior elevated element found by the inspector that is in need of repair or replacement shall be corrected by the owner of the building. All necessary permits for repair or replacement shall be obtained from the local jurisdiction. All repair and replacement work shall be performed by a qualified and licensed contractor in compliance with all of the following:
(1) The recommendations of a licensed professional described in subdivision (a). (2) Any applicable manufacturer’s specifications.
(3) The California Building Standards Code, consistent with subdivision (d) of Section 17922 of the Health and Safety Code.
(4) All local jurisdictional requirements.
(h) (1) An exterior elevated element that the inspector advises poses an immediate threat to the safety of the occupants, or finds preventing occupant access or emergency repairs, including shoring, or both, are necessary, shall be considered an emergency condition and the owner of the building shall perform required preventive measures immediately. Immediately preventing occupant access to the exterior elevated element until emergency repairs can be completed constitutes compliance with this paragraph. Repairs of emergency conditions shall comply with the requirements of subdivision (g), be inspected by the inspector, and reported to the local enforcement agency.
(2) The owner of the building requiring corrective work to an exterior elevated element that, in the opinion of the inspector, does not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the occupants, shall apply for a permit within 120 9/30/25, 11:01 AM California Code, HSC 17973
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=17973 2/3 HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 57
days of receipt of the inspection report. Once the permit is approved, the owner of the building shall have 120 days to make the repairs unless an extension of time is granted by the local enforcement agency. (i) (1) The owner of the building shall be responsible for complying with the requirements of this section. (2) If the owner of the building does not comply with the repair requirements within 180 days, the inspector shall notify the local enforcement agency and the owner of the building. If within 30 days of the date of the notice the repairs are not completed, the owner of the building shall be assessed a civil penalty based on the fee schedule set by the local authority of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500) per day until the repairs are completed, unless an extension of time is granted by the local enforcement agency. (3) In the event that a civil penalty is assessed pursuant to this section, a building safety lien may be recorded in the county recorder’s office by the local jurisdiction in the county in which the parcel of land is located and from the date of recording shall have the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien. (j) (1) A building safety lien authorized by this section shall specify the amount of the lien, the name of the agency on whose behalf the lien is imposed, the street address, the legal description and assessor’s parcel number of the parcel on which the lien is imposed, and the name and address of the recorded owner of the building. (2) In the event that the lien is discharged, released, or satisfied, either through payment or foreclosure, notice of the discharge containing the information specified in paragraph (1) shall be recorded by the governmental agency. A safety lien and the release of the lien shall be indexed in the grantor-grantee index. (3) A building safety lien may be foreclosed by an action brought by the appropriate local jurisdiction for a money judgment.
(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the county recorder may impose a fee on the city to reimburse the costs of processing and recording the lien and providing notice to the owner of the building. A city may recover from the owner of the building any costs incurred regarding the processing and recording of the lien and providing notice to the owner of the building as part of its foreclosure action to enforce the lien. (k) The continued and ongoing maintenance of exterior elevated elements in a safe and functional condition in compliance with these provisions shall be the responsibility of the owner of the building. (l) Local enforcement agencies shall have the ability to recover enforcement costs associated with the requirements of this section.
(m) For any building subject to the provisions of this section that is proposed for conversion to condominiums to be sold to the public after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by this section shall be conducted prior to the first close of escrow of a separate interest in the project and shall include the inspector’s recommendations for repair or replacement of any exterior elevated element found to be defective, decayed, or deteriorated to the extent that it does not meet its load requirements, and would, in the opinion of the inspector, constitute a threat to the health or safety of the occupants. The inspection report and written confirmation by the inspector that any repairs or replacements recommended by the inspector have been completed shall be submitted to the Department of Real Estate by the proponent of the conversion and shall be a condition to the issuance of the final public report. A complete copy of the inspection report and written confirmation by the inspector that any repairs or replacements recommended by the inspector have been completed shall be included with the written statement of defects required by Section 1134 of the Civil Code, and provided to the local jurisdiction in which the project is located. The inspection, report, and confirmation of completed repairs shall be a condition of the issuance of a final inspection or certificate of occupancy by the local jurisdiction.
(n) This section shall not apply to a common interest development, as defined in Section 4100 of the Civil Code. (o) The governing body of any city, county, or city and county, may enact ordinances or laws imposing requirements greater than those imposed by this section. (Amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 22, Sec. 32. (AB 130) Effective June 30, 2025.) 9/30/25, 11:01 AM California Code, HSC 17973
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=17973 3/3 HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 58
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE effective 7/1/25 CITY OF BERKELEY PAGE 8 FEE TYPE / DESCRIPTION FEE Re marks
XVII. MISCELLANEOUS
Duplication Fees Amount specified in A.R. 3.8
Pre-submittal Review/Consultation $250 per hour, with a minimum of one hour City Staff Review
(For items that require review and which are not
otherwise explicitly covered in Fee Schedule, such
as Alternate Method Applications, Requests for
Unreasonable Hardship Exceptions, Requests for
Determinations, BORP Submittals, etc)
$250 per hour, with a minimum of one hour
Staff time required to follow-up on non-compliance $250 per hour, with a minimum of one hour Address Assignment $250 per hour, with a minimum of one hour Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $250 per hour, with a minimum of one hour Processing fee for refunds Per BMC
7 .20.050
or hourly charges based on time spent, with a minimum of one hour at staff time rate of $250
Seismic Evaluation Report: Report Review
(includes 1 r
echeck)
$612
Administrative Services Fee $250 For services provided by administrative staff outside of plan check or permitting services charged elsewhere; e.g. processing documents, recording notices, researching records
Appeal of Building Official Determination $1,000 Assumes four hours staff time. Appeals are heard by hearing body as specified in BMC Title 19
BUILDING & SAFETY
Attachment 4 Building and Safety Division Miscellaneous Fees HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 59Page 44 of 325
1. Staff Response (10-3-2025) to Letter from Mr. Marowitz (submitted 9-25-2025)
2. Letter from Mr. Marowitz (submitted 9-25-2025)
3. RealQuest Report for 1615 Fairview St (9-22-2025)
4. E3 Warning Letter and Proof of Service (9-16-2025)
5. E3 Exemption Declaration Form (signed 8-01-2021)
6. E3 Inspection Certification Form (signed 6-30-2016)
7. E3 Exemption Declaration Form (signed 3-1-2016)
8. Emails Communications between Mr. Marowitz and Staff Attachment 5 Administrative Record and Email Correspondence between Mr.
Marowitz and Building and Safety Staff
Index for Administrative Record for 1615 Fairview St
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 60
Building & Safety Division
E3 Inspection Program October 3, 2025
1 Mr. Andrew Marowitz,
The following is a response to your letter submitted in-person on September 25, 2025, regarding E3 Inspection Program requirements for your property located at 1615 Fairview St, Berkeley.
California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Article 2.2., Section 17973(a), requires that “Exterior elevated elements that include load-bearing components in all buildings containing three or more multifamily dwelling units shall be inspected.” These inspections are required regardless of whether they are occupied by either tenants or owners. There are no exemptions for owner-occupied properties or vacant units under Health and Safety Code Section 17973 or Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 19.40.040. In fact, condominiums that have Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) are also required to be inspected. Condominiums are, for the most part, owner occupied.
In 2016, an E3 Exemption Declaration Form was submitted, signed March 1, 2016, (attached) declaring under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that Inspection Certification requirements do not apply to your property at 1615 Fairview St because:
1. “Wood-framed or steel-framed exterior elements (i.e. exterior balconies, decks, stairs, landings, terraces, walkways, guardrails, handrails, or similar appurtenances) elevated more than six feet above adjacent grade DO NOT EXIST at this building.”
Subsequently, an E3 Inspection Certification form (attached) was submitted, signed by a licensed professional on June 30, 2016, verifying that your building at 1615 Fairview is 4-unit apartment house with exterior elevated elements subject to the City of Berkeley’s E3 Inspection Program. You also confirmed in your letter dated September 25, 2025 that your building is a 4-unit apartment house with exterior elevated elements. A 4-unit apartment house is considered an R-2 occupancy per California Building Code Section 310.
In 2021, an additional E3 Exemption Declaration Form was submitted, signed August 1, 2021, (attached) declaring under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that Inspection Certification requirements do not apply to your property at 1615 Fairview St because:
1. “Wood-framed or steel-framed exterior elements (i.e. exterior balconies, decks, stairs, landings, terraces, walkways, guardrails, handrails, or similar appurtenances) elevated more than six feet above adjacent grade DO NOT EXIST at this building”
2. “This building is not an R-1 or R-2 occupancy. It does not have 3 or more dwelling units and is not one of the other building types listed above. (Please note, R-1 and R-2 occupancies as defined in the California Building Code do not correspond to Berkeley’s R-1 and R-2 zoning districts.)”
3. You also checked the box indicating the building type to be “Residential Condo Building” and added a notation that the building is a “Multi-Unit Home House”.
Your letter received on September 25, 2025, states that Apartment #4 does have exterior elevated elements, but is exempt from E3 Inspection Program requirements because it is owner occupied. As HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 61
2 stated above, there are currently no exemptions for owner-occupied properties under Health and Safety Code (HSC) 17973 or Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 19.40.040.
To clarify any confusion, the Berkeley Municipal Code Section 25.502.020 S.16. defines single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings as follows:
Single-Family Dwelling - A building designed for and occupied exclusively by one household, or may provide accommodations for six or fewer employees as "employee housing" pursuant to Healthy and Safety Code Section 17021.5."
Multi-Family Dwelling. - A building, group of buildings, or portion of a building used or designed as three or more dwelling units.
By your own admission and by confirming in our research of property records the property at 1615 Fairview is a 4-unit multi-family dwelling. Whether the units are occupied or not, has no bearing on whether the building is a multi-family dwelling or not. As defined by BMC Section 25.502.020 S.16 the structure at 1615 Fairview is a Multi-Family Dwelling building.
Per Berkeley Municipal Code, the inspection schedule set forth in BMC 19.40.040 shall apply retroactively to the original enactment of the City’s Exterior Elevated Elements inspection program on July 14, 2015; cyclical inspections of all buildings subject to E3 Inspection Program requirements shall be completed by March 31, 2022 and every six years thereafter. The E3 Inspection Certification form dated June 30, 2016 placed your property in compliance with the prior E3 inspection cycle, but no E3 Inspection Certification form was received by the March 31, 2022 deadline.
On September 16, 2025 staff issued a Notice of Violation and Warning of Administrative Citation (attached) to notify you that you are in violation of Section 19.40.040 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, which requires owners of buildings with three or more dwelling or sleeping units to hire a licensed or certified professional to inspect the building’s exterior elevated elements and verify that the elements are in general safe condition. You were given until October 16, 2025 to comply with the Notice of Violation.
According to California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Article 2.2., Section 17973, paragraph (o) “The governing body of any city, county, or city and county, may enact ordinances or laws imposing requirements greater than those imposed by this section.” The City must comply with State law and may impose more stringent requirements, but cannot impose less stringent requirements than dictated by State law. Therefore, your property at 1615 Fairview, which is a 4-unit multi-family dwelling with exterior elevated elements is subject to E3 Inspection Program requirements under Berkeley Municipal Code Section 19.40.040.
Per your request, I have included a copy of your previously submitted Inspection Certification form dated June 30, 2016, as well as copies of your Exemption Declaration forms from 2016 and 2021.
Regards,
Galadriel Burr
Community Services Specialist III
Building & Safety Division
[email protected]
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 62
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 63
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 64
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 65
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 66
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 67
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 68
Property Detail Report
For Property Located At :
1615 FAIRVIEW ST, BERKELEY, CA 94703-2363
Owner Information
Owner Name: MAROWITZ ANDREW
Mailing Address: 1615 FAIRVIEW ST, BERKELEY CA 94703-2363 C010 Vesting Codes: SM / /
Location Information
Legal Description: LOT 7
County: ALAMEDA, CA APN: 052-1543-014
Census Tract / Block: 4240.01 / 3 Alternate APN: 052154301400 Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: HAMON
Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 4-A3 /
Legal Lot: 7 Tract #:
Legal Block: R School District: BERKELEY
Market Area: School District Name: BERKELEY
Neighbor Code: Munic/Township: BERKELEY INCORP
Owner Transfer Information
Recording/Sale Date: / Deed Type:
Sale Price: 1st Mtg Document #:
Document #:
Last Market Sale Information
Recording/Sale Date: 07/18/1994 / 1st Mtg Amount/Type: / Sale Price:
$12,400 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: /
Sale Type: FULL 1st Mtg Document #:
Document #: 254557 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: /
Deed Type: TRUSTEE DEED 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: /
Transfer Document #: Price Per SqFt: $4.24
New Construction: Multi/Split Sale:
Title Company:
Lender:
Seller Name: PETRAK JOHN H
Prior Sale Information
Prior Rec/Sale Date: 04/02/1993 / Prior Lender:
Prior Sale Price: $40,000 Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: /
Prior Doc Number: 103633 Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: /
Prior Deed Type: TRUSTEE DEED
Property Characteristics
Gross Area: 2,922 Parking Type: Construction: WOOD
Living Area: 2,922 Garage Area: Heat Type:
Tot Adj Area: Garage Capacity: Exterior wall:
Above Grade: Parking Spaces: Porch Type:
Total Rooms: 15 Basement Area: Patio Type:
Bedrooms: 5 Finish Bsmnt Area: Pool:
Bath(F/H): 4 / Basement Type: Air Cond:
Year Built / Eff: 1903 / 1903 Roof Type: Style: L-SHAPE Fireplace: / Foundation: Quality: AVERAGE
# of Stories: 2 Roof Material: Condition:
Other Improvements:
Site Information
Zoning: Acres: 0.15 County Use: RES PROPERTY OF 2,3
OR 4 UNITS (2800)
Lot Area: 6,750 Lot Width/Depth: x State Use:
Land Use: MULTI FAMILY
DWELLING
Res/Comm Units: 4 / Water Type:
Site Influence: Sewer Type:
Tax Information
Total Value: $125,970 Assessed Year: 2025 Property Tax: $7,135.08 Land Value: $67,184 Improved %: 47% Tax Area: 13000
Improvement Value: $58,786 Tax Year: 2024 Tax Exemption:
Total Taxable Value: $125,970
9/22/25, 3:55 PM RealQuest.com ® - Report
https://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordno=0&reportoptions=0&1758581680353&1758581680354 1/1 HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 69
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 70
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 71
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 72
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 73
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 74
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 75
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 76
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 1:26 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Request for waiver of penalty payment administrative citation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2015/jun/17/berkeley-balcony-collapse- california-pic
tures
This photo was taken by the guardian, as referenced above. If you go to that website and initiate the search as stated aboe, that website will allow you to enlarge/ blow up the photo to double size, thereby clearly showing the distance of the balcony and the exterior wall, as closely estimated by the guy using the tape measure. By my eye, he is measuring 16-18" from the wall, for ALL of the beams, not just a few..
BUT the Getty photo that I provided demonstrates that the balcony floor beams broke off right at the building for four out of seven of those beams. INCREDIBLE !!! This means that a decision was made to tamper with the beams, by shortening them, and arguing that water penetration and wood rot was the basis for the collapse, not the weight and number of people. Assuming that the distance by the tape measure was 16/18" , that is not quite half of the 48" deep balcony, which is where the sloping angle begins. And the balcony flipped over and was perched upside down on the lower balcony It also deflects away from the notion that pressure treated lumber was never used and never required, an undeniable flaw of the building code and the building official. BUT , tampering with evidence???? WOW !!!!
This, then, was a full blown cover up by the City and the building dept.
Where are the photos that were taken from the investigation of that balcony? What entity was the investigative team?
Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 77
From: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:48 PM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for waiver of penalty payment administrative citation
Dear Mr. Marowitz,
If you are cited, you may appeal a citation, and you may submit a Request for Waiver of Penalty Payment Administrative Citation Issued in the City of Berkeley, with accompanying documentation. You have not been issued a citation. Therefore, you do not have a citation to appeal and have no reason to submit a Request for Waiver of Penalty Payment Administrative Citation.
Sincerely,
Jenny McNulty, Resilient Buildings Program Manager
Special Projects / Building & Safety Division
Phone: (510) 981-7451
Email: [email protected]
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 78
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:32 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Unreasonable hardship exception
Is this an appropriate form and format to request a financial hardship waiver of the un
affordable costs of the EEE compliance mandates? SEE BELOW.
Mr. Klein : I just discovered yet another question that relates to the basis for my Appeal. I asked Mr. Lopez, what is the unreasonable hardship exemption criteria, because I believe that my income level would result in me being eligible.
Mr. Lopez stated that there is no exemption for residential properties, only commercial properties.
What I clearly alluded to is my financial limitations, of which Mr. Lopez should have recognized that was my concern. He should have directed me to this request for waiver of payment. BUT I have not been issued a citation of any sort. Mr. Lopez is not in the business of providing assistance to individuals. He is in the business of imposing his authority and generating revenue for the City. Thank you very much.
I just discovered this financial needs "Request for Waiver of Penalty Payment Administrative Citation Issued in the City of Berkeley"
The person requesting the waiver will, following completion of the review by the processing agency and/or the issuing agency, be mailed the results of the review. Please complete this form and submit it to: City of Berkeley City Manager’s Office 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Please note that you are making this application under penalty of perjury. Any information omitted may result in the denial of this motion. I hereby request a temporary waiver of the required deposit of penalty and that the City of Berkeley City Manager’s Office proceed to schedule the appeal on the listed Administrative Citations for the following reasons:
______________________________________________________________________________ _____________
______________________________________________________________________________ _____________
______________________________________________________________________________ _____________ _______________________________________________________________ Date: _________________ Total Amount Due: $
______________ Citant’s Name:
__________________________________ Telephone: ( ) __ Citation #: ____________________ ______________________ ____________________ ____________________ HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 79
______________________ ____________________ Address:
______________________________________________________________________________ _ Street City State Zip Social Security # ________-______-_____________ CDL #_____________________________ FINANCIAL INFORMATION: Employer Name:
__________________________________________________________________________ Employer Address:
_________________________________________________________________________ Street City State Zip 1. EMPLOYMENT 2. SUPPORTED BY: 3. PERSONS SUPPORTED: _____ Employed _____ Self _____ Self _____ Full Time _____ Spouse _____ Spouse _____ Part Time _____ Parents _____Children (# of) ______ _____ Unemployed _____ Welfare _____ Other _____________ _____ Student _____ S.S.I. _____ Total _____________ _____ Disabled _____ A.F.D.C. _____ Homemaker _____ Unemployment _____ Military _____ Other:
_______________ _____ Other : ________________ FOR CITY OF BERKELEY CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE USE ONLY: WAIVER OF PENALTY: [ ] GRANTED [ ] DENIED __________________________________________________ Date ____________________________ 4. Monthly gross income (include income from all earnings of your household) $ _________________________ a. Pay Schedule: Weekly Bi-Weekly: Monthly (Please enter the date for monthly) NOTE: YOU MUST PROVIDE PAY CHECK STUBS FOR ONE MONTH OR VERIFICATION OF OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. b. Payroll deductions are (specify purpose and amount): (1)________________________________________ $______________________ (2)________________________________________ $______________________ (3)________________________________________ $______________________ (4)________________________________________ $______________________ (5)________________________________________ $______________________ Total Payroll Deductions $______________________ c. Net Income (take home pay) $______________________ d. Other money received each month (specify source and amount): NOTE: MUST PROVIDE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OF PROOF OF INCOME. (1) _______________________________________ $______________________ (2) _______________________________________ $______________________ TOTAL $______________________ e. TOTAL MONTHLY INCOME (c+d) $______________________ 5.
ASSETS: (Value) MONTHLY EXPENSES: Motor Vehicle(s) $____________________ Rent/Mortgage $_________________ Home $____________________ Utilities $_________________ Property $____________________ Loans/Credit Card(s) $_________________ Savings Account (s) $____________________ Food/Clothing $_________________ Checking Account(s) $____________________ Transportation $_________________ Cash on Hand $____________________ Medical/Dental Payments $_________________ All Other $____________________ All Other $_________________ TOTAL ASSETS $____________________ TOTAL EXPENSES $_________________ I understand if HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 80
I am found liable I will be required to pay the delinquent amount due. I further understand if I fail to resolve this matter I may be subject to one of the following: 1. A trial in civil court with subsequent garnishment of my earnings. 2. A lien placed against my California Franchise Tax return. 3. This claim assigned to a collection agency. Signature:
________________________________________________ Date _____
From: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:12 PM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Unreasonable hardship exception
Dear Mr. Marowitz,
You have appealed a determination of the Building Official and stated your concerns in your appeal. The next step in the process is the appeal hearing. The Building and Safety Division will provide a report to the Housing Advisory Appeal responding to the points you raised in your appeal, along with your appeal letter and any documents pertaining to the Exterior Elevated Elements case at 1615 Fairview. I will mail these materials to you at least ten days in advance of the hearing. You requested a hearing date in January, rather than an earlier date in November.
Sincerely,
Jenny McNulty, Resilient Buildings Program Manager
Special Projects / Building & Safety Division
Phone: (510) 981-7451
Email: [email protected]
From: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 3:29 PM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: Unreasonable hardship exception
Dear Mr. Marowitz,
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 81
In the Building Code, an unreasonable hardship exception is specific to mandated accessibility upgrades when alterations to a building are proposed under a building permit, and where the cost to comply with accessibility requirements would cost disproportionately to the overall cost of the project. It only applies to non-residential public accommodations and public housing. The miscellaneous fee to review unreasonable hardship exceptions does not apply to the inspection requirement for Exterior Elevated Elements.
Sincerely,
Jenny McNulty
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 2:35 PM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Scheduling a Hearing for your Appeal
WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Ms. Mcnulty:
Last question.
What is the criteria for implementing the Unreasonable Hardship Exception, or more commonly described as the Hardship Waiver, as set forth on the Fee Schedule of July 17th,2025 as set forth by City Council, in Resolution 71, 834 N. S. Chapter XVII, Miscellaneous, on Page 5.?
Andrew Marowitz
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 10:44 AM
To: McNulty, Jenny <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Scheduling a Hearing for your Appeal HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 82
WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Ms. McNulty:
I have submitted several questions and sought information regarding issues of the EEE compliance mandate, and you are considered as the Director of the EEE program.
You indicated that you would be out/ unavailable until this week.
Accordingly, could you please address my questions.
I don't remember how many and exactly which questions I asked, so I will repeat some/all of them.
1) What is the EEE appropriate and proper Appeal fee, factoring into that question is the added priority in the EEE FAQs that the fee should not be so much , so as to deter a person or persons from Appealing?
2) Why was my interest to Appeal forwarded to Mr. Lopez, as Building Official, rather than Galareal Burr forwarding my emails to her Direct Supervisor, who she refused to identify, and then Mr. Jensen,as manager, and then YOU , as Director? All of these people ,apparently were by-passed, and Mr. Lopez intervened, and imposed his unlimited interpretive determination authority to discretionarily to decide that the Appeal Fee shall be $1000, not $250m as referenced in the Fee Schedule Set by City Council on July 17th,2025, where it states " Any fee not explicitly covered by this fee schedule, shall have a fee of $250, from the Fee schedule of resolution # 71, 834 N.S. Chapter XVII Miscellaneous, Page 5.??
3) The creation of the EEE compliance mandates, both Berkeley and Stat eLaw were based on the balcony collapse of 2015. The finger pointing blame was placed on the developer for not caulking and water penetration leading to wood rot.
But, for some absurd reason, NO one, not one person ever considered, publicly, that the primary cause of the balcony collapse was due to OVER LOAD of weight and persons causing extreme stresses on the balcony, a 4' x 8' balcony = 32 square feet. There were at least 13 people on that balcony , six of which died instantly, and 7 critically injured. 13 people , male and female, thin, medium and heavy weights, adds up to 2300 pounds of moving load, ( more than a HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 83
TON) not a staic load, and for a duration of time of at least 30 minutes. There were party folks inside the apartment who also came onto the balcony to smoke, not wanting smoke inside the apartment. Add another 700 pounds of weight= 3000 pounds at moments, concentrated in a tightly confined space.
I have engaged in substantial research, which states that 13, or more people were packed in like sardines, and created a dangerous condition. I asked Mr. Lopez,as building Official to conduct a load bearing stress calculation. He refused, and sent the email to the Planning Direcotr, who instructed me to stop sending any further emails to Mr. Lopez,and who has refused to address the issue , whatsoever, of the balcony collapse and the over load of people and weight over a longer duration of time.
They refuse to even speak on the topic, dodging all my repeated inquiries of this issue, which is a form of dishonesty by omission.
EEE and state law was based on that balcony collapse. Had it not occurred , there would never have been any EEE laws, rules, or requirements of any sort, much more a laundry list of additional requirements. And the argued basis for the collapse is mis-information and mischaracterization, , arguably a pack of lies.
I believe this is why no one wants to speak on this issue of overload and related stresses. So, NOW there is a laundry list of reulations, and regulations always creates revenues by fees and enforcement penalties for non compliance.
I have recommended that any balcony be treated EXACTLY like an elevator, with posted warning placards limiting weight and number of people, to ??? 4-5 and 800-900 pounds. This would ,effectively solve the problem without the need of EEE inspections, and which generates a large sum of revenue for the City of Berkeley, and places a large financial burden on impacted property owners. Government at its worst.
So, the question is, why is everyone, probably including yourself, knowingly and willfully avoiding addressing this issue, an extremely relevant basis for consideration. It is tantamount to the EEE complaince mandate being based on a fruad by omission of the overload of stresses cusing the collapse. Even if there was some wood rot, if only 4-5 people would have been on that balcony, it would not have collapsed. If the 13 or more people were on that balcony for only a few minutes, the balcony would not have collapsed. According to my research, the space/area necessary to fit a single person requires 2.67 square feet. multiply that by 13 , results in 34.71 square feet, more than 32 square feet, more than the balcony dimensions= SARDINES tightly packed. A Dangerous condition.
Had the building code required pressure treated wood to support those balconies, even if there was water penetration, there would never have been wood rot.
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 84
So, for the record, I ask you, why is EVERYONE ducking the question and issue of the primary reason for the collapse was due to OVER LOAD stresses of 13 pr more people over an extended time period. If you duck the question, why are you ducking/ avoiding the question? 4) Given that I am required to have my Appeal to be adjudicated by the Housing Advisory Comittee, what is the process of moving for disqualification of one ( or more) of a person who is a committee member?
I want to move to disqualify Ms. Leah-Simon Weisberg, FOR CAUSE, for being such an extremely BIASED and radical tenant advocate for decades. There is no way in ther world she can be FAIR AND IMPARTIAL trier of fact, and would influence the thinking and decision making of the other volunteers, padding their resume, many of which have zero direct knowledge of buildings and building codes,etc, being employed as tech oriented individuals.
PLEASE RESPOND, as you stated you would.
Very Truly Yours, Andrew Marowitz
From: Klein, Jordan
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 9:38 AM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: I just reviewed the Housing Advisory Committee volunteers. , and at least one is seriously BIASED
>> I respectfully demand that she step away from my Appeal, before ANYTHING relating to my App
eal begins.
You can address your demand to the Housing Advisory Commission at [email protected] or to City Council at [email protected].
>> AND I ask you AGAIN, what is the proper Appeal fee, such that it is not construed as a deterrent of initiating an Appeal.. I am of the belief and opinion that $250, at most, should be the proper amount for an Appeal FEE
As we have conveyed to you repeatedly, the appeal fee is set in our Council-ad opted fee
schedule. There is no hardship provision for a reduction of the fee. Any reduction of the fee would require action by City Council, which staff will not pursue in this case. You may send a request for a fee waiver or reduction directly to City Council.
HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 85
---------------------------
Jordan Klein
Director, Department of Planning & Development
City of Berkeley
Phone: (510) 774-1337
[email protected]
From: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Klein, Jordan <[email protected]>
Subject: I just reviewed the Housing Advisory Committee volunteers. , and at least one is seriously BIASED
WA
RNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Klein, for the record, I respectfully demand that Ms. Leah Simon Weisberg recuse herself from my Appeal, as SERIOUSLY BIASED as a totally TENANT favoring Volunteer.
It would be IMPOSSIBLE for her to be FAIR AND IMPARTIAL at my Appeal. She MUST RECUSE HERSELF. I have here entire resume in front of me. SHE IS TOXIC TO RENTAL HOUSING PROVIDERS. SHE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY INFLUENCE AND STEER ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO BE BIASED, .
AND THAT IS IF THEY ARE NOT ALSO BIASED THEMSELVES.
As you know, I have repeatedly asked you whether the Housing Advisory Committee will be FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. And you have repeatedly avoided responding to that question, which screams HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 86
LOUDLY , that the Housing Advisory Committtee, all volunteers, most having little to no experience or direct knowledge in EEE compliance mandates, or hands on housing repairs and the like, and "appointed " by the respective City Council Person of that specific District.
I could raise some SERIOUS concerns of Mr. Bartlett's appointee, but I will reserve that concern until I ask him of his qualifications and ability to be FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, his degrees that he acquired in prison, etc
But, Ms. Weisberg is so EXTREME , that any person in my capacity, reviewing her resume, would think exactly the same as me. SHE IS A RADICAL TENANT ADVOCATE, in every sense of her resume.
AGAIN< this is for the record, and I respectfully demand that she step away from my Appeal, before ANYTHING relating to my Appeal begins.
AND I ask you AGAIN, what is the proper Appeal fee, such that it is not construed as a deterrent of initiating an Appeal.. I am of the belief and opinion that $250, at most, should be the proper amount for an Appeal FEE
As Planning Director, PLEASE RESPOND . This is certainly a reasonable question, and deserves to be answered, if you, yourself, are not totally BIASED.
Andrew Marowitz
Andrew Marowitz 510-356-6813
From: Klein, Jordan
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:00 PM
To: Andrew Marowitz <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Request for information regarding the 2015 balcony collapse tragedy HAC 01/15/2025
Attachments 5a-5e
HAC PAGE 87