Berkeley City Council
July 11, 2023

62 City of Berkeley Unrepresented Employee Manual
July 2021
Internal

anniversary date of beginning the twentieth (20th) year of service and shall apply to all hours in a paid status. This Longevity Pay shall be reported to CalPERS as Longevity Pay Incentive Pay.

13.26.1 Longevity Pay for Unit Z1 Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief : The longevity pay for the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief classifications is intended to provide the same benefits as the Longevity Pay for represented sworn fire employees under the Berkeley Fire Fighters Association (Unit B) Memorandum of Understanding.

13.26.113.26.2 Longevity Pay for Unit Z1 Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief: The longevity pay for the Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief classifications will provide the same benefits as the Longevity Pay for represented sworn police employees under the Berkeley Police Association (Units E & F) Memorandum of Understanding.

13.27 Automobile Allowance for Police Chief
The City Manager may authorize an automobile allowance of $400 per month in lieu of a City provided vehicle for an employee appointed after November 1, 2009 to the classification of Police Chief.

13.28 Video Display Terminal Screening/Glasses
The City offers VDT screening and glasses as medically required, every two years, to employees who in the course of their employment operate VDT equipment more than four hours in a work day.

13.29 Emergency Medical Technician
Effective September 13, 2015, Unit Z-1 Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief who maintain current Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) certification shall receive thean same EMT pay differential as sworn fire of four percent (4.0%).employees under the Berkeley Fire Fighters Association (Unit B) Memorandum of Understanding.

13.30 Shoe Allowance
An annual allowance of two hundred dollars ($200) shall be paid to benefitted employees in the classification of Janitor, Groundskeeper, Laborer, and Solid Waste Worker.

13.31 Training Differential

13.31.1 Trainer Differential: Effective July 1, 2016, any employee, excluding those classifications that require training as part of the assignment (e.g. supervisors), designated by the department and approved by the Director of Human Resources as qualified trainers or instructors for specific specialized skills (identified by the departments in consultation with Human Resources) who is required to provide formalized training to a new employee or an employee who management has identified as needing formalized training, shall receive a five percent (5%) differential in salary for that time served in such capacity. Such assignment shall

63 City of Berkeley Unrepresented Employee Manual
July 2021
Internal

be in writing by the department and approved by the Director of Human Resources. This Training Differential will be reported to CalPERS as Training Premium Special Assignment Pay. However, any hours worked on overtime are excluded from CalPERS reported

64 City of Berkeley Unrepresented Employee Manual
July 2021
Internal

“compensation earnable” in California Government Code Section 20635.

13.31.2 Higher Class Training Differential: For training purposes, employees not meeting all of the minimum qualifications of a higher classification may be temporarily assigned for a minimum of one (1) week, to perform the duties of the higher classification and will receive a five percent (5%) increase in their current base salary for the duration of the temporary assignment. Such assignments shall be in writing and shall indicate the reasons, length and duties of the assignment. Assignments shall be approved in advance by the City Manager, or his or her designee by an Employee Transaction Form, and forwarded to the Human Resources Department for inclusion in the employee's official Personnel file.

13.31.3 Trainee Differential : For training purposes and to enhance an employee skills and abilities, any employee designated in advance by the department director and approved by the Director of Human Resources to perform duties that are outside of the employee’s classification, shall receive a three percent (3%) differential in salary for that time served in such capacity. Such assignments shall be in writing and shall indicate the reasons, length and duties of the assignment.

Assignments shall be approved in advance by the City Manager, or his or her designee by an Employee Transaction Form, and forwarded to the Human Resources Department for inclusion in the employee's official Personnel file.

13.32 Summary of May 2017 Changes to the Unrepresented Employee Manual

 Included reference to Unrepresented Unit Z-9 (Deputy Director Rent Stabilization Program).
 Former Section 1.14 (One-Time Allocation) - deleted obsolete provision.  Section 5.2 (Floating Holidays) - corrected omission of one (1) day.  Section 8.3 (Hourly Rated Employees in Lieu of Benefits) – codified existing benefit.
 Section 13.11 (Reimbursement Plan) – revise plan as reimbursement.  Section 13.12 (Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief Retiree Medical Plan) – clarified benefit for internal and external appointments.
 Section 13.13 (Retiree medical for Police Chief Classification) – clarified benefit for internal and external appointments.
 Section 13.18 (Regular “At-Will” Classifications) – deleted duplicate classification.  Section 13.31.3 (Trainee Differential) – included provision authorizing differential for employees assigned duties outside of classification.

65 City of Berkeley Unrepresented Employee Manual
July 2021
Internal

13.33 Summary of October 2017 Changes to the Unrepresented Employee Manual

 Section 8.4.5 Miscellaneous Employees Classic Employee Pension Contribution through a 20516 Contract Amendment – added subsection 8.4.5.3

13.34 Summary of July 2018 Changes to the Unrepresented Employee Manual  Section 1.14 (One-Time Allocation) - $2,000 paid August 17, 2018.  Section 8.1.3 (Medical Contribution Executive Managers) – Cost-share of $50.00 for medical contributions by all department heads, City Manager and Deputy City Manager effective July 1, 2019.
 Section 8.4.6.4 – Correct typographical error.
 Section 11.5 (Written Reprimand for Non-Safety Employees) – Include provision allowing written rebuttal.
 Section 12.3.1 (Compensation Complaints) – Include provision that specifies appeal time lines.
 13.1 (Administrative Leave) – Clarify leave extended to career and benefitted at- will employees; benefit is prorated based on assignment; and codifies practice that unused administrative leave rolls into vacation.
 13.24 (Hazard Premium Pay for Clerical Mental Health Personnel) – Clarify pay is reportable to CalPERS.
 13.25 (Longevity Pay) – Include CalPERS reportable section.  13.30 (Shoe Allowance) – Clarify benefit extended to benefitted employees.  Shoe Allowance
 13.31 Training Differential
 13.32 Summary of July 2018 Changes to the Unrepresented Employee Manual  13.33 Summary of October 2017 Changes to the Unrepresented Employee Manual

13.35 Summary of July 2020 Changes to the Unrepresented Employee Manual

Section Change
Term Duration Parties agree to a one-year term Agreement ending on June 30, 2021
Living Wage – NEW LANGUAGE: The City agrees to pay each of its direct employees an hourly wage of no less than $18.33
effective the first full pay period in January 2021. The City agrees to pay each of its direct employees an
hourly wage of no less than $19.33 effective the first

66 City of Berkeley Unrepresented Employee Manual
July 2021
Internal

Section Change
full pay period in June 2021. If the Living Wage
increases beyond $19.33, as outlined in the Berkeley
Municipal Code effective July 2021, the City shall
implement the increases the first full pay period in
September 2021 and July 1st of each year thereafter.

Additional City Emergency
Paid Sick Leave
Allocation
NEW LANGUAGE: The City shall provide an additional 80
hours of emergency paid sick leave to be used for
COVID-19 related reasons as listed in the Emergency
Paid Sick Leave Act. Part-time employees receive a
prorated number of hours. In order to use this
additional City emergency paid sick leave, the
employee must first exhaust all hours that they
received under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.

The City will use a specific pay code for this additional emergency paid sick leave and these additional hours
will be available until June 30, 2021. These additional 80 emergency paid sick leave hours shall have no
cash value and may not be used towards any
CalPERS retirement service credit as outlined 4.13 of

the Unrepresented Employees Manual.

Additional Floating
Holidays
NEW LANGUAGE: For employees who were required to
remain in the workplace from March 17, 2020 – June
1, 2020, the City will provide 8 hours of floating
holidays for every 40 hours of regularly scheduled
hours worked in the workplace up to a maximum of 32
hours of floating holiday. The City will credit these
floating holiday hours in the first full pay period after adoption of the Agreement for classifications which,
due to the nature of the assignment, require backfill,
employees will be paid a stipend in the amount of the
earned floating holiday hours up to a maximum of 32
hours the first full pay period in August 2020. The City will use a specific pay code for these additional
floating holiday hours will be available until June 30, 2021. These additional 32 hours of floating holiday
shall have no cash value and may not be used
towards CalPERS retirement service credit as
outlined 4.13 of the Unrepresented Employees
Manual.

Additional language on
Layoffs for the Term
of the Agreement
NEW LANGUAGE: The City recognizes the important role
that the employee workforce plays in delivering public
services; therefore, during the period ending June 30,
2021 the City agrees to not layoff any Unrepresented
career employees. However, should the City
determine that its expenditures exceed its revenues
during the period ending June 24, 2021, the City may

67 City of Berkeley Unrepresented Employee Manual
July 2021
Internal

Section Change
notice the Unrepresented group in writing and the
Unrepresented group shall be provided an opportunity
to meet and discuss one-time cost savings and
alternatives such as furloughs, VTO, etc. Nothing in
this section requires the City to retain positions (filled or vacant) where state, federal or grant funding has
been reduced or eliminated and would require the City
to backfill such positions. All other provisions on
Layoffs remain unchanged.

Provisional Employee No employees shall hold a provisional appointment in the same position for more than 12 months. The City
Manager may extend the provisional appointment
beyond this 12- month limitation with the mutual
agreement of the parties.

Limited Reopener If during the fiscal year 2020 -2021 the City reaches agreement with SEIU or extends to other
unrepresented employees an opportunity to confer on
an across the board Cost of Living Adjustment
(COLA) increase and/or an additional City
contribution towards medical premiums, the City
agrees to a limited reopener to meet and discuss with
the Unrepresented group on these increases.

13.36 Summary of July 2023 Changes to the Unrepresented Employee Manual  Add second sentence to section 1.6.
 Add sections 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, and 13.26.2.
 Add “group” to section 13.4.
 Add “Accounting Office Specialists III” to section 13.19.  Revise section 13.29.

Human Resources Department
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Aram Kouyoumdjian, Director of Human Resources Subject: Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution extending Resolution No. 63,646-N.S. to offer the City’s supplemental military leave compensation benefit retroactively from June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2025 to provide additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36 months of the leave request for employees called up to involuntary active military service.

To receive the retroactive payment the employee must have been employed with the City of Berkeley at the time of active duty and remained employed with the City of Berkeley at the time of payment.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The current supplemental military leave policy expired on May 31, 2019. Since the policy expired, employees called to active duty no longer have monetary and medical benefits in place for up to one (1) year or longer to support themselves and their family during deployment. This has an adverse impact on the employee and the employee’s family at a time of high stress and demand.

The financial impact of the supplemental military leave policy will vary depending upon the number of employees who are ordered to involuntary active military service and upon their military and City compensation. If no additional employees are ordered to involuntary active military service, then there is no additional cost to the City. Based on experience with prior deployments, if employees are ordered to involuntary active military service, the additional cost to the City should not exceed $20,000 per employee and would be absorbed within the affected department’s budget. If the employee is from either the Police or Fire Department, then the cost would be borne by the General Fund.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The involuntary active duty call ups of military reservists have been more extensive and for a longer duration than staff anticipated when it recommended adoption of a supplemental military leave compensation policy. The City has experienced military reservists being called to involuntary active duty for more than one deployment within a short period of time. There is no predictability of the duration or the frequency of the military service call to active duty.

Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

The current supplemental military leave compensation policy was adopted through Resolution No. 63,646-N.S. on April 24, 2007. The supplemental military leave policy provides different benefits depending on how long the employee has worked for the City. The supplemental military leave policy provides:

1. In addition to the 30 days fully paid annual military leave provided under the California Military and Veterans Code, the City will pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances to an amount equal to the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36 months of the initial call up order for employees who have at least one (1) year of employment with the City and who have been called up to involuntary active service. However, if the twelve months have elapsed since the employee has returned from deployment and is redeployed, the employee will start a new cycle of Supplemental Military Leave Benefits as described above.

2. The City will pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances in an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36 months of the initial call up order for employees with less than one (1) year in the career service with the City and who have been called up to involuntary active service.

BACKGROUND
The City provides military leave benefits as required under the California Military and Veterans Code Section 389 et seq., and under the Federal Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994, 38 U.S.C. Sections 4301 et seq. The United States Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service issued final regulations to clarify USERRA’s application effective January 18, 2006. Under State law, the City is required to and currently does pay employees with one (1) year of City employment their full salary and benefits for the first 30 days of their military service each year. The City is also required under Federal law to continue to provide fully paid health insurance benefits for up to one (1) year while the employee is on military leave, since it provides such a benefit to City employees on Parental Leave who have at least one (1) year of career City service. Under Federal and California State law, retirement benefits continue to accrue to employees on active duty.

Since the events of September 11, 2001, the City Council has adopted several resolutions on supplemental military leave compensation. The City’s policy on supplemental military leave compensation was last updated on April 24, 2007 and has been incorporated in Resolution No. 63,646-N.S. The supplemental military leave compensation benefit provides additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances to an amount equal to the employee’s regular salary. Without the temporary supplemental military leave benefit, employees would not be entitled to receive their full pre-military leave net pay. The supplemental military leave compensation policy expired on May 31, 2019 and as result our employees, who were called to serve in our nation’s military, have gone without receiving the supplemental military leave compensation.

Supplemental Military Leave Compensation Policy CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
To ensure continuous implementation of a supplemental military leave benefit policy that is fair and equitable, and to alleviate financial hardships those employees and their families will experience as a result of the employee being ordered to involuntary active military service.

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

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Aram Kouyoumdjian, Director of Human Resources, (510) 981-6807.

Attachment:
1: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

SUPPLEMENTAL MILITARY LEAVE COMPENSATION POLICY
WHEREAS, since September 11, 2001, the City Council has adopted several Resolutions that provided for supplemental military leave compensation to employees who have been involuntarily called up to active military service; and WHEREAS, the City’s regular military pay policy complies with the California Military and Veterans Code Section 389 et seq., and under the Federal Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. Sections 4301 et seq. in that it provides paid military leave to a maximum of thirty calendar days per fiscal year to employees who have been with the City for at least one year and who are ordered to active military service; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2004 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 62,648– N.S. that provided that the City would pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances to an amount equal to the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36 months of the initial call up order for employees who have at least one (1) year of employment; and WHEREAS, this same Resolution No. 62,648–N.S. provided that the City will pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances in an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36-months of the initial call up order for employees with less than one (1) year in the career service with the City who have been called up to involuntary active service; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 63,646–N.S. that provided that the City would pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances to an amount equal to the employee’s regular salary for an aggregate period of 24-months that must be taken within 36-months for employees called for active military service and to extend the City’s supplemental military leave compensation benefit to May 31, 2008; and
WHEREAS, this same Resolution No. 63,646–N.S. provided that if 12 months have elapsed since the employee has returned from deployment and is redeployed, the employee will start a new cycle of supplemental military leave compensation benefits to provide a salary supplement for an aggregate of 24 months that must be taken within 36 months of the subsequent deployment; and
WHEREAS, this same Resolution No. 63,646–N.S. provided that the City will pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances in an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two (2) years that must be taken within 36 months of the initial call up order for employees with

less than one (1) year in the career service with the City who have been call ed up to involuntary active service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted various resolutions to extend the Supplemental Military Leave Benefit on an annual basis, starting on April 24, 2007 (Resolution No. 63,646-N.S.); May 20, 2008 (Resolution No. 64,063-N.S.); April 21, 2009 (Resolution No. 64,398-N.S.); April 27, 2010 (Resolution No. 64,851-N.S.); April 26, 2011 (Resolution No. 65,239-N.S.); May 15, 2012 (Resolution No. 65,701-N.S.); May 7, 2013 (Resolution No. 66,124-N.S.); May 6, 2014 (Resolution No. 66,564-N.S.); May 12, 2015 (Resolution No. 67,017-N.S.); and April 26, 2016 (Resolution No 67,438-N.S.); WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 67,963-N.S. to extend the Supplemental Military Leave Benefit until May 31, 2019, when it could be reevaluated;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Resolution No 63,646–N.S. is amended to extend the City’s supplemental military leave compensation benefit retroactively from June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2025, to provide a salary supplement for an aggregate of 24-months that must be taken within 36-months for employees who have at least one (1) year of employment with the City and who have been called up to involuntary active service. To receive the retroactive payment the employee must have been employed with the City of Berkeley at the time of active duty and remained employed with the City of Berkeley at the time of payment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if twelve months have elapsed since the employee has returned from deployment and is redeployed to involuntary active military service, the employee will start a new cycle of supplemental military leave compensation benefits to provide a salary supplement for an aggregate of 24 months that must be taken within 36 months of the subsequent deployment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will pay additional wages to supplement an employee’s military pay and allowances in an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the employee’s regular salary for a period not to exceed two years that must be taken within 36 months of the initial call up order for employees with less than one year in the career service with the City who have been called up to involuntary active military service.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED th at the poli cy is to remain in effect until June 30, 2025
when it may be re-evaluated based on the situation at that time.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Accepting grant funds from the Alameda County Transportation Commission for the Berkeley Pier Water Transportation / Ferry Project Design Phase

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to accept the Alameda County Transportation Commission grant allocation for the design phase of the Berkeley Pier Water Transportation/ Ferry Project in the amount of $5,138,685, confirming the City’s commitment to the Alameda County Transportation Commission grant requirements, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the associated grant agreement and amendments.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The grant provides $5,138,685 of Alameda County Transportation Commission administered funds to support the development of plans, specifications and cost estimates, as well as environmental review, for the Berkeley Pier Water Transportation / Ferry Project. Required matching funds shall be provided by other grants, City staff costs, and contributions from the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (direct contributions and staff time).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On May 31, 2022, Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit grant applications to the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) for funding through the County’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 – FY 2028 Comprehensive Investment Plan, and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements as needed for accepting the awarded grant funds. This included an application for the Berkeley Pier Water Transportation / Ferry Project for an amount up to $3,000,000 (Reso No. 70,399-N.S.).

On December 13, 2022, Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute grant contracts with the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) to receive the FY2022 State Budget allocation of $15 Million for improvement projects at the Berkeley Waterfront, which includes $2,961,000 allocated for the environmental review and preliminary design of the Berkeley Pier / Ferry Project (Reso No. 70,629-N.S.). The allocation of $2.961M from the SCC allowed the City to modify its Alameda CTC grant

Accepting Funds from the Alameda CTC for the CONSENT CALENDAR Berkeley Pier Water Transportation / Ferry Project Design Phase July 11, 2023

application to increase the grant request from $3M to $5,138,685 to fund the development of Project plans, specifications and cost estimates. At its meeting on May 25, 2023, Alameda CTC awarded $5,138,685 in Alameda CTC Administered funds to the City of Berkeley for the implementation and delivery of the design phase (development of Project plans, specifications and cost estimates, PSE) and environmental review.

Alameda CTC has requested that all grantees adopt a post-award resolution to reflect the final award value, and to confirm:
 City’s commitment to secure matching funds against the awarded Alameda CTC administered funds; and
 City’s commitment to provide any additional funding required to delivered the awarded phase of the Project, with an understanding the same shall not be funded with additional Alameda CTC administered funds; and  City’s commitment to implement the awarded phase(s) of the Project as described in the funding application and the subsequent funding agreement between Alameda CTC and the City; and
 City’s commitment to comply with the Alameda CTC Project Funding Agreement; and
 City’s commitment to comply with the applicable requirements set forth in Alameda CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity (“LBCE”) Project for professional services and construction contracts funded with Measure B, Measure BB and/or VRF funds, and abide by the LBCE procedures in the applicable solicitations and contracts; and
 There is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect City’s ability to implement and deliver the proposed Project; and  Authorization for its City Manager or designee to execute the agreement; and  City will provide Alameda CTC with a fully-executed copy of the resolution confirming these commitments.

BACKGROUND
In 2018, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) staff met with City of Berkeley staff to begin a dialogue about potential new ferry service in Berkeley. In early 2019, WETA and the City allocated funding and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the conceptual planning phase of the Project. The City conducted a year-long study to identify technical constraints and to engage the community and receive public feedback. On December 7, 2021, City staff presented the preferred concept of a dual-purpose recreation and ferry pier to Council.

The Alameda CTC administers funding programs for projects and programs that benefit the Alameda County transportation system, consisting of 2000 Measure B, 2010 Vehicle Registration Fee, 2014 Measure BB, CMA-TIP, and Transportation Fund for Clean Air

Accepting Funds from the Alameda CTC for the CONSENT CALENDAR Berkeley Pier Water Transportation / Ferry Project Design Phase July 11, 2023

Programs. Prior to the receipt of any Alameda CTC funds, the City shall be required to enter into a Project Funding Agreement with Alameda CTC.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The design phase of the Berkeley Pier Water Transportation / Ferry Project has no climate impacts. The City’s Climate Action Plan identified public transit as a more sustainable form of transportation, and sets a goal to expand under-used modes of transportation, such as ferry service at the Berkeley Marina that would connect to San Francisco and other locations.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Grant funding allows the City to develop the plans, specifications and cost estimates, as well as conduct environmental review, for the Berkeley Pier Water Transportation / Ferry Project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Liza McNulty, Project Manager, Parks, Recreation & Waterfront, (510) 542-4131 Attachments:
1: Resolution

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

ACCEPTING FUNDS FROM THE ALAMENDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

COMMISSION FOR THE BERKELEY PIER WATER TRANSPORTATION / FERRY

PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (“Alameda CTC”) administers funding programs for projects and programs that benefit the Alameda County transportation system, consisting of 2000 Measure B, 2010 Vehicle Registration Fee, 2014 Measure BB, CMA-TP, and Transportation Fund for Clean Air Programs, and such funding is collectively defined as and shall be referenced herein as the “Alameda CTC Administered Funds”; and
WHEREAS, City of Berkeley submitted a funding application (“application”) to the Alameda County Transportation Commission (“Alameda CTC”) for the design phase of the Berkeley Pier Water Transportation / Ferry Project (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the funding will facilitate the design phase of the Project, including the development of plans, specifications and cost estimates (“PSE”) and environmental review; and
WHEREAS, by action of the Alameda CTC at its meeting held on May 25, 2023, Alameda CTC awarded $5,138,685 in Alameda CTC administered funds to the City of Berkeley for the implementation and delivery of the PSE and environmental review phase (“Awarded Phase”) of Project; and
WHEREAS, prior to receipt of any Alameda CTC Administered Funds, City of Berkeley shall be required to enter into a Project Funding Agreement with Alameda CTC for the Project (“Agreement”) based on Alameda CYC’s form therefor, which Agreement shall set forth certain project-specific requirements applicable to the Project; and WHEREAS, as part of the requirements to receive Alameda CTC Administered Funds awarded to the Project, Alameda CTC requires a resolution accepting the awarded funding to be adopted by the City of Berkeley’s governing body confirming the following:

1. City of Berkeley’s commitment to secure matching funds against the awarded Alameda CTC Administered Funds; and

2. City of Berkeley’s commitment to provide any additional funding required to deliver the Awarded Phase of Project, with an understanding the same shall not be funded with additional Alameda CTC Administered Funds; and

3. City of Berkeley’s commitment to implement the Awarded Phase of Project as described in the funding application and the subsequent funding agreement between Alameda CTC and the Fund Recipient; and

4. City of Berkeley’s commitment to comply with the Agreement; and

5. City of Berkeley’s commitment to comply with the applicable requirements set forth in Alameda CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity (“LBCE”) Program for professional services and construction contracts funded with Measure B,

Measure BB, and/or VRF funds, and abide by the LBCE procedures in the applicable solicitations and contracts.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that City of Berkeley agrees to accept award of $5,138,685 in Alameda CTC Administered Funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City of Berkeley, by adopting this resolution, does hereby state that:

1. City of Berkeley will provide a minimum of $5,138,685 in matching funds for the design phase, anticipated to be from a combination of City, other grants and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority; and

2. City of Berkeley understands that the City shall be responsible to provide any additional funding required to deliver the Awarded Phase of Project, and the same shall not be funded with additional Alameda CTC Administered Funds; and

3. Awarded Phase of the Project will be implemented as described in the Application, Agreement, and in this resolution; and

4. City of Berkeley will comply with the Agreement; and

5. City of Berkeley will comply with the applicable requirements set forth in Alameda CTC’s LBCE Program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that by accepting the award, the City of Berkeley does not commit to approving the construction of the Berkeley Pier Water Transportation / Ferry Project and the City reserves its full discretion to mitigate environmental impacts, select other feasible alternatives that will avoid environmental impacts, balance the benefits of any future actions against the environmental impacts, or decline to carry out the Project, all based upon information generated by the environmental review process; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City of Berkeley hereby confirms that there is no pending or threatening litigation that might in any way adversely affect City’s ability to implement and deliver the proposed Project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City of Berkeley authorizes its City Manager, or designee, to execute the Agreement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City of Berkeley shall provide Alameda CTC with a fully-executed copy of this Resolution.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Subject: Contract No. 32000188 Amendment: GSI Environmental Inc. for On-Call Environmental Consulting Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000188 with GSI Environmental Inc. for on-call environmental consulting services to increase the contract amount by $75,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $225,000 and extend the contract term from December 20, 2023 to June 30, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This on-call contract is approaching the currently authorized not-to-exceed amount.

Additional funding of $75,000 for this on-call contract is included in the FY 2023 and FY 2024 California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP), Proposition 68 grant budget (Fund 336).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Department of Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront (PRW) received $5 million in CA SPP Proposition 68 grant funding to convert the former Santa Fe Right-of-Way from Blake Street to Ward Street into a new park. This project requires environmental services to remediate the contaminated soils left behind by its former railroad use. PRW selected GSI Environmental Inc. to provide the required environmental services for the project.

Additional services by GSI Environmental Inc. are needed for the Santa Fe Trackbed to Park Conversion project to complete existing tasks, add services based on requirements from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, maintain the project’s schedule, and meet the original grant project completion deadline of December 31, 2025.

Staff recommends increasing the contract length to June 30, 2025 for GSI’s scope of work for this project. This work is required in order to proceed with design and construction services of the Santa Fe Trackbed to Park Conversion project.

BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2019, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for On-Call Environmental Consulting Services (Specification No. 19-11329-C). The City received Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from 12 firms. After evaluation of the SOQs by the

Amendment to Contract No. 32000188 (GSI Environmental Inc.) CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2022

review panel, GSI Environmental Inc., Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc., and Northgate Environmental Management Inc. were among the firms selected.

On April 21, 2020, Council authorized a contract for On-call Environmental consulting services with GSI Environmental Inc. in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for the period November 1, 2019 through November 30, 2022 (Resolution No. 69,171-N.S.).

On December 12, 2022, the City Manager authorized an extension of the On-call Environmental consulting services contracts from November 30, 2022 to December 30, 2023.

This is a Citywide contract supporting multiple departments as needed to assist with ongoing environmental compliance, consulting needs for planned or ongoing projects, and for unanticipated environmental consulting needs.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The services GSI Environmental Inc. provides will clean up the contaminants left behind by the former railroad that ran between Blake Street and Ward Street along Acton Street and allow the City to open a new park for all to safely enjoy and recreate. There are no identified climate impacts.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
GSI Environmental Inc. includes highly-qualified staff as previously evaluated through the City’s contracting process. They have the required expertise in remediating former railroad sites, and complement the personnel and capacity available in the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Departments to complete the Santa Fe Trackbed to Park Conversion project. City staff does not have the expertise to provide environmental consulting services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Evelyn Chan, Supervising Civil Engineer, PRW, (510) 981-6430 Attachments:
1: Resolution: GSI Environmental Inc.

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

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 32000188 FOR ON-CALL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES BY GSI ENVIRONMENTAL INC.

WHEREAS, on July 24, 2019 by Resolution No. 69,171-N.S. the City Council authorized Contract No. 32000188 with GSI Environmental Inc. in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for on-call environmental consulting services for various citywide services and needs through November 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2022, the City Manager authorized the extension of the on-call contract from November 30, 2022 to December 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, City staff does not have the expertise to provide environmental consulting services; and
WHEREAS, the current contract not to exceed amount has been depleted and the City has need of GSI Environmental Inc’s continued environmental consulting services through June 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, additional funding of $75,000 for this on-call contract is included in the FY 2023 and FY 2024 California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP), Proposition 68 grant budget (Fund 336).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32000188 with GSI Environmental Inc. for environmental consulting services increasing the amount by $75,000 for a revised contract amount not to exceed $225,000, and extending the contract to June 30, 2025.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11,2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: Contract No. 32300022 Amendment: Public Safety Family Counseling Group Inc. for Additional Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM), Education and Counseling Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32300022 with Public Safety Family Counseling Group Inc. to provide additional CISM Peer Support Team support, education and counselling services, for a total amount not to exceed $150,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $200,000, and extending the term through June 30, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The amendment will add $150,000 to this contract to cover the continuation of necessary support and services through FY2026. Funds for this contract will be allocated in General Fund, budget code 011-71-701-801-0000-000-421-612990.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Providing public safety employees with ongoing CISM, Peer Support Team development, education and counseling services is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared City. The additional funding will allow the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) to prioritize employee well-being and stress tolerance, which aligns with recommendation 5.2, Invest in Mental & Physical Health Services for Employees on the City Manager’s Employer of Choice Roadmap.

In 2020, BPD contracted with the Psychological Services Group (PSG), for critical incident stress management, and peer support training following the suicide of a police officer and the unexpected death of a second officer. PSG was owned by Elizabeth Dansie, who had over 30 years’ experience providing clinical support to California law enforcement agencies drawing on decades of experience responding to similar tragedies. BPD sought to provide immediate and ongoing support to our employees to navigate the loss of our staff and provide a safety net for others struggling with the

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11,2023

Contract No. 32300022 Amendment: Public Safety Family Counseling Group Inc. for Additional Critical Incident Street Management (CISM), Education and Counseling Services
trauma experienced during a career in law enforcement. PSG was known as the gold standard for critical incident response and education through peer to peer defusing and facilitation of critical incident stress debriefings.

In 2021, with the guidance of PSG staff, BPD implemented a new peer support policy, created a new peer support team, and set out to train 24 peer support officers following the national curriculum developed by the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation and supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Nearly all team members have successfully completed the training and are actively engaged with our employees. Peer Support Team members are available 24/7, along with clinicians to provide immediate support and resources after a critical incident or employee injury.

This program has seen great engagement and serves as a proactive effort to reduce the stigma that can be a barrier to employees seeking help when in crisis.

In 2022, PSG changed names and ownership and is now known as Public Safety Family Counseling Group Inc. (PSFCG). Due to the overwhelming success of the program, BPD contracted with PSFCG through June 30, 2022 and waived competitive solicitation based on the need to provide continuity of care, ongoing CISM services, education, and training to our employees. Through this contract BPD has benefited from the collaboration with more than a dozen other Bay Area law enforcement agencies through PSFCG quarterly regional training. It is imperative that we continue to provide these valuable resources to our employees.

BACKGROUND
It is well known that those in law enforcement occupations experience a variety of adverse exposures to life threatening situations, traumatic events, witnessing violence and assaults, and other compounding adverse incidents. These exposures can increase the potential for suicidal ideation such as depression and hopelessness. A 2018 study showed that police officers are more likely to die by suicide than in the line of duty. The study cites the discrepancy between suicide rates among the general population and first responders are rooted in unaddressed shame and stigma associated with suicide and a lack of research and resources for first responders dealing with mental health challenges as well as growing pressure and stress from the pandemic. According to CDC data, suicide rates for the general population declined by 3 percent, from 2019 to 2020, whereas rates among first responders showed moderate to no decrease from 2017 to 2020. In 2020, 116 police officers died by suicide and 113 died in the line of duty. Researchers suggest that the 2020 numbers are likely an undercount due to stigma and shame, which may have caused a lack of reporting. In 2021, 46 officers were fatally shot, where more than triple that (140) committed suicide.

In June 2021, BPD participated in a National Wellness Survey for public safety personnel. The survey was conducted by the U.S. Marshals Service, Fairfax County PD, and Nova Southeastern University. The survey was designed to assess the impact of public safety work on individual well-being. Of the 199 employees (sworn officers and

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11,2023

Contract No. 32300022 Amendment: Public Safety Family Counseling Group Inc. for Additional Critical Incident Street Management (CISM), Education and Counseling Services
public safety dispatchers) invited to complete the survey, 48 (24%) participated. The survey found in part that 52% of respondents indicated some degree of depression, 73% were feeling discouraged about the future, 10% received scores representing clinical significance on the PTSD checklist, 60% reported being bothered by a stressful event or experience within the past month, and 44% reported trouble with sleep.

Our police officers and professional employees, are not immune to the stressors of police work. It is imperative that we continue to discuss police suicide and provide positive solutions to managing workplace stressors by actively promoting mental an emotional health. Of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country, approximately five percent have suicide prevention training programs such as what currently exists at BPD.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
This contract does not create environmental sustainability or climate change impacts.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Peer support serves as a powerful resource for police employees in addressing stress management, mental health concerns, suicide prevention, and overall officer safety and wellness. It is the City of Berkeley’s obligation to continue to mitigate these impacts through education and post incident support. The BPD Peer Support Team has been engaged and continues to progress in their effort to reduce lost work time, workers compensation claims and improving the mental health and resilience of BPD employees with the assistance of PSFCG services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Either not fund the contract or require competitive bid, which would cause tremendous delay and leave the BPD Peer Support Team unsupported in a critical incident and interrupt mental health support services already in place by a trusted vendor for BPD employees.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Tate, Lieutenant, Police Department, (510) 981-5983 Attachments
1: Resolution

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

CONTRACT NO. 32300022 AMENDEMENT: PUBLIC SAFETY FAMILY COUNSELING GROUP INC. FOR ADDITIONAL CRITIAL INCIDENT STRESS MANAGEMENT,

EDUCATION AND COUNSELING SERVICES
WHEREAS, Public Safety Family Counseling Group Inc. (PSFCG) has provided reliable Critical Incident Stress Management, education and counseling services and assisted BPD with the selection and training of a robust Peer Support Team; and WHEREAS, It is well known that those in law enforcement occupations experience a variety of adverse exposures to life threatening situations, traumatic events, witnessing violence and assaults, and other compounding adverse incidents. These exposures can increase the potential for suicidal ideation such as depression and hopelessness. A 2018 study showed that police officers are more likely to die by suicide than in the line of duty; and
WHEREAS PSFCG has provided critically needed crisis intervention stress management and crisis response services for the multiple traumatic events that Berkeley Police Employees have endured over the past several years. These events have included the suicide of an employee as well as life-saving efforts provided to several individuals who tragically succumbed to their injuries. These services are urgently needed to ensure the men and women of the Berkeley Police Department have continued resources and support necessary to process these events resiliently; and WHEREAS, with the guidance of PSFCG staff, BPD implemented a new peer support policy, created a new peer support team, and set out to train 24 peer support officers following the national curriculum developed by the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation and supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police; and WHEREAS, the PSFCG has been incredibly impactful, normalizing the practice of organized discussion of post traumatic events with proactive intervention with the assistance of professional clinicians who have been instrumental in crisis treatment for numerous Bay Area law enforcement agencies. This group of clinicians is able to respond to the unpredictable and the often off hours nature of the BPD Peer Support Team requests for assistance.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32300022 with Public Safety Family Counseling Group Inc. in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $200,000 to extend the term of the contract through June 30, 2026. Funding is budgeted in 011-71-701-801-0000-000-421-612990.

Housing Advisory Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Housing Advisory Commission
Submitted by: Debbie Potter, Chairperson, Housing Advisory Commission Subject: Conduct a Study on the City’s History of Discriminatory Actions in Housing Policies/Programs

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a study that is comprehensive of the following actions:
 Document the city of Berkeley’s past discriminatory actions in housing policies and programs that adversely impacted the Black community and its ability to remain and grow in the city, build inter-generational wealth, and fully realize the benefits of homeownership;
 Inform future housing policy and program development and implementation to address these historic discriminatory practices; and
 Provide data and information about historic discriminatory housing policies and programs in support of the city’s on-going reparations work.  Select community organization(s) as partners in the study to ensure a comprehensive community engagement process that documents lived experiences and local history so that lessons learned from those experiences can inform future housing policies and programs.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is required to undertake the recommended study and the fiscal impact would be determined by the responses to an RFP.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
At its April 7, 2022 meeting, HAC considered a proposed housing preference policy for the city’s affordable rental and ownership units. There was robust discussion about whether it was appropriate to provide a preference point for qualified Black households given historic discriminatory housing policies and programs that led to disproportionate impacts on Black residents due to redlining, use of eminent domain to build the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations, demolition of public housing, predatory lending

Conduct a Study on the City’s History of CONSENT CALENDAR Discriminatory Actions in Housing Policies/Programs July 11, 2023 practices, biased real estate appraisals that under-valued houses owned by Black residents, etc.

HAC members expressed some frustration that laws, policies, and practices that are explicitly race-based are prohibited in California (and throughout the Country), but that negative effects from past policies are felt by people of color (especially African Americans) in Berkeley today. The harm and trauma from structural racism in the housing market has adversely impacted families and kept them from thriving for generations.

While HAC voted to recommend that City Council approve the affordable housing preference policy, it also wants to encourage the city to do more to document past discriminatory housing policies to support more explicitly race-based restorative housing initiatives in the future. Therefore, at its October 6, 2022 meeting, HAC approved the following motion:

Action: M/S/C (Simon-Weisberg/Johnson) to recommend City Council fund a study to document the City of Berkeley’s history of discriminatory actions as well as its actions to regulate or fail to regulate discrimination in the housing market.

This work should be sourced to local community organizations advancing racial justice initiatives in the community.

Vote: Ayes: Ching, Johnson, Lee-Egan, Mendonca, Sanidad, and Simon- Weisberg. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Calavita (excused), Fain (unexcused), Rodriguez (unexcused), and Potter (excused).

BACKGROUND
Staff undertook a comprehensive process to develop the proposed housing preference policy. That effort included a commitment to an equity-based policy and partnership with East Bay Community Law Center and with Healthy Black Families, Inc., a Berkeley- based non-profit organization committed to advancing social equity and justice, with a focus on Black individuals and families, to ensure robust community engagement.

During public comment for the housing preference policy item, representatives from Healthy Black Families and African American and elder community members provided information about past discriminatory policies and told stories of living in, or being displaced from, Berkeley. They advocated for race-based housing preferences that would address these historic injustices. These stories, combined with census data that shows a steep decline in Berkeley’s African American population, informed the HAC’s recommendation to City Council to study this issue to better understand the impacts of past discriminatory policies to better shape future housing policies and programs.

Public comment also underscored the importance of lived experiences and documented history. Therefore, HAC’s recommendation includes sourcing aspects of the study to local community organizations advancing racial justice issues in the community.

Conduct a Study on the City’s History of CONSENT CALENDAR Discriminatory Actions in Housing Policies/Programs July 11, 2023

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

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The recommended study will better inform, and build on, existing housing program and policies by collecting data and information regarding historic discriminatory policies, ranging from redlining and predatory lending practices to demolishing public housing and utilizing eminent domain in harmful ways, to achieve racial justice. This information can also be useful as the city moves forward with its reparations work as housing is a critical arena for repairing past harms.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
While some community members, along with several HAC members, supported an explicitly race-based preference for the city’s affordable housing units, it was understood that without more data and information to support such a preference, it was not a legally sound approach. Therefore, it was unanimously agreed that such a study should be recommended to City Council to continue the city’s efforts to work toward racial justice in the housing arena.

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager concurs with the content and recommendations of the Commission’s Report.

This recommendation should be referred to the budget process in order to identify funding for this work.

CONTACT PERSON
Anna Cash, Secretary, HHCS, (510) 981-5403

Office of the Mayor
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín
Subject: Berkeley Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Re-Appointments

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution re-appointing Alexandria Thomas-Rodriguez, Max Levine and Ali Kashani to the Berkeley Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.

BACKGROUND
On May 22, 2007, the Berkeley City Council established a Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) Board of Commissioners. State law mandates BHA commissioners, including successors be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. State law also states that the length of a commissioner’s term shall be four years and can be reappointed.

Currently, there are three members of the BHA Board that have either terms that have expired or will be expiring soon. Specifically, they are:

Alexandria Thomas-Rodriguez – Expired January 2023
Ms. Thomas-Rodriquez serves as a tenant commissioner on the BHA board and was first appointed in January 2021 (Resolution No. 69,672-N.S.). Among other leadership qualities, Ms. Thomas Rodriquez brings her extensive experience as a community leader to assist BHA in improving tenant outreach and customer service. Ms. Thomas- Rodriguez is also a commissioner on the Berkeley Housing Advisory Commission.

Max Levine – Expired April 2023
Mr. Levine is the current vice-chair of the BHA board and was first appointed in April 2019 (Resolution No. 68,846-N.S.). Mr. Levine brings his valuable experience as a Section 8 landlord in Oakland to assist BHA in improving landlord outreach and customer service.

Ali Kashani – Expires in December 2023
Mr. Kashani was first appointed to the BHA board in December 2019 (Resolution No. 69,206, N.S.). Mr. Kashani brings significant expertise in affordable housing development to assist BHA in policy matters and in the development of the Housing Authority’s nonprofit arm, Affordable Housing Berkeley, Inc.

Berkeley Housing Authority Board Reappointments CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023
All three commissioners have expressed verbally their request to serve another term.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution

2. Resolution 69,672-N.S.

3. Resolution 68,846-N.S.

4. Resolution 69,206-N.S.

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

RE-APPOINTMENT OF ALEXANDRIA THOMAS-RODRIGUEZ, MAX LEVINE AND ALI

KASHANI TO THE BERKLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Berkeley, as the governing body of the City of Berkeley, declared itself to the Commissioners of the Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) and appointed two tenant Commissioners pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34290; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2007 the Mayor appointed and the City Council by a majority vote confirmed the appointment of 5 Commissioners and 2 tenant Commissioners to the BHA Board pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34270; and WHEREAS, there are currently three commissioners – Alexandria Thomas-Rodriguez, Max Levine and Ali Kashani, whose terms have either expired or will be expiring soon; and
WHEREAS, all three commissioners have expressed verbally their request to serve another term.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor of the City of Berkeley that Max Levine and Ali Kashani are re-appointed to serve as a Commissioner of the Berkeley Housing Authority Board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor of the City of Berkeley that Alexandria Thomas-Rodriguez is re-appointed to serve as a tenant Commissioner on the Berkeley Housing Authority Board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it supports the Mayor’s determination regarding the qualifications of Alexandria Thomas-Rodriguez, Max Levine and Ali Kashani and hereby confirms the Mayor’s reappointment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that by the Mayor of the City of Berkeley that, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34272(a), Max Levine and Ali Kashani are appointed to serve a four-year term; and
BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED by the Mayor of the City of Berkeley that, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34272(a), Alexandria-Rodriguez is appointed to serve as a tenant Commissioner for a two-year term.

Office of the Mayor
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín and Councilmember Sophie Hahn Subject: Support Rooftop Solar and Battery Storage for Multifamily Housing and Schools

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution in support of viable Virtual Net Energy Metering (VNEM) and Net Energy Metering Aggregation (NEM-A) tariffs. Submit a copy of the Resolution to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Nancy Skinner, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and members of the California Public Utilities Commission Board (CPUC).

BACKGROUND
Customers who install small solar, wind, biogas, and fuel cell generation facilities to serve all or a portion of onsite electricity needs are eligible for the state’s Net Energy Metering (NEM) program. NEM allows customers who generate their own energy to serve their energy needs directly onsite and to receive a financial credit on their electric bills for any surplus energy fed back to their utility.

The current NEM program was adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in Decision (D.)16-01-044 on January 28, 2016. The program provides customer- generators rate credits for energy exported to the grid and requires them to pay charges that align NEM customer costs more closely with non-NEM customer costs. NEM is designed to support the installation of customer-sited renewable energy generation.

In December 2022, the CPUC issued a final decision updating the current NEM structure.1 The new rulemaking is referred to as NEM 3.0 because this is the third iteration of the NEM program.

The following elements, which were opposed by the City Council, were approved, at the December 2022 meeting:
 Most residential NEM solar consumers who apply for a NEM interconnection after April 14, 2023, experience an average 75% reduction in the credit they receive for sharing their extra energy with the grid – from an average of $.30/kilowatt-hours (kWh) to about $.08/kWh.
1 https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M500/K043/500043682.PDF

Virtual Net Energy Metering CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023

 Churches, nonprofits, or businesses who go solar after April 14, 2023, realize an even greater reduction in the solar credit.2
Despite this vastly reduced credit value for energy exported to the electric grid compared to the previous NEM tariff, the CPUC decision still allows customers to buy less energy from the utilities when they use their generated or stored energy on-site in real time. The Commission is now considering changes to net energy metering rules for multi-meter properties, which would impact multi-family tenants and cooperative residents through the VNEM program as well as schools and farms through the NEM-A program.3 Recent proposals made by investor-owned utilities would deny multi-meter properties the ability to buy less power from the utilities when they consume power directly from on-site solar, which would force tenants, schools, and farms to buy all of their power from the utility even when it is generated on their own rooftop or field 4 – a patently absurd and unfair proposal as it would allow customers with only one electric meter to distinguish between on-site usage and exports while not allowing customers with multiple meters to do the same.

This and other proposals that seek to curtail rather than expand the ability for multifamily tenants and cooperative residents, schools, and farmers to benefit from bill savings through locally generated renewable energy violate the following principles expressed by the City Council in 20215 and 2022,6 respectively:
 Protecting and expanding rooftop solar via a strong succeeding NEM tariff and expanding clean energy access by making it easier, not harder, for people to adopt rooftop solar and energy storage in order to meet California's ambitious clean energy targets and deploy solar in all communities and households, particularly those struggling to pay for electricity; and
 Expressing its support for the items as stated above, including urging the CPUC to:
(i) strengthen NEM to expand access to all households, particularly of low- and-moderate income;
(ii) expand access to other clean energy technologies that pair with solar, such as batteries;
(iii) ensure that the solar installations continue to grow in order to meet State and City climate goals; and
2 https://solarrights.org/update-state-officials-release-new-rooftop-solar-proposal/ 3 https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M502/K977/502977211.PDF 4 https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M502/K757/502757134.PDF 5 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-10- 26%20Item%2027%20Support%20Net%20Energy%20Metering.pdf
6 https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022-01- 18%20Item%2021%20OPPOSE%20Net%20Energy%20Metering.pdf

Virtual Net Energy Metering CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023

(iv) exclude provisions set forth in the IOU Proposal such has high monthly fixed fees and reducing or eliminating credits for sharing electricity with the power grid.

On the contrary, should the CPUC adopt a successor VNEM tariff that is robust and incentivizes the growth of the VNEM program, the benefits to the tenants in multifamily buildings would be immense and immediate – not just through their realization of up to $50 in savings on their monthly utility bills 7, but in building climate resilience. A recent storm-induced power outage by Pacific Gas and Electric left much of Berkeley without power for nearly an entire day, 8 and having solar with backup batteries would go a long way to ensure reliability. Moreover, with solar installed on the rooftops of multifamily buildings, property owners could then upgrade their buildings to efficient and clean heating, water heating, and cooking infrastructure run by electric power rather than natural gas, the price of which tends to be volatile as it depends on various global events over which we have no control in Berkeley. Similarly, the adoption of a robust successor NEM-A tariff would ensure that budget-challenged school and community college districts across the state would be able to realize savings to their utility bills through the generation of rooftop solar on their own buildings.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No direct identifiable environmental sustainability savings are associated with this item.

However, the outcome of this rulemaking is likely to determine the extent to which rooftop- scale solar and storage in the City of Berkeley is deployed in multifamily housing and schools, which could positively or negatively impact a key strategy in the realization of Berkeley’s Climate Action and resiliency goals.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Attachments:
1: Resolution
7 https://calsomah.org/tenant-benefits
8 https://www.berkeleyscanner.com/2023/03/22/disaster-preparedness/berkeley-storm-power-outage- downed-trees/

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

IN SUPPORT OF NET ENERGY METERING FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AND

SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, Net Energy Metering (NEM) is designed to support the installation of customer-sited renewable energy generation; and
WHEREAS, NEM allows customers to receive bill credits for power generated by their solar system and shared with the power grid and ultimately save money on their utility bills; and
WHEREAS, NEM is what has allowed solar to become increasingly accessible to low- and moderate-income households; and
WHEREAS, in 2020 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) launched a formal proceeding to update the current NEM structure as NEM 3.0, and a number of parties have submitted their proposal for what they believe NEM 3.0 should look like; and WHEREAS in December 2022, the CPUC issued a final decision updating the current NEM structure; and
WHEREAS, the following elements, which were opposed by the City Council, were approved, at the December 2022 meeting:
 Most residential NEM solar consumers who apply for a NEM interconnection after April 14, 2023, experience an average 75% reduction in the credit they receive for sharing their extra energy with the grid – from an average of $.30/kilowatt-hours (kWh) to about $.08/kWh.
 Churches, nonprofits, or businesses who go solar after April 14, 2023, realize an even greater reduction in the solar credit; and
WHEREAS, despite this vastly reduced credit value for energy exported to the electric grid compared to the previous NEM tariff, the CPUC decision still allows customers to buy less energy from the utilities when they use their generated or stored energy on-site in real time; and
WHEREAS, the Commission is now considering changes to net energy metering rules for multi-meter properties, which would impact multi-family tenants and cooperative residents as well as schools and farms; and

[Title of Report] CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023

WHEREAS, recent proposals made by investor-owned utilities would deny multi-meter properties the ability to buy less power from the utilities when they consume power directly from on-site solar, which would force tenants, schools, and farms to buy all of their power from the utility even when it is generated on their own rooftop or field – a patently absurd and unfair proposal as it would allow customers with only one electric meter to distinguish between on-site usage and exports while not allowing customers with multiple meters to do the same; and
WHEREAS, this and other proposals that seek to curtail rather than expand the ability for multifamily tenants and cooperative residents, schools, and farmers to benefit from bill savings through locally generated renewable energy violate the following principles expressed by the City Council in 2021 and 2022, respectively; and WHEREAS, should the CPUC adopt a successor NEM tariff that is robust and incentivizes the growth of the rooftop solar and battery storage in multifamily housing and schools, the benefits would be immense and immediate – not just through the realization of up to $50 in savings by tenants on their monthly utility bills 9 and commensurate savings to school districts, but in building climate resilience; and
WHEREAS, protecting rooftop solar and expanding access to rooftop solar in communities of concern will help California as well as our own city to move toward 100 percent clean energy, lessen the impacts of the climate crisis, and reduce climate injustices from dirty energy; and
WHEREAS, we are in a climate crisis and need to make the transition to clean energy more accessible, not less
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it urges the California Public Utilities Commission and Governor to reject any proposals that seek to frustrate or dismantle the ability of multifamily tenants and schools to avail themselves of the benefits of local, renewable, and affordable energy through rooftop solar and battery storage;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley calls on the California Public Utilities Commission to instead approve a net energy metering tariff for multifamily housing and schools that includes full credits and savings for multifamily tenants and schools from customer-generated energy (full “property netting”) as well as a gradual transition toward lower export rates to ensure a reasonable glidepath for the customer solar market;
9 https://calsomah.org/tenant-benefits

[Title of Report] CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that copies of this Resolution shall be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, State Senator Nancy Skinner, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and members of the California Public Utilities Commission Board.

Office of the Mayor
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín and Councilmember Sophie Hahn Subject: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds for Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of up to $5,000 from Mayor Arreguín, and any other Councilmembers, to the Kala Art Institute, the fiscal sponsor for the Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site, with funds relinquished from the City’s General Fund for the purpose of hiring of grounds keepers and providing the resources needed for the maintenance of the Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site, from the discretionary Council Office Budgets of Mayor Arreguín and any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND
The Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site1, located at Cesar Chavez Park along Spinnaker Way, is centered around a lush green space overlooking the Bay Area. Instead of a single statue or monument for the farmworker and labor organizer by which the park is named after, the site has intentionally developed a comprehensive urban solar/lunar calendar, along with a quartet of stones engraved with four virtues of the Farmworkers Movement:

Determination, Courage, Hope, and Tolerance. The site draws from design concepts in art, astronomy, and architecture found at ancient and indigenous sky observatory sites from around the world. The site seeks to promote an understanding of the Rhythm of the Seasons, the work, life, and values of Cesar E. Chavez and Dolores Huerta, provide an outdoor classroom to study science, math, and culture, and create a space for reflection and peace along the Berkeley shoreline. The site also contains a virtual tour, which can be activated using your mobile device, and a physical, self-explanatory sign to assist visitors with utilizing the solar calendar and position of stones to understand its relationship to solstice and equinox.

A sum of $5,000 is being sought by the caretakers of the Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site to go towards fees associated with employing gardeners, hauling soil, conducting stone replacement, composting goods, grounds maintenance, upgrading signage, and paying the Kala Art Institute a fiscal agent fee.
1 https://chavezpark.org/cesar-chavez-memorial-solar-calendar/

Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds for Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023
We are proposing that City Councilmembers make individual grants of up to $1,000 to the Kala Art Institute to help with the upkeep of the Chavez Huerta Tribute site, with work in the next fiscal year to begin in October 2023.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact; up to $5,000 available from Mayor Arreguín’s Office Budget discretionary accounts.

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

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín, 510-981-7100
Anthony Rodriguez, Senior Legislative Assistant
Attachments:
1: Resolution for Council Expenditures

Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds for Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site CONSENT CALENDAR July 11, 2023

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDUTURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR FUNDING

TOWARDS THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CHAVEZ/HUERTA TRIBUTE SITE, A

PUBLIC SERVICE FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE
WHEREAS, Mayor Arreguín has surplus funds in his office expenditure account; and WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax-exempt corporation, the Kala Art Institute, seeks funds in the amount of $5,000 to provide maintenance and upkeep for the Chavez/Huerta Tribute Site located at the Cesar Chavez Park along Spinnaker Way; and WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the following municipal public purpose of bringing communities across the City, including but not limited to Latine, immigrant, astronomy lovers, historians, youth, and civic communities, together to honor the virtues and contribution of Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, and others involved in the Farmworkers Movement.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget of up to $5,000 per office shall be granted to the Kala Art Institute to fund the following services bringing communities across the City, including, but not limited to, Latine, immigrant, astronomy lovers, historians, youth, and civic communities, together to honor the virtues and contribution of Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, and others involved in the Farmworkers Movement.

Office of the Mayor
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7100 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7199 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín
Subject: Excused Absence for Vice Mayor Ben Bartlett

RECOMMENDATION
Excuse Vice Mayor Ben Bartlett from the June 6, 2023 Council meeting as a result of an illness of a close family member who needed immediate care.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the City Charter, Article V, § 19, the City Council must approve an absence by a Councilmember from a meeting in order for that absence to be considered excused. Specifically, it states:

If the Mayor or any member of the Council is absent from one or more regular meetings of the Council during any calendar month, unless excused by the Council in order to attend to official business of the City, or unless excused by the Council as a result of their own illness or the illness or death of a “close family member” as defined in the City’s bereavement policy from attending no more than two regular meetings in any calendar year, they shall be paid for each regular meeting attended during such months in an amount equal to the monthly remuneration divided by the number of regular meetings held during such month.

Vice Mayor Bartlett was unable to attend the June 6, 2023 Council meeting due to an illness of a close family member who needed immediate care.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7120 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin, Councilmember Hahn, and Councilmember Humbert Subject: Berkeley Humane: Bark (& Meow) Around the Block: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of council office budget funds, including $500 from Councilmember Taplin, to support the Bar
k (& Meow) Around the Block
adoption event hosted by Berkeley Humane, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact. $500 is available from contributing Councilmember’s Council Office Budget discretionary accounts.

BACKGROUND
The Berkeley-East Bay Humane Society’s Bark (& Meow) Around the Block (August 26, 2023) will be one of the largest single-day adoption events hosted in Northern California. Berkeley Humane will be closing down several city streets to accommodate more than 20 shelters and rescues along with food trucks, live music, and other vendors. This event is sponsored by NBC Bay Area and several local businesses and organizations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Resolution

Berkeley Humane CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO

PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE
WHEREAS, Councilmember Taplin has surplus funds in his office expenditure account (budget code 011-11-102-100-0000-000-411); and
WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax exempt corporation Berkeley-East Bay Humane Society seeks funds to provide the following public services: Bark (& Meow) Around the Block adoption drive; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the following municipal public purpose: reunion for BHS alumni and BHS scholarships;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget up to $1000 shall be granted to Berkeley-East Bay Humane Society to fund the following services: Bark (& Meow) Around the Block adoption drive.

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7120 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Taplin and Councilmember Hahn
Subject: Berkeley High School All Class Reunion: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds from General Funds and Grant of Such Funds

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the expenditure of council office budget funds, including $500 from Councilmember Taplin, to support the Berkeley High School All Class Reunion Committee (BHS ACRC) by way of its fiscal sponsor, the Berkeley Public Schools Fund, with funds relinquished to the City’s general fund.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
No General Fund impact. $500 is available from contributing Councilmember’s Council Office Budget discretionary accounts.

BACKGROUND
The Berkeley High School All Class Reunion Committee (BHS ACRC) is planning the 6th Biennial All Class Picnic on Saturday August 26, 2023 at San Pablo Park, Berkeley, 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. This “Fun Family Event” was designed to rekindle memories of Berkeley pride and reconnect friendships, neighbors, and family of all ages to enjoy a picnic in the park with good food, music, vendors, arts/crafts and kids zone and a health fair. The last four reunions reconnected over 2,000 people. Additionally, any excess of funds will help fund a BHS Scholarship.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Taplin Council District 2 510-981-7120
Attachments:
1: Resolution

BHC ACRC CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023

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

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR A GRANT TO

PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PURPOSE
WHEREAS, Councilmember Taplin has surplus funds in his office expenditure account (budget code 011-11-102-100-0000-000-411); and
WHEREAS, a California non-profit tax exempt corporation Berkeley Public Schools Fund seeks funds to provide the following public services: Berkeley High School All Class Reunion; and
WHEREAS, the provision of such services would fulfill the following municipal public purpose: reunion for BHS alumni and BHS scholarships;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by the Mayor and Councilmembers from their Council Office Budget up to $1000 per office shall be granted to Berkeley Public Schools Fund to fund the following services: Berkeley High School All Class Reunion.

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11th, 2023
To:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Vice Mayor Ben Bartlett (Author), Mayor Jesse Arreguin, Councilmember Kate Harrison, and Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Resolution for unionized employees of REI

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of Support for the unionized employees of Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) in Berkeley, California that instructs REI to live up to its values, by ceasing to withhold the 2022 “Summit Pay”, and bargain in good faith.

CURRENT SITUATION
Workers at REI Berkeley are one of eight unionized REIs across the country. (Out of 179 REI stores in total). The REI company has chosen to fight its workers’ unionization efforts around the country, including in Berkeley.

UFCW5 has six open unfair labor practice complaints (“ULPs”) filed against the Berkeley REI.

Since the workers voted to unionize, REI has unilaterally changed their COVID pay policy, revoked the annual bonus that workers receive (“Summit Pay”), and retaliated against pro-union workers.

The 2022 Summit Pay remains the most important issue to the workers. Meanwhile, REI and the union’s bargaining committee have not met since March. REI recently canceled the June bargaining dates and has not responded to any rescheduling requests.

The REI Berkeley workers continue to advocate for their 2022 Summit Pay and are gathering community support to amplify their voices.

BACKGROUND
On August 25th, 2022, employees at Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) in Berkeley voted to unionize with the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 5. They were the second REI location to unionize.

Summit Pay is REI’s annual bonus program for employees. It is determined by a formula that combines store performance with company-wide performance to determine a percentage multiplier that, once applied to an employee’s earnings for the preceding year, becomes a lump sum bonus distributed each March.

In 2022, REI was unprofitable. As a result, the original formula for Summit Pay calculated a $0 payout. On August 30, REI announced a revised 2022 formula for Summit Pay to still provide its employees with some payout in March 2023. REI’s attorneys emailed the union on the same day alerting employees to the change in formula, to which the response was that there was no problem with the new formula’s application to Berkeley.

In February 2023, REI changed course and rescinded the 2022 Summit Pay for the Berkeley workers. The employees ran an internal petition, generating signatures from more than 70% of the staff and presented the document at bargaining in March.

When this was not enough, the workers created a member-facing petition to demonstrate support from the community. They gathered more than 1,500 signatures. A community event was hosted on May 27th with local faith, labor, and non-profit leaders to stand with the REI workers in demanding their 2022 Summit Pay.

March is the last time that REI and the union sat down to negotiate. REI has not responded to emails requesting new meeting dates, after canceling both May and June’s in-person sessions.

In addition to withholding Summit Pay, REI has also engaged in retaliation against the Berkeley workers and other employees across the country. On January 30th, REI fired nine workers in Berkeley, many of whom were heavily involved in the organizing effort. Since then, workers have been fired in Durham, Raleigh, St. Louis, and Eugene as retaliation for workers’ unionization efforts.

REI is an industry leader in sustainability, and prides itself as an inclusive workplace with high starting wages. REI should listen to its employees, and bargain with them in good faith.

The REI workers of Berkeley ask the City Council for support by passing a resolution imploring REI to provide workers with their 2022 Summit Pay, cease making unilateral changes, and bargain with the union.

CONSULTATION/OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
On the issue of 2022 Summit Pay, the Berkeley REI workers have::
● Filed and Unfair Labor Practice Complaint
● Gathered a worker petition in the store with more than 70% support ● Generated an REI member petition with more than 1,500 signatures ● Held a community support event on May 27th

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The city of Berkeley believes in labor rights. REI is withholding 2022 Summit Pay from its two unionized stores and sidestepping its obligation to bargain with its employees. The Berkeley store was the second to open in the Coop and has been a part of this community since 1975.

The Council can embody its values by helping hold REI accountable to its own.

CONTACT PERSON
Vice Mayor Ben Bartlett [email protected]
James Chang [email protected]

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution

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

WHEREAS, the workers at REI Berkeley are one of eight unionized REIs across the country (out of 179 REI stores in total) and the REI company has chosen to fight its workers’ unionization efforts around the country, including in Berkeley; and WHEREAS, the 2022 Summit Pay (Summit Pay is REI’s annual bonus program for employees determined by a formula that combines store performance with company-wide performance to determine a percentage multiplier that, once applied to an employee’s earnings for the preceding year, becomes a lump sum bonus distributed each March) remains the most important issue to the workers. Meanwhile, REI and the union’s bargaining committee have not met since March. REI recently canceled the June bargaining dates and has not responded to any rescheduling requests; and
WHEREAS, UFCW5 has six open unfair labor practice complaints (“ULPs”) filed against the Berkeley REI. Since the workers voted to unionize, REI has unilaterally changed their COVID pay policy, revoked the annual bonus that workers receive (“Summit Pay”), and retaliated against pro-union workers; and
WHEREAS, REI is an industry leader in sustainability, prides itself as an inclusive workplace with high starting wages. REI should listen to its employees, and bargain with them in good faith; and
WHEREAS, The city of Berkeley believes in labor rights and REI is withholding 2022 Summit Pay from its two unionized stores and sidestepping its obligation to bargain with its employees; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Vice Mayor Bartlett, reaffirm the City of Berkeley’s commitment to supporting workers and implore REI to provide workers with their 2022 Summit Pay, cease making unilateral changes, and bargain with the union.

Kate Harrison
Councilmember, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
TO: Honorable Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Harrison, Mayor Arreguín, and Councilmember Hahn SUBJECT: Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds and Co-Sponsorship of the César Chávez Dolores Huerta Tribute Site Curriculum Project

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving an expenditure of D13 funds and cosponsorship of the César Chávez/Dolores Huerta Tribute Site Curriculum Project, with $250 relinquished to the City’s general fund for this purpose each from Mayor Arreguín’s and Councilmember Harrison’s discretionary Council Office Budget Funds, and from any other Councilmembers who would like to contribute.

BACKGROUND
The current statewide curricula that covers the life and work of labor and environmental organizers, César Chávez and Dolores Huerta, does not adequately cover their rich legacies nor their direct impact on Berkeley. However, new lesson plans developed as part of the “César Chávez Dolores Huerta Tribute Site Curriculum Project” will include both in-class and experiential learning at the tribute site on the waterfront at Berkeley’s César Chávez Park. The founders of the curriculum project, Santiago Casal and Beatriz Levya-Cutler, aim to “…honor the equitable relationship, work and words of César and Dolores and others in the farmworker struggle. The synergy of their partnership is what made them highly effective.”
Casal and Levya-Cutler plan to apply for the Berkeley Public Schools Fund grant, LEARNING for Equity, which provides $1,000 - $15,000 grants to projects focused on addressing systemic oppression through strategic, justice-oriented programming. This funding would allow complete curriculum implementation across Berkeley schools by Spring 2024. The funds provided by Council discretionary budgets, will help provide supplemental compensation for teacher leaders who will utilize summer 2023 to develop prototypes and recruit grade-level teacher consultants. It is in the public interest to donate to this project which serves the fundamental municipal purpose of education.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
No General Fund impact. $250 is available from Mayor Arreguín and Councilmember Harrison’s office accounts.

Relinquishment of Council Office Budget Funds and Co-Sponsorship of the Cesar Chavez Dolores Huerta Tribute Site Curriculum Project

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Kate Harrison, (510) 981-7140
Mayor Jesse Arreguín, (510) 981-7100

ATTACHMENTS

1.Resolution Granting Office Funds for a Municipal Purpose

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

CITY SPONSORSHIP OF THE CESAR CHAVEZ DOLORES HUERTA

TRIBUTE SITE CURRICULUM FOR BERKELEY STUDENTS
WHEREAS, César Chávez and Dolores Huerta were civil and human rights activists, labor leaders, and environmental justice organizers who dedicated their lives to the earth, to agriculture, and to the farmworkers; and
WHEREAS, the synergy of their partnership and combined legacy uplifts workers across the world; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley re-named Berkeley’s Waterfront Park as César Chávez Park in 1996 and the City of Berkeley supported the creation of a solar calendar at the Park as a tribute to these two social and environmental justice warriors; and WHEREAS, Dolores Huerta is, to this day, a long-standing community advocate and promotes the educational importance of land stewardship; and WHEREAS, the Chávez/Huerta curriculum will expose students in Berkeley’s public schools to the importance of service to the community and to four virtues located in the four directions of the Chávez/Huerta Tribute Site: Hope (East), Determination (South), Courage (West), and Tolerance/Non-Violence (North); and WHEREAS, the children and students of Berkeley now more than ever need and want to inherit a planet that is safe and sustainable.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that funds relinquished by Mayor Arreguín and Councilmember Harrison from their Office budgets of up to $250 each and from their office budgets of an amount to be determined by other Councilmembers, shall be granted to the Chávez/Huerta Tribute Site Curriculum Project to serve a municipal public purpose.

Kate Harrison
Councilmember, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7140 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 644-1174 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Harrison
Subject: Resolution Opposing Tokyo Electric Power Company and the Government of Japan’s Planned Discharge of Wastewater from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution opposing Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the government of Japan’s plan to discharge wastewater from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean and send copies of this resolution to Secretary Blinken, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Alex Padilla, and Representative Barbara Lee.

BACKGROUND
Fukushima radiation began reaching California's shores in 2015 after the 2011 nuclear disaster. On April 13, 2021, the government of Japan announced Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) plan to start releasing additional wastewater from the Fukushima Plant as soon as Spring of 2023. With the planned discharge of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, we are facing a dire situation which may affect the health of our planet and future generations. Not enough due diligence has been done to ascertain the safety of the discharge, and many experts have argued that TEPCO and the government of Japan are acting without proper understanding of the level of risk it may pose.

TEPCO and the government of Japan claim that the wastewater has been "treated" and, therefore, it poses neither environmental nor health risks. Contrary to their claim, many scientists, marine biologists, marine pollution experts have pointed out severe lack of due diligence, including with respect to the “Advanced Liquid Processing System” (ALPS), the filtration system used at the site. This system cannot remove all radioactive materials before the release.1 Dr. Tim Deere-Jones, an independent marine pollution researcher, warns that people who live or work within 10 miles from the coastline could 1 “Fukushima Daiichi ALPS Treated Water Discharge - FAQs.” 2022. Www.iaea.org. April 27, 2022. https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps- treated-water-discharge/faq.

Resolution Opposing Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the Government of Japan’s Planned Discharge of Wastewater from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
be affected, because ocean water evaporates, which eventually can carry radioactive particles inland.2
In April 2021, three independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council expressed their concerns that the dumping of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi could impact millions of lives and livelihoods in the Pacific region, and such dumping imposes considerable risks to environmental and human rights across the globe.3
On March 6, 2023, the city of West Hollywood passed a resolution opposing TEPCO and the government of Japan's planned discharge of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

The City of Berkeley is globally recognized for its environmental leadership and values and has the opportunity to join in the City of West Hollywood’s efforts and tens of thousands of concerned citizens worldwide in passing a similar resolution.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Limited staff time associated with sending a letter to designated recipients.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.

Releasing nuclear wastewater will harm marine ecosystems critical to the wellbeing and maintenance of environmental stasis and ocean life.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Kate Harrison, (510) 981-7140
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Letters of Opposition
2 “Fukushima: Japanese Government and IAEA Ignore Radiation Risks to Coastal Population.” n.d.

Theecologist.org. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://theecologist.org/2015/sep/28/fukushima-japanese- government-and-iaea-ignore-radiation-risks-coastal-population. 3 “Japan Must Step up Efforts to Solve Human Rights Fallout from Fukushima Disaster: UN Experts.” n.d.

OHCHR. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/03/japan-must- step-efforts-solve-human-rights-fallout-fukushima-disaster-un.

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

RESOLUTION OPPOSING TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (TEPCO) AND THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN’S PLANNED DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER FROM

FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN WHEREAS, the Peace and Justice Commission advises the City Council on all matters relating to the City of Berkeley's role in issues of peace and social justice (Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 3.68.070); and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2021, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the government of Japan announced its plan to release more than 1.28 million metric tons of wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean, starting as early as spring 2023 and continuing for the next 30 years; and WHEREAS, the wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is highly radioactive and is fundamentally different from the water from a nuclear power plant during a regular operation; and
WHEREAS, Fukushima radiation has been detected on West Coast shores of the United States and Canada since 2015, and whatever is released in the planned discharge will eventually reach the shores of the United States and Canada and other nations in the Pacific, affecting their marine and coastal environment; and WHEREAS, radioactive substances contained in the wastewater such as tritium and strontium, when consumed, may have negative long-term health effects on a body; and WHEREAS, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, along with four other scientists, has pointed out multiple deficiencies in TEPCO’s plan, including inadequacies in sampling, inadequacies in assessing the effectiveness of ALPS, and inadequacies in ecosystem assessment; and WHEREAS, Fukushima agricultural, forestry, fisheries, and consumer cooperatives strongly oppose the TEPCO plan of disposing the wastewater into the Pacific Ocean; and WHEREAS, civil society groups, elected officials, and scholars in Japan, the United States, and other nations in the Pacific region have expressed concerns with TEPCO’s plan and petitioned the Japanese government to reconsider its plan; and WHEREAS, safer, more environmentally sound alternative solutions have been proposed by Japanese civil society groups, engineers, and researchers; and WHEREAS, No Nukes Action, a Berkeley based group has networked worldwide to demand a better world free of nuclear power since May 2011, has embarked on a campaign for cities to oppose TEPCO and the government of Japan’s planned discharge of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on behalf of citizens who wish to leave a clean planet to future generations; and WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley is situated directly on the San Francisco Bay which is connected to the Pacific Ocean, therefore, its residents and businesses are at risk of being

Internal
adversely affected by the planned release.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley opposes the plan of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the government of Japan to discharge wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council urges U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Berkeley’s Congressional delegation to call on TEPCO and the government of Japan to reconsider the plan and adopt a more environmentally sound alternative solution which does not cause unnecessary harm to the marine and human life in the Pacific Region.

BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Clerk forward a copy of this resolution and accompanying letters to Secretary Anthony Blinken, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Alex Padilla, and Representative Barbara Lee.

Secretary Antony Blinken
2201 C St. NW
Washington, DC 20451
RE: Berkeley City Council Opposes Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the Government of Japan’s Planned Discharge of Wastewater from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean
Dear Secretary Blinken,
We write to express our opposition to the government of Japan and Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) plan to start releasing additional wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

There has not yet been adequate research into the effect the wastewater will have on humans, animals, and the environment, but scientists and human rights activists are very concerned by the level of risk the contaminated water may pose. While the government of Japan and TEPCO have ensured the water is safe to release, marine pollution experts have verified that not all radioactive materials can be removed.

For these reasons, the Berkeley City Council strongly opposes the release of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council

Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
RE: Berkeley City Council Opposes Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the Government of Japan’s Planned Discharge of Wastewater from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean
Dear Senator Feinstein,
We write to express our opposition to the government of Japan and Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) plan to start releasing additional wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

There has not yet been adequate research into the effect the wastewater will have on humans, animals, and the environment, but scientists and human rights activists are very concerned by the level of risk the contaminated water may pose. While the government of Japan and TEPCO have ensured the water is safe to release, marine pollution experts have verified that not all radioactive materials can be removed.

For these reasons, the Berkeley City Council strongly opposes the release of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council

Senator Alex Padilla
501 I Street
Suite 7-800
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Berkeley City Council Opposes Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the Government of Japan’s Planned Discharge of Wastewater from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean
Dear Senator Padilla,
We write to express our opposition to the government of Japan and Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) plan to start releasing additional wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

There has not yet been adequate research into the effect the wastewater will have on humans, animals, and the environment, but scientists and human rights activists are very concerned by the level of risk the contaminated water may pose. While the government of Japan and TEPCO have ensured the water is safe to release, marine pollution experts have verified that not all radioactive materials can be removed.

For these reasons, the Berkeley City Council strongly opposes the release of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council

The Honorable Barbara Lee
2470 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC, 20515-0512
RE: Berkeley City Council Opposes Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the Government of Japan’s Planned Discharge of Wastewater from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean
Dear Representative Lee,
We write to express our opposition to the government of Japan and Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) plan to start releasing additional wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

There has not yet been adequate research into the effect the wastewater will have on humans, animals, and the environment, but scientists and human rights activists are very concerned by the level of risk the contaminated water may pose. While the government of Japan and TEPCO have ensured the water is safe to release, marine pollution experts have verified that not all radioactive materials can be removed.

For these reasons, the Berkeley City Council strongly opposes the release of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Sincerely,
The Berkeley City Council

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

PUBLIC HEARING
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Jordan Klein, Director, Planning and Development Department Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code to Conform to State Law, and Make Non-Substantive Technical Edits

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt the first reading of an Ordinance amending the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance to match State law relating to special needs housing (including supportive and transitional housing, emergency shelter, navigation center), employment housing, and family day care, and to make technical edits, corrections and other non-substantive amendments:
 23.202.020 Allowed Land Uses (Residential Districts)
 23.202.110 R-4 Multi-Family Residential District
 23.204.020 Allowed Land Uses (Commercial Districts)
 23.204.040 Use Specific Regulations (Commercial Districts)  23.204.060 C-U University Commercial District
 23.206.020 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements (Manufacturing Districts)  23.206.040 Use Specific Regulations (Manufacturing Districts)  23.206.050 Protected Industrial Uses
 23.206.080 MU-LI Mixed Use-Light Industrial District (Land Use Regulations)  23.302.070 Use-Specific Regulations (Supplemental Use Regulations)  23.304.030 Setbacks
 23.304.040 Building Separation in Residential Districts  23.308.020 Applicability and Nonconformities (Emergency Shelters)  23.308.030 Standards for Emergency Shelters
 23.324 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Buildings
 23.324.010 Chapter Purpose
 23.324.050 Nonconforming Structures and Buildings
 23.502.020 Glossary

SUMMARY
As directed by the Department of Housing and Community Development in February 2023, when it approved Berkeley’s adopted Housing Element, and to further comply with other recent changes to state law related parking, family day care home and

State Law Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING to BMC Title 23 JULY 11, 2023

employee housing, staff are proposing a package of technical amendments to Berkeley’s Zoning Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of the recommended amendments will not result in any costs or revenues to the City.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Aligning the Zoning Ordinance with state law and making technical edits and corrections advances the City’s Strategic Plan goal of being a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily-accessible service and information to the community.

On January 18, 2023, the Berkeley City Council adopted an updated Housing Element for the period 2023-2031 (Resolution No. 70,669-N.S.). On February 28, 2023, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found the adopted Housing Element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Article

10.6 of the Gov. Code) and stated the City must continue timely and effective implementation of all programs. Program 31 – Zoning Code Amendments: Special Needs Housing requires the City of Berkeley to review and adopt new zoning provisions by December 2023 to align land use standards with state law requirements for special needs housing. In addition, staff are bringing forward related parking, family day care home and employee housing amendments required for compliance with other recently approved state laws, as well as technical edits to ensure consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance and correct inadvertent errors or content changes that resulted from the 2021 formatting update to the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 1).

The following is a summary of proposed amendments. Staff have also prepared a summary table that identifies the proposed changes in relation to the Zoning Ordinance section (Attachment 2).

Emergency Shelter (AB 139 & AB 2339)
AB 139 (2019) limits the development standards that local jurisdictions can impose on emergency shelters. Jurisdictions are limited to regulating the following objective standards:
 Maximum number of beds
 Minimum parking to accommodate staff, provided that the standard does not require more parking for shelters than other residential or commercial uses in the same zone
 Size and location of onsite client waiting and intake areas  Proximity to other shelters, provided that shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart
 Length of stay
 Lighting
 Provisions for onsite management

State Law Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING to BMC Title 23 JULY 11, 2023

 Security during operating hours, such as a management plan that requires security guards present between 10am to 8pm
To address AB 139, proposed amendments would:
 Remove standards that local jurisdictions cannot regulate.  Include “emergency shelter” as a land use in applicable Allowed Use Tables.  Update the definition of “emergency shelter” to clarify that 24-hour services are permitted.

AB 2339 (2022) provides that the sites identified for emergency shelters must be in areas where residential uses are permitted or are otherwise suitable, thus prohibiting local governments from situating shelters in industrial zones or other areas disconnected from services. Services may include health care, transportation, retail, employment, and social services. No zoning code changes are proposed in response to AB 2339, because the City has adequate areas zoned for emergency shelters and currently allows emergency shelters in all areas where residential uses are permitted.

Low Barrier Navigation Center (AB 101)
AB 101 (2019) defines “low barrier navigation centers” as:
“A Housing First, low barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.”

Housing First refers to serving individuals experiencing homelessness by prioritizing a safe place to live. Local jurisdictions shall not prohibit additional flexibility in low barrier shelters, such as allowing partners to share living spaces or allowing pets.

AB 101 requires local jurisdictions to allow low barrier navigation centers by right in zones where multifamily and mixed-use development is permitted, including nonresidential zones that allow multifamily uses, provided the facility meets certain standards.

The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance does not currently define or address low barrier navigation centers. Consistent with AB 101, proposed amendments would:
 Add the use permitted by right with a Zoning Certificate in each zoning district that permits multifamily and/or mixed uses
 Add a definition of “low barrier navigation center” that is consistent with State law.

Supportive Housing (AB 2162)
AB 2162 (2018) requires local jurisdictions to allow supportive housing projects with 50 or fewer units by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed-use residential

State Law Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING to BMC Title 23 JULY 11, 2023

development is allowed, provided the project meets specified criteria pursuant to Government Code Section 65651(a)1. The requirements include:

1. Affordability restrictions for at least 55 years.

2. One hundred percent of the units restricted to lower income households or receiving public funding to ensure affordability for lower income households.

3. At least 25 percent of the units in the development or 12 units, whichever is greater, are restricted to residents in supportive housing who meet criteria of the target population.

4. Developer provides information to the planning agency which details entities that will provides services, proposed funding sources as well as proposed staffing levels.

5. Nonresidential floor area shall be used for onsite supportive services.

6. The developer must replace any existing dwelling units on the site.

7. Units within the development must include at least one bathroom and a kitchen.

Additionally, parking is not required for supportive housing projects located within one half-mile of a public transit stop as required by Government Code Section 656542.

Currently, the Zoning Ordinance includes supportive housing within the definition of “community care facility,” as well as a separate stand-alone definition for “supportive housing.” Proposed amendments would:
 Remove “supportive housing” from the “community care facility” definition  Amend Residential, Commercial and Manufacturing zoning allowed use tables to be consistent with state law criteria
 Modify the definition to be consistent with the California Health and Safety Code

Projects consistent with the criteria under Government Code Section 65651(a) would be permitted by right with a Zoning Certificate in all zones where multifamily and mixed-use residential development is permitted. Projects that do not qualify under the criteria would not be considered supportive housing and would fall under another definition for housing, such as transitional housing or homeless shelter, with permit requirements consistent with the respective allowed use table.

Employee Housing Act
The Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code 17021.5) requires local jurisdictions to consider employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees as a single-family structure, with a residential land use designation. The proposed changes amend the definition of “single-family dwelling” to include employee housing.

1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65651 2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65654

State Law Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING to BMC Title 23 JULY 11, 2023

Household Definition
In response to formal comments from HCD3, Program 31, “Zoning Code Amendments:

Special Needs Housing” of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element includes a proposal to simplify the definition of “household” to align with state law, while maintaining a distinction from other residential arrangements, such as Dormitory or Group Living Accommodation. The amendments would remove reference to a single lease, rental agreements or proof of shared living expenses from the definition of household.

Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Service Act
In accordance with state law, state licensed residential facilities for six or fewer persons are a permitted use in all zones where residential use is permitted, with no minimum parking requirement for non-resident employees. The following statutes require that small (serving six or fewer persons) licensed group homes be treated like other residential uses and include: facilities for persons with disabilities and other facilities (Welfare & Institutions Code 5116), residential health care facilities (Health & Safety Code 1267.8, 1267.9, & 1267.16), residential care facilities for the elderly (Health & Safety Code 1568.083 - 1568.0831, 1569.82 – 1569.87), community care facilities (Health & Safety Code 1518, 1520.5, 1566 - 1566.8, 1567.1), pediatric day health facilities (Health & Safety Code 1267.9;1760 – 1761.8), and facilities for alcohol and drug treatment (Health & Safety Code 11834.23).

Currently, the Zoning Ordinance permits conversion of an existing dwelling into a residential care facility with a Zoning Certificate. New construction of a residential care facility would require a Use Permit, which is the same review procedure applied to other residential development. Proposed amendments would bring consistency to all districts that allow residential uses, including the MU-R zoning district.

Supportive Child Care Family Home Expansion (SB 234)
SB 234 (2019) requires cities to consider all family day care homes for up to 14 children, operating under the standards defined by state law, a residential use and prohibits the local requirement of a business license.

Currently, the Zoning Ordinance permits family day care homes with a Zoning Certificate and the City does not require a business license. Proposed amendments would:
 Clarify the definition of family day care home as an activity allowed as part of residential use
 Amend the residential use table to align with that change 3 November 8, 2022. Formal Comments from HCD re: City of Berkeley Draft Housing Element, dated August 10, 2022. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-11- 08_Berkeley%20Initial%20Draft%20OUT%20Housing%20Element%20Letter.pdf

State Law Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING to BMC Title 23 JULY 11, 2023

 Amend the definition of “child-serving uses” in the MU-LI and MU-R District to remove reference to family day care homes
 Remove “family day care home” as a protected industrial use in MU-R District, as it is inherently a permitted residential use
Minimum Parking Requirements (AB 2097)
AB 2097 (2022) prohibits the City from imposing a minimum off-street automobile parking requirement on most development projects in any zoning district located within one half-mile of a major transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of Public Resource Code4, which defines a “major transit stop” as a site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The definition also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan.

The proposed amendments include a location exemption from the minimum off-street parking requirements, and codify language consistent with state law to preserve the City’s ability to impose minimum parking requirements in limited instances, such as parking requirements for hotels and event centers.

Technical Edits
On October 12, 2021, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 7,787-N.S., which replaced Title 23 (“the old Zoning Ordinance”) of the Berkeley Municipal Code and adopted a new Title 23 (“the new Zoning Ordinance”) to make the City’s Zoning Ordinance easier to understand and administer. The City Council gave staff direction to make minor changes to comply with state law or codify prior zoning interpretations, and to correct inadvertent errors.

The following technical edits are proposed:

 R-4 Lot and Height Standards. Staff identified an error between the allowed building height and permit requirement in the R-4 Lot and Height Standards Table.

The development standards for residential additions allow an average building height of 16 feet, but the footnote requires a permit for average heights greater than 14 feet. Also, text describing stories permitted from the old Zoning Ordinance was omitted from the footnote. Staff propose to correct the error and include omitted text.  C-U Setback Standards. Text from the old Zoning Ordinance pertaining to minimum rear setbacks—for lots on the south side of University Avenue abutting lots in residential districts—was omitted from the new Zoning Ordinance. Staff propose to re-insert the minimum rear setback requirement to correct the error. Staff also 4https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=13.&title=&part =&chapter=4.2.&article

State Law Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING to BMC Title 23 JULY 11, 2023

propose to correct an error pertaining to rear setbacks for lots in the C-U on the south side of University Avenue not abutting lots in residential districts. Staff proposes no minimum setback to match the old Zoning Ordinance, which did not require a rear setback. Finally, staff propose to remove Note #2 in Table 23.204-12 (C-U Setback Standards) to avoid confusion; the old Zoning Ordinance referenced calculation of rear setback area as an example, not a requirement.  MU-LI Building Materials and Garden Supplies. The old Zoning Ordinance permitted building materials and garden supplies stores with less than 20,000 square feet of floor area with an AUP, and 20,000 square feet or larger with a Use Permit. The new Zoning Ordinance incorrectly limits building materials and garden supplies stores to 2,000 square feet. Proposed text corrects this error and permits uses and sizes consistent with the old Zoning Ordinance.  Allowed Building Projections. If all criteria are met5, a Reasonable Accommodation is required for all wheelchair ramps, while stairs, decks and porches are not subject to minimum setback requirements. Proposed amendments would make standards consistent for other similar features like porches, stairs and decks and clarifies development requirements for accessibility features.  Protected Industrial Uses. The old Zoning Ordinance allowed conversion of protected industrial uses up to 25% of the total floor area or 20,000 square feet of floor area (whichever was less) with an AUP. The old Zoning Ordinance did not require findings for a change of use for all permits in the MM and MU-LI Districts; findings were only required when a use permit was required. The new Zoning Ordinance removed this standard and requires findings for all permits and does not permit conversions with an AUP. Staff propose edits to clarify the requirement to only apply when a change of use requires a use permit. In addition, staff propose amendments to protected industrial uses in the MU-R district. The MU-R district in the old Zoning Ordinance did not describe protected industrial uses and incorrectly included findings for change of use between manufacturing, warehousing and wholesale to match formatting for MM and MU-LI Districts. Staff propose to remove the protected industrial uses from the MU-R Zoning District, where they are generally not allowed at all.
 Conforming and Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Buildings. The old Zoning Ordinance clarified that both conforming and nonconforming residential-only structures or buildings with four residential units or less that are involuntarily damaged or destroyed may be replaced or reconstructed with a Zoning Certificate.

The new Zoning Ordinance removed the term “conforming” from headers and titles, which resulted in new permit requirements for conforming projects, while the lesser requirement still applies to nonconforming projects. The proposed changes correct this error through revised headers and titles.
5 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.406.090

State Law Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING to BMC Title 23 JULY 11, 2023

BACKGROUND
On May 3, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and unanimously recommended adoption by a vote of 7-0-0 (Attachment 3) 6.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental and climate impacts or opportunities associated with the adoption of the proposed amendments.

The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments related to special needs housing and employment housing are within the scope of the analysis of the City of Berkeley 2023- 2031 Housing Element EIR (SCH#2022010331) certified by the City Council on January 18, 2023 (Resolution No. 70,669-N.S.) and would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

The proposed amendments related to parking, family day care home and technical edits do not constitute a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with state CEQA guidelines collectively, because they have no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment. In the event that these amendments are found to be a project under CEQA, they are subject to the CEQA “Common Sense Exemption” contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments may have a significant effect on the environment.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are required to ensure that the new Zoning Ordinance complies with all applicable state laws and accurately reflects the prior ordinance, and does not contain any changes from the old Zoning Ordinance that were not specifically authorized by City Council.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternatives were considered.

CONTACT PERSON
Robert Rivera, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department, 510-981-7476 6 Agenda-related materials for the May 3, 2023 Planning Commission meeting can be found at:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-agendas/2023-05- 03%20PC_Agenda%20Packet.pdf

State Law Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Technical Edits PUBLIC HEARING to BMC Title 23 JULY 11, 2023

Attachments:

1. Ordinance

2. Reference Matrix

3. Report to Planning Commission, May 3, 2023

4. Public Hearing Notice

ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.202), COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.204), MANUFACTURING DISTRICT CHAPTER (BMC 23.206), USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS (SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS) (BMC 23.302.070), GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHAPTER (BMC 23.304), EMERGENCY SHELTERS CHAPTER (BMC 23.308), PARKING AND LOADING CHAPTER (BMC 23.322), NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND BUILDINGS (BMC 23.342), AND GLOSSARY (BMC 23.502.020)

FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW RELATED TO SPECIAL NEEDS AND

EMPLOYMENT HOUSING, FAMILY DAY CARE HOME, PARKING, AND

ASSOCIATED TECHNICAL EDITS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That the following lines under the category “Public and Quasi-Public Uses” in Table 23.202-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Residential Districts) within Berkeley Municipal Code 23.202.020 are amended, added, or removed: “Emergency Shelter” is hereby amended, the lines “Emergency Shelter, more than 15 beds”; “Low Barrier Navigation Center” and “Supportive Housing” are hereby added, and the lines “Family Day Care Home, Large” and “Family Day Care Home, Small” are hereby removed to read as follows:

Table 23.202‑1: Allowed Land Uses in Residential Districts ZC = Zoning
Certificate
AUP =

ADMINISTRATIVE

USE PERMIT
UP(PH) = Use Permit
NP = Not Permitted
* Use-Specific
Regulations Apply
**--Required permits
for specific uses are
set forth in the R-
BMU Master
Development Permit
(MDP).See

23.202.150.A and

23.202.150.D

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

USE-SPECIFIC

REGULATIONS

APPLIES TO

USES WITH AN

ASTERISK

FOLLOWING THE
PERMIT

REQUIREMENT
(E.G., ZC*)
R-1 R-
1A
ES-
R R-2 R-
2A R-3 R-4 R-5 R-S R-
SMU
R-
BM
U*
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Emergency
Shelter, 15 beds
or fewer)

NP NP NP NP NP NP
Se
e

23. ZC ZC ZC ZC

23.308 -
Emergency
Shelters

308
ZC
Emergency
Shelter, more
than 15 beds

NP NP NP NP NP NP
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
Family Day
Care Home,
Large
ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

Family Day
Care Home,
Small
ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

ZC

Low Barrier
Navigation
Center

NP NP NP ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC
Supportive
Housing NP NP NP ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*

23.302.070. I
– Supportive
Housing

Section 2. The Berkeley Municipal Code Table 23.202-14 is hereby amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.202-14. R-4 LOT AND HEIGHT STANDARDS

BASIC STANDARDS SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS
Lot Area, Minimum

23.304.020– Lot Requirements New Lots 5,000 sq. ft.

Per Group Living Accommodation
Resident 350 sq. ft. [1]
Usable Open Space, Minimum

23.304.090– Usable Open Space Per Dwelling Unit 200 sq. ft.

Per Group Living Accommodation
Resident 90 sq. ft.

Floor Area Ratio, Maximum No maximum
Main Building Height, Average

23.304.050– Building Height New Buildings and Non-
Residential Additions
35 ft. and 3
stories [2]
Residential Additions 16 ft. [3]
Notes:

1. One additional resident is allowed for remaining lot area between 200 and 350 square feet.

2. Maximum 65 ft. and six stories allowed with Use Permit.

3. Height greater than 164 ft. up to 35 ft. allowed with an AUP. Height greater than 35 ft. up to 65 ft. and six stories allowed with a Use Permit.

Section 3. That the following lines under the category “Public and Quasi-Public Uses” in Table 23.204-1 (Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts) within Berkeley Municipal Code 23.204.020 (Allowed Land Uses) are hereby amended or added:
“Emergency Shelter” is amended; and the lines “Emergency Shelter, 26 to 60 beds”; “Emergency Shelter, more than 60 beds”; “Low Barrier Navigation Center”; and “Supportive Housing” are hereby added to read as follows:

TABLE 23.204-1. ALLOWED USES IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS ZC = Zoning
Certificate
AUP =
Administrative Use
Permit
UP(PH) = Use
Permit
NP = Not Permitted
-- = Permitted with
AUP, see

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

COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
USE-

SPECIFIC

REGULATI
ONS

C-C C-N C-U C-E C-
NS
C-
NA C-
SA
C-T C-
SO
C-
DM
U
C-
AC
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Emergency
Shelter, 25
beds or fewer

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC

23.308 -
Emergen
cy
Shelters

Emergency
Shelter, 26 to 60
beds
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
ZC
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
Emergency
Shelter, more
than 60 beds
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
UP
(P
H)
Low Barrier
Navigation
Center

ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC

Supportive
Housing
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*
ZC
*

23.302.0

70. I –
Supportiv
e
Housing

Section 4. That Berkeley Municipal Code Table 23.204-12 is hereby amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.204-12. C-U SETBACK STANDARDS

LOT LINE & PROJECT CONDITIONS REQUIRED SETBACK
Front
Ground-floor non-residential uses fronting
University Avenue
Average 2 ft.
2 ft. at all sidewalk pedestrian entries
Ground-floor residential uses fronting
University Avenue
Average 2 ft.

Maximum 10 ft.[1]
Fronting a street other than University
Avenue and confronting a non-residential
district
No minimum.

Rear
Lots on south side of University Avenue
abutting a lot in residential district
Minimum of 10 ft. or 10% of lot depth,
whichever is greater, and an aAverage_
of 20 ft. [2] [3]
All other lots Lots on south side of University
Avenue not abutting a residential district
No minimum 10 ft. or 10% of lot depth,
whichever is greater
Lots on north side of University Avenue See 23.204.060(.D)(.5)– C-U University Commercial District (Solar Access)
Interior Side No minimum
Street Side 2 ft. average
All setbacks for lots on South Side of University
Avenue fronting a street other than University
Avenue
As required by 23.304.030.C.2–
Setbacks (Lots Adjacent to Residential
Districts) [34]

Section 5. That the following lines under the category “Public and Quasi-Public Uses” in Table 23.206-1 (Allowed Uses in Manufacturing Districts), within Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.020 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements) named Low Barrier Navigation Center; and Supportive Housing are hereby added to read as follows:

TABLE 23.206-1. ALLOWED USES IN MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS

ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use
MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS Use-Specific
Standards
Applies to uses with M MM MU-LI MU-R

Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP,
see 23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit
Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards
Apply
an asterisk following
the permit requirement
(e.g., ZC*)
Public and Quasi-Public Uses
Low Barrier Navigation
Center NP NP NP ZC
Supportive Housing NP NP NP ZC*

23.302.070. I –
Supportive
Housing
Notes:

1. A maximum setback of 10 feet is only permitted for landscaping that enhances the streetscape and provides privacy for residential units on the first floor.

Rear setback area must be greater than or equal to the width of the lot in feet multiplied by 20 feet.

2. See 23.304.030(C)(.2)(.b) (Modifications in Commercial Districts) for allowed reductions.

3. If a lot fronting a side street is consolidated into a single project with the adjacent University Avenue-fronting lot, the project must conform to the setback standards in this table.

Section 6. That the line named “Retail, General” in Table 23.206-1 (Allowed Uses in Manufacturing Districts), within Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.020 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements) is hereby amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.206-1. ALLOWED USES IN MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS

ZC = Zoning Certificate
AUP = Administrative Use
Permit
UP(PH) = Use Permit
-- = Permitted with an AUP,
see 23.206.020(B)
NP = Not Permitted
[#] = Floor Area Permit
Requirement
* Use-Specific Standards
Apply

MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS
Use-Specific
Standards
Applies to uses with
an asterisk following
the permit requirement
(e.g., ZC*)
M MM MU-LI MU-R Use-Specific
Regulation
Retail Uses
Retail, General NP NP AUP*[5] AUP*[3] 23.206.080(.B)(.6);

23.206.090(.B)(.4)

Section 7. That Note 5 in Table 23.206-1 (Allowed Uses in Manufacturing Districts), within Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.020 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements) is hereby amended to read as follows:

[5] Not permitted over 2,000 sq. ft.Requires a Use Permit for more than 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area.

Section 8. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.206.040(C)(1) is hereby amended to read as follows:

1. As used in this section, “child -serving use” means a school, child care center, family day care or park/recreational facility used by children. Family day care homes are exempt from these regulations and not included in the definition of “child-serving use.”

Section 9. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.050(A)(3)(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:

a) To approve a Uuse Ppermit required by Table 23.206 -6 for changes to a protected industrial use in the MM and MU -LI districts, the review authority must find that replacement space is provided as required by Paragraph 4 (Replacement Space) below.

Section 10. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.050(B) is hereby removed and Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.050(C) is hereby amended to read as follows:

B. Protected Industrial Uses in the MU-R District.

1. Protected Industrial Uses Defined. Manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesale trade are protected industrial uses in the MU -R district. Protections apply only to legally - established uses.

2. Permit Required. Except as allowed by Section 23.206.050.B.4 (Exempt from Permit Requirement), a Use Permit is required to change a protected industrial use to any use that is not a protected industrial use.

3. Permit Findings . To approve a Use Permit , when required by Section 23.206.050.B.2 (Permit Required), the review authority must find that:

a) The change of use will not have a materially detrimental impact on the character of the MU -R district as a light industrial district, with particular reference to the character of the blocks and parts of blocks in the part of the district that is contiguous with the site; and
b) Appropriate mitigation has been made for loss of the manufacturing, wholesale trade, or warehouse space in excess of 25 percent of that space through providing such space elsewhere in Berkeley, payment into the West Berkeley Building Acquisition Fund, or by other appropriate means.

4. Exempt from Permit Requirement. A protected industrial use may be changed to an art/craft studio or contractor use with the permit required by Section 23.206.020 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements). Approval of an art/craft studio or contractor use within a protected industrial space does not eliminate any protections for the prior protected use and such protections will remain if the new non-protected use ceases.

B. Protected Non-Industrial Uses in the MU-LI and MU-R Districts.

1. Protected Non-Industrial Uses Defined. A use in the MU-LI or MU-R districts listed in Table 23.206-8 is classified as a protected non-industrial use, provided the use:
(a) Was legally established as of July 6, 1989; and
(b) Exists as a single stand-alone use or is combined with residential use in a live/work unit.

TABLE 23.206-8: PROTECTED NON-INDUSTRIAL USES

CATEGORY PROTECTED USES
Category 1 Art/craft studio
Category 2
1) Art galleries, ancillary to art/craft studios and when located in the same building
2) Child care facility
3) Family day care home
34) Fine arts performance, instruction and rehearsal studios (dance, music, theater)
45) Theaters, stage performance, but excluding motion picture theaters

2. Permit Required for Change of Use.
(a) Table 23.206-9 shows permits required to change a protected non- industrial use.

TABLE 23.206-9: PERMITS REQUIRED FOR CHANGE TO PROTECTED NON-INDUSTRIAL USE

NEW USE

EXISTING PROTECTED

USE GROSS FLOOR
AREA

A PROTECTED

USE IN THE SAME

CATEGORY

A PROTECTED USE IN A

DIFFERENT CATEGORY

A NON-PROTECTED USE

THAT OCCUPIES ALL OF

THE NON-RESIDENTIAL

FLOOR AREA IN THE

BUILDING
Less than 5,000 sq. ft. ZC AUP AUP
5,000 sq. ft. or more AUP UP(PH) UP(PH)

3. Owner-Occupied Exemption. A protected non-industrial use which is owner- occupied and occupies all of the non-residential floor area in a building is exempt from the requirements of this section.

4. Findings.
(a) To approve a permit required by Table 23.206-9, the review authority must find that space occupied by the existing non-industrial protected use will be replaced with a comparable space in the West Berkeley Plan area, which is reserved for use by any protected use in the same category. Such replacement space may not qualify for exemption under Paragraph 3 (Owner- Occupied Exemption) above or by reason of having been established after July 6, 1989.
(b) When making additional findings required by Chapter 23.406 (Specific Permit and Approval Requirements), the review authority may only consider the potential detriment associated with the new use. Dislocation of any specific previous occupant or use may not be a basis for finding detriment.

Section 11. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.080(B)(6) is hereby amended to read as follows:

6. General Retail. Allowed general retail uses in the MU-LI district are limited to food product stores and building materials and garden supply stores. Other types of general retail uses are not permitted. Food product stores are not permitted if over 2,000 square feet. Building materials and garden supplies stores are permitted with an AUP if under 20,000 square feet and with a Use Permit if 20,000 square feet or more.

Section 12. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.206.090(B)(3) is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. Community Care Facility. Community care facilities are allowed in the MU-R district only as a change of use. New construction is not permitted with a Use Permit.

Section 13. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.302.070(I) through (K) are hereby added and re-lettered to read as follows:

I. Supportive Housing.

1. Permits Required. Supportive housing shall be allowed by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, if the proposed housing development satisfies requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 65651(a).

I.J. Smoke Shops. In all districts, smoke shops are not permitted within 1,400 feet of a school or public park.

J.K. Warehouse Storage for Retail Use.

1. In all districts where retail uses are allowed, on-site storage of goods is allowed as an accessory use to a primary retail use on the lot.

2. The storage of goods for a contiguous and directly accessible retail space is allowed in the MU-LI and MU-R districts subject to the following:
a) An AUP is required for storage 3,000 square feet or less; a Use Permit is required for storage more than 3,000 square feet.
b) Except for food product stores in the MU-LI district, the storage is permitted only for uses within the district. Storage for retail uses wholly or partially outside the district is not permitted.

Section 14. That Berkeley Municipal Table 23.304-2 is hereby amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.304-2: ALLOWED BUILDING PROJECTIONS

BUILDING FEATURE

MAXIMUM PROJECTION INTO REQUIRED SETBACK
(MUST MAINTAIN 3 FT MINIMUM FROM INTERIOR SIDE

LOT LINE)

FRONT REAR INTERIOR
SIDE
STREET
SIDE
Chimneys, Water Heater Enclosures,
Flues, Heating and Cooling Equipment 2.5 ft. 2.5 ft. 1.5 ft. 2.5 ft.

Eaves, Cornices, Canopies, Awnings
and Bay Windows [1] 2.5 ft. 2.5 ft. 1.5 ft. 2.5 ft.

Uncovered decks, porches, landings,
ramps and stairs when 30 inches or
more above grade at any point [2]
6 ft. 6 ft. 1.5 ft. 2.5 ft.

Balconies and fire escapes [1] 6 ft. 6 ft. 1.5 ft. 2.5 ft.

Notes:

1. Projecting bay windows and balconies may not exceed 25% of the length of building wall to which its attached.

2. Uncovered decks, porches, landings and stairs less than 30 inches in height (not including railings) are not subject to minimum setback requirements.

Section 15. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.304.030(B)(4) is hereby amended to read as follows:

4. Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities. Wheelchair ramps, lifts, and other structures to accommodate persons with disabilities that are less than 30 inches above grade (not including railings) are not subject to minimum setback requirements. Any accessibility feature with a height above grade of 30 inches or more (not including railings) may project into a required setback area with approval of a reasonable accommodation request. See Section 23.406.090 (Reasonable Accommodation). Preferred designs would comply with the following:
a) One side yard with a pedestrian pathway of at least 3 feet in width that provides access to the rear yard shall be maintained on the lot . A public sidewalk that provides access to the rear yard would also meet this requirement, and. b) The projection may not block access to or encroach into any required off-street parking space or driveway leading to such space unless there is no other feasible location for the accessibility feature.

Section 16. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.308.020(C) is hereby removed as follows:

C. Required Permits. Table 23.308-1 shows permits required for emergency shelters.

TABLE 23.308-1: PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS DISTRICTS PERMIT REQUIRED [1]
Residential Districts
R-1, R-1A, ES-R, R-2, R-2A, R-3 Not Permitted
R-4, R-5, R-S, R-SMU, and R-BMU
15 beds or fewer [1] ZC
More than 15 beds UP(PH)
Commercial Districts

C-C, C-U, C-N, C-E, C-NS, C-SA, C-T, C-SO, C-W, C-AC

25 beds or fewer ZC
More than 25 beds UP(PH)
C-DMU
60 beds or fewer ZC
More than 60 beds UP(PH)
Manufacturing Districts
M, MM, MU-LI, MU-R Not Permitted
Notes:
[1] See also permit requirements based on floor area of use in Table 23.308-2.

Section 17. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.308.030(A) is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. All Districts. The following standards apply to emergency shelters in all districts.

1. No individual or household mayshall be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

2. No emergency shelter shall be located within 300 feet of another emergency shelter, except when a Use Permit is approved to allow less of a buffer distance.

3. When abutting a Residential District, all waiting and intake areas areas for shelter activities and uses, including but not limited to waiting and intake, personal storage, facility storage, and recreation,shall be located indoors.

4. The following eEmergency shelter facilities are required :to have

5.4. Aan area for onsite client intake equal to one-quarter of the area provided for client beds. This may be a multi-use area.
a. Shower and restroom facilities

6.5. The following incidental uses are permitted in emergency shelter facilities are optional:
a. Secure personal storage.
b. Daytime services.
c.a. Meal servicesOn-site cafeteria.
d. Communal kitchen.
e. Laundry equipment for clients.
f.b. Child care center.
g. Vehicle and/or bicycle parking.

7.6. Lighting shall be provided in all exterior areas, including pathways, parking areas, courtyards, rear yard areas, and spaces between structures. Lighting shall be directed in a manner that does not cast light onto neighboring properties.

8.7. On-site management and security shall be provided at all times the facility is in operation and on-site management shall be provided at least one hour before and after facility operation hours.

9. The shelter operator shall prepare and implement a Shelter Safety and Management Plan. The Plan shall be available to the public upon request and shall address the following:
a. Client congregation outside of the shelter facility to prevent queuing within the public right-of-way.
b. Eligibility criteria, enforcement rules, and procedures for disruptive clients.
c. Number and responsibilities of on-site support staff, training standards, other management procedures, and a primary and secondary contact person.
d. Bed bug prevention.
e. Refuse collection.
f. Security procedures.
g. Separation of sleeping areas and restrooms by gender and for families. h. Consistency with the Alameda County-Wide Homeless Continuum of Care: Health, Safety and Accessibility Standards for Shelter Facilities in Alameda County.

10.8. The shelter provider shall conduct a community meeting after giving notice to all owners and occupants on record with the Alameda County Assessorwithin a 100-foot radius of the proposed shelter location. A community meeting shall not be required when the target population of the proposed shelter requires privacy due to safety concerns as determined by the Zoning Officer.

Section 18. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.308.030(C) is hereby amended to read as follows:

C. Findings. To approve a Use Permit for an emergency shelter,under Section 23.308.020.C (Required Permits) or 23.308.030.B.2 (Standards in Residential Districts), the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) must find that a:

A larger shelter facility will help meet the City’s goals pertaining to emergency housing of the homeless.;

1. The circumstances of the subject property make the larger facility appropriate; and

2. Design features will minimize impacts on the surrounding area.

Section 19. That the category named “Non-Residential Uses” in Table 23.322-1, (Required Off Street Parking in Residential Districts), within Berkeley Municipal Code 23.322.030 (Required Parking Spaces), is hereby amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.322-1. REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Land Use Number of Required Off-street Parking Spaces
Non-Residential Uses
All non-residential
uses except uses
listed below
R-SMU District: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft.

R-BMU District: None required; no more than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.

All Other Residential Districts: See 23.322.030.A.2
Community Care
Facility
R-BMU District: None required; no more than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.

All Other Residential Districts: One per two non-resident employeesNone required
Food Service
Establishment
R-BMU District: None required; no more than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.

All Other Residential Districts: 1 per 300 sq. ft.

Hospital
R-SMU District: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft.

R-BMU District: None required; no more than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.

All Other Residential Districts: 1 per each 4 beds plus 1 per each 3 employees
Library
R-BMU District: None required; no more than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.

All Other Residential Districts: 1 per 500 sq. ft. of publicly accessible floor area
Nursing Home 1 per 3 employees
Medical Practitioners R-BMU District: None required; no more than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.

All Other Residential Districts: 1 per 300 sq. ft.

Non-Medical Offices R-SMU District: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft.

R-BMU District: None required; no more than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.

All Other Residential Districts: 1 per 400 sq. ft.

Hotels, Tourist 1 per 3 guest/sleeping rooms or suites plus 1 per 3 employees

Section 20. That the category named “Non-Residential Uses” in Table 23.322-4 (Required Off Street Parking in Manufacturing Districts), within Berkeley Municipal Code 23.322.030 (Required Parking Spaces), is hereby amended to read as follows:

TABLE 23.322‑4: REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING IN MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS

Land Use Required Parking Spaces
Non-Residential Uses
All non-residential
uses except uses
listed below
2 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Art/Craft Studio 1 per 1,000 sq. ft.

Community Care
Facility 1 per 2 non-resident employeesNone required
Food Service
Establishment 1 per 300 sq. ft.

Library 1 per 500 sq. ft. of publicly accessible floor area Laboratories 1 per 650 sq. ft.

Nursing Home 1 per 5 residents, plus 1 per 3 employees
Medical Practitioners One per 300 sq. ft.

Large Vehicle Sales
and Rental
MU-LI District: 1.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.

All Other Districts: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of display floor area plus 1 per 500 sq. ft. of other floor area; 2 per service bay Manufacturing MU-R District: 1.0 per 1,000 sq. ft.

All Other Districts: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. for spaces less than 10,000 sq. ft.; 1 per 1,500 sq. ft. for spaces 10,000 sq. ft. or more
Storage, warehousing,
and wholesale trade
1 per 1,000 sq. ft. for spaces of less than 10,000 sq. ft.; 1 per 1,500 sq. ft. for spaces 10,000 sq. ft. or more
Live/Work MU-LI District: 1 per 1,000 sq. ft. of work area where workers/clients are permitted
MU-R District: if workers/clients are permitted in work area, 1 per first 1,000 sq. ft. of work area and 1 per each
additional 750 sq. ft. of work area

Section 21. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.322.020(D) is hereby added to read as follows:

D. Location Exemption. Off-street parking spaces are not required for a new use or building, or an enlargement or intensification of an existing use or structure, that is located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop, as defined by Section 21155 of the California Public Resources Code, unless otherwise authorized by Government Code Section 65863.2.

Section 22. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.324 title is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 23.324

CONFORMING AND NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, AND BUILDINGS,

AND LOTS

Section 23. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.324.010 is hereby amended to read as follows:

23.324.010 Chapter Purpose.

This chapter establishes regulations for conforming and nonconforming lots, uses, structures, and buildings. These regulations are intended allow for:

A. The development and use of lawful nonconforming lots; B. Changes to nonconforming uses and the termination of abandoned uses; C. Maintenance, repair, and expansion of nonconforming structures and buildings; and D. Alterations to nonconforming structures and buildings when needed for public safety.

Section 24. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.324.050 section title is hereby amended to read as follows:

23.324.050 Conforming and Nonconforming Structures and Buildings

Section 25. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.324.050(F)(4)(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:

(a) A conforming or nonconforming residential-only structure or building with four residential units or less, including any accessory structures or buildings, that is involuntarily damaged or destroyed may be replaced or reconstructed with a Zoning Certificate.

Section 26. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.502.020(C)(17) is hereby amended to read as follows:

17. Community Care Facility . A state -licensed facility for the non -medical care and supervision of children, adolescents, adults or elderly persons. This use includes

community care facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 1500 et seq, residential care facilities for the elderly (H&SC Section 1569 et seq.), facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped (California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5000 et seq.), alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (H&SC Section 11834.02), supportive housing (California Government Code Section 65582), and other similar facilities. This use excludes medical care institutions, skilled nursing facilities, nursing homes, foster homes, family day care homes, child care facilities, supportive housing, and transitional housing.

Section 27. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.502.020(E)(3) is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. Emergency Shelter. Temporary lodging for homeless persons with minimal supportive services that may include 24-hour services and that may be limited to occupancy of six months or less as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50801(e)).

Section 28. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.502.020(F)(3) is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. Family Day Care Home. An establishment providing day care for 14 or fewer children in a dwelling unit as licensed by the California Department of Social Services. A family day care homes is considered an activity allowed as part of residential use in any zoning district in which residential uses are either permitted or conditionally permitted. must be incidental to must be operated in the dwelling unit or accessory building where the family day care operator resides.
(a) Small Family Day Care Home. A family day care home for eight or fewer children, including children who live at the home.
(b) Large Family Day Care Home. A family day care home for nine to fourteen children, including children who live at the home.

Section 29. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.502.020(H)(10) is hereby amended to read as follows:

10. Household. One or more persons, whether or not related by blood, marriage, or adoption, with common access to and use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within a single dwelling unit. sharing a dwelling unit in a living arrangement usually characterized by sharing living expenses, such as rent or mortgage payments, food costs and utilities,

as well as maintaining a single lease or rental agreement for all members of the household and other similar characteristics indicative of a single household.

Section 30. That Berkeley Municipal Code 23.502.020(L)(21) is hereby added as follows:

21. Low Barrier Navigation Center. A temporary, low-barrier-to-entry shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, healthy services, shelter, and housing. Low barrier includes best practices to reduce barriers to entry, such as allowing partners, pets, storage of personal items, and privacy pursuant to California Government Code Section 65660 and includes services to connect people to permanent housing through a service plan and services staffing and a coordinated entry system pursuant to Section 576.400(d) or Section 578.7(a)(8), as applicable, of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 31. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.502.020(S)(16) is hereby amended to read as follows:

16. 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

Section 32. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23.502.020(S)(32) is hereby amended to read as follows:

32. Supportive Housing. As defined in Health and Safety Code 50675.14(b)(2), housing with no limit on length of stay,(2): Housing with no limit on length of stay, Any dwelling unit or a Group Living Accommodation, that is occupied by the target population as defined in Health and Safety Code 50675.14(b)(3)in subdivision (d) of Section 53260 of the CA Health and Safety Code, with no limit on length of stay, that isand linked to on- or off-site services that assist the supportive housing residents in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.

Section 33. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code pursuant to State Law and Other Technical Edits – Reference Matrix
Table 1 Proposed Amendments to Address State Laws
State Laws Amended Berkeley Municipal Code
Section(s)
Proposed Amendment(s)
AB 139 (Emergency Shelters
2019) limits the development
standards that local jurisdictions
can impose on emergency
shelters.

AB 2339 (Emergency Shelters
2022) provides that the sites
identified for emergency shelters
must be in areas where
residential uses are permitted or
are otherwise suitable

23.202.020 Allowed Land Use
(Residential)

23.204.040 Allowed Land Uses
(Commercial)

23.308.020(C) Applicability and
Nonconformities (Emergency Shelters);

23.308.030(A) Standards for Emergency
Shelters;

23.308.030(C) Findings (Emergency
Shelters);

23.502.020(E)(3) Defined Terms;
Removes standards that local
jurisdictions cannot regulate pursuant to
AB139 and included Emergency Shelter
in applicable allowed use tables. No
substantive changes for permit types or
thresholds for number of beds are
included.

Proposed amendment also updates the
definition of Emergency Shelter to
clarify that 24-hour services are
permitted
No changes are proposed in response
to AB 2339 because sites identified for
emergency shelters are already
permitted and located in all areas where
residential uses are permitted.

AB 101 (Low Barrier
Navigation Center) defines “low
barrier navigation centers” and
requires local jurisdictions to
permit low barrier navigation
centers by right in zones that
allow mixed-use development
and nonresidential zones that
permit multifamily uses, provided
the facility meets certain
standards.

23.202.020 Allowed Land Uses
(Residential)

23.204.020 Allowed Land Uses
(Commercial)

23.206.020 Allowed Land Uses
(Manufacturing)

23.502.020(L)(21) Defined Terms
AB 101 permits low barrier navigation
centers by right in zones that permit
multifamily uses. Consistent with AB
101, proposed amendment added the
use permitted by right with a ZC in each
zoning district that permits multifamily.

Also, proposed amendments added a
definition consistent with state law.

Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code pursuant to State Law and Other Technical Edits – Reference Matrix
State Laws Amended Berkeley Municipal Code
Section(s)
Proposed Amendment(s)
AB 2162 (Supportive Housing)
requires local jurisdictions to
allow supportive housing projects
with 50 or fewer units in all zones
where multifamily and mixed-use
residential development is
permitted, provided the project
meets other specified criteria.

23.202.020 Allowed Land Uses
(Residential)

23.204.020 Allowed Land Uses
(Commercial)

23.206.020 Allowed Land Uses
(Manufacturing)

23.302.070(I) Use-Specific Regulation

23.502.020(C)(17) Defined Terms

23.502.020(S)(32) Defined Terms
Amend Co
mmunity Care Facility
defini
tion to exclude supportive housing;
suppo
rtive housing is already defined
separa
tely. Proposed amendments
upda
ted the defini
tion to be consistent
with the Cal
ifornia Health and Safety
Code
and amend the City-wide Use
Specific
Regulations to include criteria
requi
rements under AB 2162.

Health and Safety Code HSC
17021.5 (Employee Housing
Act) requires local jurisdictions to
consider employee housing
providing accommodations for
six or fewer employees as a
single-family structure with a
residential land use designation.

23.502.020(S)(16) Defined Terms Update Single-Family Dwelling definition to include “employee housing”
to align with the requirements from
Health and Safety Code 17021.5
House Element (Household
definition) as part of Program-
31 requires the City to update the
definition of household to remove
constraint on housing for persons
with disabilities.

23.502.020(H) Defined Terms Update the definition of household to be consistent with current practice. The city
does not require proof of single lease,
rental agreements or proof of shared
living expenses and therefore proposed
amendments remove the requirements
from the definition of household.

Lanterman Developmental
Disabilities Service Act
(Residential Care) requires local
jurisdictions to allow licensed
residential facilities for six or
fewer persons as a permitted use

23.206.090(B)(3) MU-R Mixed Use-
Residential District (Community Care
Facility)
Amend use specific standards to allow
new development of community care
facilities with a Use Permit, consistent
with multifamily use, in the MU-R
District.

Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code pursuant to State Law and Other Technical Edits – Reference Matrix
State Laws Amended Berkeley Municipal Code
Section(s)
Proposed Amendment(s)
in all zones where residential use
is permitted.

SB 234 (Supportive Child Care
Family Home Expansion)
considers all family daycare
homes for up to 14 children, that
operate under the standards of
state law, a by-right residential
use and prohibits the
requirement of a business
license.

23.202.020 Allowed Land Uses
(Residential)

23.206.040(C)(1) Use-Specific Regulation

23.206.050(C) Protected Non-Industrial
Uses in the MU-LI and MU-R Districts.

23.502.020(F)(3) Defined Terms
Amend the definition of “family day care
home” to clarify that they are considered
an activity allowed as part of residential
use and amend the residential use table
to align with the change. Proposed
amendments also updated definition of
“child-serving uses” in the MU-LI and
MU-R District to remove reference to
family day care homes and removed
“family day care home” as a protected
industrial use in MU-R District, as it is
inherently a permitted residential use.

AB 2097 (Minimum Parking
Requirements) prohibits the City
from imposing a minimum off-
street automobile parking
requirement on most1
development projects in any
zoning district located within ½
mile of a major transit stop as
defined in Section 21155 of
Public Resource Code2 which
defines a major transit stop as a
corridor with fixed route bus

23.322.020(D) Applicability Consi
stent with state law, staff included
a locatio
n exemption for all
devel
opment projects within ½ mile of
major
transit stop.
1 “Project” does not include a project where any portion is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except where a portion of a housing development project is designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=13.&title=&part=&chapter=4.2.&article=

Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code pursuant to State Law and Other Technical Edits – Reference Matrix
State Laws Amended Berkeley Municipal Code
Section(s)
Proposed Amendment(s)
service with service intervals no
longer than 15 minutes during
peak commute hours.

Table 2 Proposed Technical Zoning Amendments
Technical Edits/Corrections Amended Berkeley Municipal Code Section(s)
Proposed Amendment(s)
R-4 Lot and Height Standards

23.202
.110 E. (Development Standards)
Table
23-202-14 R-4 Lot and Height
Standard
s
Staff identified an error between the
allowed building height and permit
requirement in the R-4 Lot and Height
Standards Table. The development
standards for residential additions allow
a building height of 16 feet, but the
footnote requires a permit for heights
greater than 14 feet. Also, text
describing stories permitted from the old
Zoning Ordinance was omitted from the
footnote. Proposed amendments correct
the error and include omitted text.

C-U Setback Standards

23.204
.060 D. (Development Standards)
Table

23.204-12: C-U Setback
Standard
s
Text was omitted from the old Zonin
g
Ordinan
ce pertaining to minimum rear
setbacks and
proposed amendments
inclu
de the text to correct the error.

Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code pursuant to State Law and Other Technical Edits – Reference Matrix
Technical Edits/Corrections Amended Berkeley Municipal Code Section(s)
Proposed Amendment(s)
MU-LI Building Materials and
Garden Supplies

23.206.080(B)(6) (Land use Regulations)
Table 23.206-1 including notes
The Old Zoning Ordinance allowed
building materials and garden supplies
stores up to 20,000 sq. ft. with an AUP.

New Zoning Ordinance limits building
materials and garden supplies stores to
2,000 sq. ft. Proposed amendments
correct the error and permit uses
consistent with the old Zoning
Ordinance.

Allowed Building Projections 23.304.030 (Setbacks)
A Reason
able Accommodation (AUP) is
requi
red for all wheelchair ramps, if all
criteria
are met, while stairs, decks and
porche
s are not subject to minimum
setback requ
irements.

Proposed amendments would make
standards consistent for other similar
features like porches, ramps, stairs and
decks and clarifies development
requirements for accessibility features.

Protected Industrial Uses

23.206.050(A)(3)(a) Protected Industrial
Uses in the MM and MU-LI Districts

23.206.050(B) Protected Industrial Uses
in the MU-R District.

The old
Zoning Ordinance allowed
conversi
on of protected industrial uses
up to 25%
or 20,000 (whichever was
less) wi
th an AUP. The old Zoning
Ordinan
ce did not apply change of use
findin
gs for all permits in the MM and
MU-LI Districts. Finding
s were only
appl
ied when a use permit was
requi
red. The new Zoning Ordinance
removed
this standard and requires

Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code pursuant to State Law and Other Technical Edits – Reference Matrix
Technical Edits/Corrections Amended Berkeley Municipal Code Section(s)
Proposed Amendment(s)
findin
gs for all permits and does not
permit conve
rsions with an AUP.

Propose
d amendments clarify the
appl
icability to only apply when a
chang
e of use requires a use permit. In
addi
tion, Staff propose amendments to
protected in
dustrial uses in the MU-R
district. The MU-R district in the old

Zoning
Ordinance did not
describ
e protected industrial uses and
incorre
ctly included findings for change
of use betwee
n manufacturing,
wareh
ousing and wholesale to match
formatting for MM and MU-LI Districts.

Staff
propose to remove the protected
indu
strial uses from the MU-R Zoning
District.

Conforming and
Nonconforming Uses,
Structures, and Buildings.

23.342 Nonconforming Uses, Structures
and Buildings

23.342.040 Nonconforming Structures
and Buildings

23.324.050(F)(4)(a) Damage and
Reconstruction
The old Zoning Ordinance clarified that
both conforming and nonconforming
residential-only structures or buildings
with four residential units or less that
are involuntarily damaged or destroyed
may be replaced or reconstructed with a
Zoning Certificate. The new Zoning
Ordinance removed the term
“conforming” from headers and titles,
which resulted in additional permitting
requirements for conforming projects
that could have been rebuilt with a
Zoning Certificate. The proposed

Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code pursuant to State Law and Other Technical Edits – Reference Matrix
Technical Edits/Corrections Amended Berkeley Municipal Code Section(s)
Proposed Amendment(s)
changes correct this error through
revised headers and titles

Attachment 3
Planning and Development Department
Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 3, 2023
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Robert Rivera, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Amendments to Title 23 for Consistency with State Law Related to Special Needs and Employment Housing, Family Day Care Home, Parking, and Associated Technical Edits

RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing to: 1) discuss zoning amendments required to align with State laws related to special needs housing, employment housing, family day care home, and parking, as well as additional non- substantive edits to the sections of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) listed below; and 2) make a recommendation to City Council to approve the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments (Attachment 1).
 23.202.020 Allowed Land Uses (Residential Districts)
 23.202.110 R-4 Multi-Family Residential District
 23.204.020 Allowed Land Uses (Commercial Districts)
 23.204.040 Use Specific Regulations (Commercial Districts)  23.204.060 C-U University Commercial District
 23.206.020 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements (Manufacturing Districts)
 23.206.040 Use Specific Regulations (Manufacturing Districts)  23.206.050 Protected Industrial Uses
 23.206.080 MU-LI Mixed Use-Light Industrial District (Land Use Regulations)  23.302.070 Use-Specific Regulations (Supplemental Use Regulations)  23.304.030 Setbacks
 23.304.040 Building Separation in Residential Districts  23.308.020 Applicability and Nonconformities (Emergency Shelters)  23.308.030 Standards for Emergency Shelters
 23.322.020 Applicability (Parking and Loading)
 23.322.030 Required Parking
 23.502.020 Glossary

SUMMARY
In response to recent changes in housing-related State laws, and programs adopted in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, staff has prepared Zoning Ordinance amendments to align land use standards with State law requirements for special needs and employment housing, family day care home, and parking. Furthermore, staff has incorporated technical, non-substantive amendments identified as necessary to maintain consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance.

BACKGROUND
On January 18, 2023, The Berkeley City Council adopted an updated Housing Element for the period 2023-2031 (Resolution No. 70,669-N.S). On February 28, 2023, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found the adopted Housing Element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Article

10.6 of the Gov. Code) and stated the City must continue timely and effective implementation of all programs. Program 31 – Zoning Code Amendments: Special Needs Housing - requires the City of Berkeley to review and adopt new zoning provisions by December 2023 to align land use standards with State law requirements for special needs housing. In addition, staff is also bringing forward related parking, family day care home, and employee housing amendments required for compliance with other recently approved State laws, as well as technical edits to ensure consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION
The following is a summary of State law requirements related to special needs and employment housing, family day care home, parking, and also non-substantive technical edits identified by the Zoning Officer. Each section provides a brief summary and refences a summary table that identifies the Zoning Ordinance section and the proposed changes (Attachment 2).

Emergency Shelter (AB 139 & AB 2339)
AB 139 (2019) limits the development standards that local jurisdictions can impose on emergency shelters. Jurisdictions are limited to regulating the following objective standards:
 Maximum number of beds,
 Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff, provided that this standard does not require more parking for shelters than other residential or commercial uses in the same zone,
 Size and location of onsite client waiting and intake areas,  Proximity to other shelters, provided that shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart,
 Length of stay,
 Lighting,
 Provision of onsite management,
 Security during operating hours.

.

AB 2339 (2022) provides that the sites identified for emergency shelters must be in areas where residential uses are permitted or are otherwise suitable, thus prohibiting local governments from situating shelters in industrial zones or other areas disconnected from services which may include, health care, transportation, retail, employment, and social services.

To address AB 139, staff propose removing standards that local jurisdictions cannot regulate and included Emergency Shelter in applicable Allowed Use Tables. No substantive changes for permit types or thresholds for number of beds are included.

Staff also updated the definition of Emergency Shelter to clarify that 24-hour services may be included. Staff has not made any changes in response to AB 2339 because sites identified for emergency shelters are permitted and located in all areas where residential uses are permitted.

Low Barrier Navigation Center (AB 101)
AB 101 (2019) defines “low barrier navigation centers” as:
“A Housing First, low barrier, service enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.”
Housing First refers to serving individuals experiencing homelessness by prioritizing a safe place to live. Low barrier shelters may also provide additional flexibility, such as allowing partners to share living spaces or pets.

AB 101 requires local jurisdictions to permit low barrier navigation centers by right in zones that allow mixed-use development and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily uses, provided the facility meets certain standards.

The Berkeley Zoning Ordinance does not currently define or address low barrier navigation centers. Consistent with AB 101, staff propose adding the use permitted by right with a ZC in each zoning district that permits multifamily. Also, staff propose a definition of “low barrier navigation center” that is consistent with State law.

Supportive Housing (AB 2162)
AB 2162 (2018) requires local jurisdictions to allow supportive housing projects with 50 or fewer units in all zones where multifamily and mixed-use residential development is permitted, provided the project meets other specified criteria pursuant to Government Code Section 65651(a)1. Additionally, parking is not required for supportive housing projects located within one half-mile of a public transit stop as required by Government Code Section 65654.

1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65651.

Currently, the Zoning Ordinance includes supportive housing within the definition of Community Care Facility, as well as a separate stand-alone definition for supportive housing. Proposed amendments would remove supportive housing from the community care facility definition, amend Residential, Commercial and Manufacturing zoning use tables to be consistent with State law criteria, and amend the definition to be consistent with the California Health and Safety Code.

Projects consistent with the criteria under Government Code Section 65651(a) would be permitted by-right, with a Zoning Certificate, in all zones where multifamily and mixed- use residential development is permitted. If a project does not qualify under the criteria, the project would not be considered supportive housing and would fall under another definition for housing with permit requirements consistent with the respective allowed use table.

Employee Housing Act
The Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code 17021.5) requires local jurisdictions to consider employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees as a single-family structure with a residential land use designation. Thus, the proposed changes amend the definition of Single-Family Dwelling to include employee housing.

Household definition
The 2023-2031 Housing Element – Program 31 identified the City’s definition of household as a necessary update to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities by updating the definition to align with current City practices. The City does not require proof of single lease, rental agreements or proof of shared living expenses and therefore staff proposes to remove the requirements from the definition of household. Staff also reviewed the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that this change does not impact other regulations where reference to “household” is made.

Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Service Act (Lanterman Act) In accordance with State law, State licensed residential facilities for six or fewer persons are a permitted use in all zones where residential use is permitted, with no minimum parking requirement for non-resident employees. The following State statutes require that small (serving six or fewer persons) licensed group homes be treated like other residential uses and include: facilities for persons with disabilities and other facilities (Welfare & Inst. Code 5116), residential health care facilities (Health & Safety Code 1267.8, 1267.9, & 1267.16), residential care facilities for the elderly (Health & Safety Code 1568.083 - 1568.0831, 1569.82 – 1569.87), community care facilities (Health & Safety Code 1518, 1520.5, 1566 - 1566.8, 1567.1), pediatric day health facilities (Health & Safety Code 1267.9;1760 – 1761.8), and facilities for alcohol and drug treatment (Health & Safety Code 11834.23).

Currently, the Zoning Ordinance permits conversion of an existing dwelling into a residential care facility, regardless of the number of residents, with a Zoning Certificate.

New construction of a residential care facility would require a Use Permit, which is the

same review procedure applied to other residential development. Proposed amendments would make that consistent within the MU-R District. Parking for non- resident employees is the other non-compliant development standard and the proposed amendment would remove parking requirements for nonresident employees to be consistent with State law.

Supportive Child Care Family Home Expansion (SB 234)
SB 234 (2019) considers all family daycare homes for up to 14 children, operating under the standards defined by State law, a residential use and prohibits the requirement of a business license.

Currently, the Zoning Ordinance requires a Zoning Certificate for all family day care homes and the City does not require a business license. Proposed amendments edit the definition of family day care home to clarify that they are considered an activity allowed as part of residential use and amend the residential use table to align with the change. Staff also amended the definition of “child-serving uses” in the MU-LI and MU- R District to remove reference to family day care homes.

Minimum Parking Requirements (AB 2097)
AB 2097 (2022) prohibits the City from imposing a minimum off-street automobile parking requirement on most development projects in any zoning district located within one half-mile of a transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of Public Resource Code2, which defines a high-quality transit corridor as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

The proposed amendments include a location exemption from the minimum off-street parking requirements and codify language consistent with State law to preserve the City’s ability to impose minimum parking requirements in limited instances, such as parking requirements for hotels and event centers.

Technical Edits
On October 12, 2021, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 7,787-N.S., which replaced Title 23 (“the old Zoning Ordinance”) of the Berkeley Municipal Code and adopted a new Title 23 (“the new Zoning Ordinance”) to make the City’s Zoning Ordinance easier to understand and administer. The City Council gave staff direction to make minor changes to comply with State law or codify prior zoning interpretations.

Staff was directed to regularly return to the Planning Commission and City Council with amendments necessary to maintain the integrity of the new Zoning Ordinance.

Proposed non-substantive amendments correct mistakes and errors identified by the Zoning Officer, City staff, and the public, as inconsistent with the old Zoning Ordinance.

The following technical edits are proposed:
2https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=13.&title=&part=&chapt er=4.2.&article=

 R-4 Lot and Height Standards. The development standards for residential additions allow a building height of 16 feet, but the footnote requires a permit for heights greater than 14 feet and text was omitted from the old Zoning Ordinance.

Staff propose to correct the error.
 C-U Setback Standards. Text from the old Zoning Ordinance pertaining to minimum rear setbacks—for lots on the south side of University Avenue abutting lots in residential districts—was omitted from the new Zoning Ordinance. Staff proposes to re-insert the minimum rear setback requirement to correct the error.

Staff also proposes to correct an error pertaining to rear setbacks for lots in the C-U on the south side of University Avenue not abutting lots in residential districts. Staff proposes no minimum setback to match the old Zoning Ordinance, which did not require a rear setback. Finally, staff proposes to remove Note #2 in Table 23.204-12 (C-U Setback Standards) to remove confusion; the old Zoning Ordinance referenced calculation of rear setback area as an example, and not a requirement.
 MU-LI Building Materials and Garden Supplies. The old Zoning Ordinance allowed building materials and garden supplies stores up to 20,000 square feet with an AUP and 20,000 square feet or larger with a Use Permit. The new Zoning Ordinance limits building materials and garden supplies stores to 2,000 square feet. Proposed text corrects this error and permits uses and sizes consistent with the old Zoning Ordinance.
 Allowed Building Projections. If all criteria are met3, a Reasonable Accommodation (AUP) is required for all wheelchair ramps, while stairs, decks and porches are not subject to minimum setback requirements. Proposed amendments would make standards consistent across sections and clarify development requirements for accessibility features.
 Protected Industrial Uses. The old Zoning Ordinance did not apply change of use findings for all permits in the MM and MU-LI Districts – which must provide replacement space. Findings were only applied when a use permit was required.

Staff has clarified the applicability to only apply when the change of use requires a use permit. Similarly, for the MU-R Zoning District, the old Zoning Ordinance did not require a use permit to change a protected industrial use for all changes from manufacturing, warehousing and wholesale. The new Zoning Ordinance requires a permit for all change of uses regardless of the permit requirements.

The proposed changes correct this error.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council that:
 The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments related to special needs housing and employment housing are within the scope of the analysis of the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element EIR (SCH#2022010331) certified by the City Council on January 18, 2023 (Resolution No. 70,669-N.S.) and would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts. 3 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.406.090

 The proposed amendments related to family day care home, parking, and technical edits do not constitute a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with State CEQA guidelines collectively, “CEQA”) because they have no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment.

In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, they are subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments may have a significant effect on the environment.

NEXT STEPS
Upon receiving Planning Commission recommendation and public comment, Staff will forward a proposed draft Zoning Ordinance to City Council for consideration and adoption.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance – Zoning Ordinance Amendments

2. Reference Matrix – Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Pursuant to State Law and Other Technical Edits

3. Public Hearing Notice

Attachment 4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING – BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
Adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Title 23 of the Berkeley Municipal Code to Conform to State Law Relating to Special Needs Housing, Employment Housing, Family Day Care, Parking; and Non-Substantive Technical Edits to the Berkeley Municipal Code Sections 23.202.020 Allowed Land Uses (Residential Districts); 23.202.110 (R-4 Multi-Family Residential District); 23.204.020 (Allowed Land Uses Commercial Districts); 23.204.040 (Use Specific Regulations Commercial Districts); 23.204.060 (C-U University Commercial District);

23.206.020 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements Manufacturing Districts); 23.206.040 (Use Specific Regulations Manufacturing Districts);

23.206.050 (Protected Industrial Uses); 23.206.080 (MU-LI Mixed Use-Light Industrial District Land Use Regulations); 23.302.070 Use-Specific Regulations Supplemental Use Regulations); 23.304.030 (Setbacks); 23.304.040 (Building Separation in Residential Districts); 23.308.020 (Applicability and Nonconformities Emergency Shelters); 23.308.030 (Standards for Emergency Shelters); 23.322.020 (Applicability Parking and Loading); 23.322.030 (Required Parking); 23.324 (Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Buildings); 23.324.010 (Chapter Purpose); 23.324.050 (Nonconforming Structures and Buildings);

23.502.020 (Glossary)
The Department of Planning and Development is proposing Zoning Ordinance Amendment to align land use standards with State law requirements for special needs housing. In addition, staff is also bringing forward related parking, family day care home, and employee housing amendments required for compliance with other recently approved State laws, as well as technical edits to ensure consistency throughout the Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments related to housing are within the scope of the analysis of the City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element EIR (SCH#2022010331) certified by the City Council on January 18, 2023 (Resolution No. 70,669-N.S.) and would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts. The proposed amendments related to family day care home, parking, and technical edits do not constitute a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with State CEQA guidelines collectively, “CEQA”) because they have no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, they are subject to the CEQA “Common Sense Exemption” contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments may have a significant effect on the environment.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 6:00 PM. in the Berkeley Unified School District Board Room located at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley CA 94702.

A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at

www.berkeleyca.gov as of June 29, 2023. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology, as well as any health and safety requirements for in-person attendance.

For further information, please contact Robert Rivera, Senior Planner, at 510-981-7480.

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.

If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at (510) 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.

Published: June 30, 2023 – The Berkeley Voice
Public Hearing required by BMC 23.412.050 and Govt Code 65853; notice provided according to Govt Code 65090 and BMC 23.404.040.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hereby certify that the Notice for this Public Hearing of the Berkeley City Council was posted at the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, as well as on the City’s website, on June 29, 2023.
__________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits

ACTION CALENDAR
July 11, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend City Council request that the City Manager report back by January 2024, and every six months thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented. Some of our recommendations include: establish retention goals and conduct an analysis of staff needed for city operations and services; consider staff capacity around new legislation; take steps to improve employee satisfaction; identify opportunities for efficiency in the hiring process, and modernize its recruiting process; expand the telework policy to align with best practices; and regularly collect data on employee satisfaction and on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Implementing the recommendations outlined in the audit Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring will have fiscal implications for the city. While the exact financial impact will depend on specific implementation strategies and timelines, it is crucial to allocate adequate resources to ensure the successful execution of these initiatives. The long-term benefits of improved employee retention, such as enhanced service delivery, reduced recruitment and onboarding costs, and increased employee productivity, will outweigh the initial investments.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
During the audit period of fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2022, Berkeley experienced staff shortages that impacted the delivery of crucial city services. The City lacked a clear and data- driven retention strategy, exacerbating the problem. Employee dissatisfaction emerged as a key factor contributing to staff turnover, with voluntary separations (resignations and retirements) surpassing new hires each year of the audit period. Outcomes of the employee satisfaction survey that we performed as part of the audit highlight concerns related to workload, outdated internal systems, limited professional development opportunities, employee pay, and inadequate support and communication from city management. In a survey of former employees, 47 percent reported that organizational culture problems were among their primary reasons for leaving the City.

The instability in the Human Resources department further impeded Berkeley's ability to fill vacancies effectively. Over the audit period, the average time to hire new employees increased substantially, from 4.9 months in fiscal year 2018 to 7.7 months in fiscal year 2022, causing

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring ACTION CALENDAR Pg. 2 of 2
delays in crucial recruitment processes. Additionally, while telework showed potential in retaining employees, the City's existing telework policy is limited and in need of enhancement.

We also found a lack of reliable data for monitoring workforce retention trends, including accurate information on vacancies and employee satisfaction.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has 1,792 budgeted full-time equivalent (FTE) positions as of FY 2023.

Retaining employees is important for government organizations to ensure there are enough staff to deliver services and programs effectively. Though outside factors such as the Great Resignation provide a larger context for employee retention, retaining employees in Berkeley was a problem before the pandemic and the Great Resignation, which are not solely responsible for citywide retention challenges.

Some level of employee turnover is necessary in healthy organizations. Employees leave for many reasons other than job dissatisfaction, including retirement, or relocation. Employee turnover also allows new talent and people with new skillsets to enter the organization.

However, too much employee turnover becomes costly and makes it more difficult for organizations to function. Excessive turnover can also lower the morale of the remaining staff in an organization.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
In our report, we identify opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions created from employee commutes through the use of telework. Decreasing emissions aligns with Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan goal to reduce the year 2000 emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Implementing our recommendations will improve the City’s management of employee retention and mitigate risks associated with excessive turnover and vacancies.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510-981-6750 Attachments:
1: Audit Report - Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Audit Report
May 27, 2021
Staff Shortages: City
Services Constrained
by Staff Retention
Challenges and
Delayed Hiring

June 22, 2023
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Caitlin Palmer, Senior Auditor
Erin Mullin, Senior Auditor
Kendle Kuechle, Auditor I
Pauline Miller, Auditor I

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Report Highlights
For the full report, visit:
https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/city-audits
Findings

1. Berkeley’s staff shortages constrained city services, but the City did not have a clear strategy to improve retention during our audit period. More employees left the City than were hired in each year of the audit period, contributing to the staff shortage.

Resignations and retirements outpaced full-time hires
during the audit period.

Source: ERMA, FUND$, and NEOGOV

2. Employee dissatisfaction made it harder for the City to retain staff. Surveyed employees reported dissatisfaction with workloads, professional development opportunities, pay, and communication and support from city leadership.

3. Instability in Human Resources delayed hiring and impacted internal services. The average time it took to hire new employees increased from 4.9 months in fiscal year 2018 to 7.7 months in fiscal year 2022.

4. Telework can benefit the City and help retain some employees but the current policy is limited.

5. The City lacked reliable data to monitor trends and address staff shortages.

Recommendations
We recommend that the City establish retention goals, conduct an analysis of staff needed for city services and consider staff capacity around new legislation. We also recommend that the City take steps to address employee satisfaction and improve the recruiting and hiring process. We also recommend that the City expand the telework policy to align with best practices and regularly collect data on employee satisfaction and on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

June 22, 2023
Objectives

1. How do staff shortages affect city
services?

2. What is the state of employee
satisfaction?

3. What internal factors impact the
City’s ability to fill vacancies?

4. How does telework affect the City’s
ability to retain employees?

5. How does the City use data to
address staff shortages?

Why This Audit Is Important
Berkeley government has faced
difficulties retaining employees, which
caused staff shortages that limited the
City’s ability to provide services to
residents. Staff shortages can make
workloads for current employees
unmanageable, which can drive down
morale and worsen employee
retention. Combined, these issues can
lead to an increase in employee errors,
a decrease in the quality of services,
and an overall increase in the City’s
financial risks and other liabilities. The
inability to retain employees can also
be costly to the City in the long run, as
it may be more expensive to hire and
train new employees than it is to retain
productive employees.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff
Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 3 Table of Contents

leaving.

Introduction
We identified employee retention in the City of Berkeley as an area needing independent assessment based on our observation of challenges with employee retention and staff shortages in previous audits.1 Employee retention refers to an organization’s ability to keep employees and reduce turnover. Staff shortages can limit Berkeley government’s ability to provide public services and programs. For example, understaffing in the Police department and ɰɨɨ dispatch center can increase ɰɨɨ call response times for the Berkeley community and result in officer burnout and fatigue, contributing to health and safety risks. Understaffing in financial oversight roles can increase the risk of fraud. Employee retention is essential to maintaining enough staff to provide high quality services to Berkeley residents.

1 Past audits identifying workforce retention issues include an audit of Police overtime and outside security work , an audit of ɰɨɨ dispatcher staffing and overtime, and an audit of the Code Enforcement unit.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 4 Our audit examines the root causes of the City’s retention challenges and provides recommendations to prevent the City from facing a staffing crisis of this magnitude in the future. While some departments have unique retention challenges based on the nature of their work, the purpose of this audit is to understand citywide challenges and provide recommendations to improve retention across all departments. We initially started work on this audit in November ɩɧɨɰ, but postponed our work at the onset of the COVID-ɨɰ pandemic as audit staff were diverted to the Emergency Operations Center. We resumed this audit in March ɩɧɩɩ. In September ɩɧɩɩ, the City contracted with consulting firm MRG Associates to develop a separate Employer of Choice report. Some themes of this audit are similar to MRG’s report, but our work follows audit standards as specified in the City Charter.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Our objectives were to answer the following questions:
ɨ. How do staff shortages affect city services?
ɩ. What is the state of employee satisfaction?

3. What internal factors impact the City’s ability to fill vacancies?

4. How does telework affect the City’s ability to retain employees? ɬ. How does the City use data to address staff shortages? We evaluated employee retention data for fiscal years (FY) ɩɧɨɯ through ɩɧɩɩ. We analyzed data on hiring, vacancies, longevity, and employee demographics. To understand employee perspectives, we surveyed current employees about their job satisfaction, and surveyed employees who voluntarily resigned or retired from the City about why they left. We also interviewed every department director in the City and offered to meet with union representatives from employee labor groups. Lastly, we reviewed best practices from leading human resource organizations along with staffing data from local jurisdictions to compare to Berkeley. For more information on the methodology, see page ɫɰ.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 5 Background
City of Berkeley’s Workforce
The City of Berkeley has ɨ,ɮɰɩ budgeted full-time equivalent (FTE) positions as of fiscal year ɩɧɩɪ. 2 The three largest departments are Public Works, Police, and Health, Housing, and Community Services (Table ɨ).

Table ɨ. Budgeted Full-Time Equivalent Positions by Department, Fiscal Year ɩɧɩɪ Department Budgeted FTEs
Public Works 340.00
Police 313.20
Health, Housing and Community Services 265.58
Fire 203.00
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront 165.62
Planning and Development 116.04
Library 115.60
Finance 56.00
Information Technology 52.00
City Manager 45.50
Rent Board 23.55
Human Resources 22.00
Mayor and Council 19.00
City Attorney 17.00
City Auditor 14.75
City Clerk 10.00
Economic Development 8.00
Office of the Director of Police Accountability 5.00
Source: Berkeley’s FY ɩɧɩɪ and FY ɩɧɩɫ Budget Book

Employee retention is important in government organizations to ensure there are enough staff to deliver services and programs effectively. City of Berkeley staff have a wide range of responsibilities that affect the Berkeley community, including road maintenance, public safety, transportation, housing assistance, city planning, and many others. City staffing challenges can therefore impact almost everyone who lives in, works in, or visits Berkeley.

2 Some of these budgeted positions may be vacant.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 6 Retention Challenges
Many employers are currently facing challenges retaining employees. About a year after the onset of the COVID-ɨɰ pandemic, people began leaving their jobs nationwide at increasing rates. This phenomenon became known as the Great Resignation. According to a survey by Pew Research Center, around ɨ in ɬ adults left their job voluntarily during ɩɧɩɨ due to various reasons, including childcare needs, salary, lack of career advancement, COVID-ɨɰ concerns, and a desire for more flexibility or work-life balance. The retirement rate also increased nationwide by ɨɪ percent among the baby boomer generation in ɩɧɩɧ. In the City of Berkeley, nearly ɩɧ percent of the workforce is eligible for retirement as of ɩɧɩɩ, which will increase to ɩɯ percent by ɩɧɩɬ. An increase in retirements may worsen retention issues in the coming years. Therefore, improving retention of remaining staff should be a high priority for the City of Berkeley.

Though outside factors such as the Great Resignation provide a larger context for employee retention, workforce retention in Berkeley was a problem before the pandemic and the Great Resignation, which are not solely responsible for citywide retention challenges. Our analysis of employee perspectives provides information on internal factors that affect retention.3 Some level of employee turnover is necessary in healthy organizations. Employees leave for many reasons other than job dissatisfaction, such as retirement or relocation. Employee turnover also allows new talent to enter the organization. However, too much employee turnover becomes costly and makes it difficult for organizations to function. Excessive turnover can also lower the morale of the remaining staff in an organization and impact service delivery.

3 Finding ɩ on page ɨɩ outlines the primary causes of employee dissatisfaction leading to retention issues in the City of Berkeley.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 7 Staff shortages constrained city services.

Berkeley had a high vacancy rate, reflecting staff shortages. These shortages have caused reductions in basic services for community members, such as delayed staff responses and facility closures. Though the City’s strategic plan includes a goal to attract and retain a talented and diverse workforce, the City did not have a clear and data-driven strategy to improve retention or address the root causes of excessive turnover during our audit period.

Berkeley’s high vacancy rate reflected staff shortages.

Berkeley has experienced a staff shortage, as indicated by its vacancy rate (the percentage of budgeted positions that are vacant). Compared to other cities in the Bay Area with available vacancy data, Berkeley’s citywide vacancy rate was the second highest at ɨɰ percent in ɩɧɩɩ (Figure ɨ).

Figure ɨ. Berkeley had the second highest vacancy rate compared to other Bay Area cities in ɩɧɩɩ.

Note: Berkeley and San Francisco vacancy data are from October ɩɧɩɩ, and all other data is from June ɩɧɩɩ. These were the most recent dates available to compare vacancy rates at the time of our data request.

Sources: City of Berkeley, City of San Francisco Human Resources, City of Oakland Human Resources

Berkeley’s vacancy rate is based on counts from department directors in October ɩɧɩɩ. Some department directors reported that the high vacancy rate was a problem before the pandemic. However, we were unable to quantify how the vacancy rate has changed over the years due to data limitations (see Finding ɬ on page ɪɭ for more information on the City’s data challenges).
28%
19%
16%
16%
15%
14%
13%
11%
9%
City of Vallejo
City of Berkeley
City of Oakland
City of Richmond
City of Hayward
City of Concord
City of San Jose
City of Fremont
City of San Francisco

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 8 The City did not hire enough employees to address the gap between voluntary separations (resignations and retirements) and new hires. Figure ɩ shows that there were more resignations and retirements than full-time hires in each year of our audit period.4 As a result, the cumulative hiring need increased, as the City did not hire enough employees each year to make up for the number of employees who left in previous years.

Figure ɩ. Resignations and retirements outpaced full-time hires during the audit period.

Note: Full-time hires refers to staff hired into full-time permanent positions. Resignations and retirements do not include medical separations or disability retirements. The data does not include internal transfers or promotions.

Source: ERMA, FUND$, and NEOGOV
Staff shortages impaired services to the community and other departments.

An increase in vacant positions reduced the number of staff available to ensure city programs and services functioned as intended. In response to our satisfaction survey, some employees explained that staff shortages made it difficult to deliver basic services to the community. According to one employee:

When departments are stretched thin, they cannot do a good job of supporting the community or other departments. […] When departments experience turnover, it is very difficult to absorb the responsibilities, train new staff, and still deliver baseline services.

4 According to the Human Resources Director, from January to March ɩɧɩɪ, the City hired more than twice as many new employees as the number of employees who left the City. 76 74
86 56
139138 146
103
91 169
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Resignations
and Retirements
Full-Time Hires

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 9 In a presentation to City Council on December ɨɪ, ɩɧɩɩ, the City Manager outlined how vacancies reduced city services. For example, there were reduced services or hours of operation at clinics and senior centers, and temporary closures of some fire stations.

Additionally, understaffing in public safety increased the need for mandatory overtime in both the Police and Fire departments. According to the City Manager, vacancies in the Transportation division have also contributed to delays in a major transportation project. Such delays may limit the City’s ability to achieve goals such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions or improving traffic safety.

Vacancies also affected services that some departments provide to support the City’s internal operations. For example, according to an Information Technology (IT) manager, understaffing in IT caused delays in technical assistance to employees. These types of delays impact employees’ ability to do their jobs efficiently, which can in turn impact the delivery of services to the Berkeley community.

Vacant positions can also increase risk to the City. For example, lack of sufficient supervisory review can increase risk of overpayments, missed payments, or fraud. When employees leave, it may take years for new employees to gain that same level of knowledge.

A high vacancy rate combined with decreased employee tenure (the length of time an employee has worked for an organization) can also impact services if staff do not have institutional knowledge or are not yet fully trained. Departments may also lose specialized knowledge or knowledge of a particular city process when the employee managing that function leaves. One former employee stated:

At the time I began working for [the City], the office culture and knowledge from within was superior.

As time went on and more people left, the office began to fail.

Employee tenure varies by department (Figure ɪ). The two departments with the lowest average employee tenure are the City Attorney’s Office and Human Resources (HR). Low average tenure may present challenges to some important internal services due to lost institutional knowledge.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 10 Figure ɪ. Average Years of Employee Tenure by Department, ɩɧɩɩ Note: Each data point refers to the average employee tenure in each department as of October ɩɧɩɩ.

Source: ERMA
The City lacked a clear and data-driven retention strategy.

The City did not have a clear strategic approach during our audit period to address the root causes of excessive turnover and meet its strategic plan goal. The City’s strategic plan includes a goal to attract and retain a talented and diverse city government workforce. According to the ɩɧɩɩ strategic plan update, the City has revised some personnel rules and regulations and expanded employee wellness and resiliency programs in the Police department. The City also implemented the skilled worker academy, an in-depth program for some frontline staff to gain computer skills and other professional skills in September ɩɧɩɩ. However, some department directors cited a lack of clarity around an overall retention strategy from city management or HR, or a perception that the City does not have the data and staff to sustain successful retention initiatives. The Society for Human Resources Management, an association of HR professionals, recommends organizations develop targeted strategies to improve retention. Data can help identify the areas where an organization needs to improve and inform strategies to address these issues. During the audit period, the City did not have reliable data on retention and employee satisfaction to inform a data-driven retention strategy (see Finding ɬ on page ɪɭ for more information on the City’s data challenges).

2.5 3.1

5.8 6.3

7.4 7.9

8.8 9.3

10.3 10.3

11.4 11.9

12.1 12.5

12.9 13.0
City Attorney
Human Resources
Council and Mayor
City Clerk
Health, Housing, and Community Services
Planning
Rent Board
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront
Information Technology
City Manager's Office
Public Works
Finance
Fire
Police
City Auditor
Library

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 11 Additionally, the City has not conducted an analysis of staffing levels needed for city operations and services.

This may include working with department directors to identify the optimal number of FTEs and type of positions in each department, and aligning those positions with the department’s goals for successful city operations and services. Based on guidance issued by the Government Finance Officers Association, it is a best practice for governments to determine the optimal level and type of staff needed to meet the organization’s goals and objectives in light of cost constraints. It will be difficult for the City to develop targeted strategies to address retention challenges without this data.

Recommendations
To better manage retention, we recommend the City Manager’s Office:

1.1 Establish citywide retention goals and report to City Council on progress towards those goals biennially.

1.2 Conduct a staffing analysis based on critical needs to identify the number and type of full-time equivalent positions needed for successful city operations and services. The City may consider conducting this analysis one department at a time based on available resources.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 12 Some surveyed employees reported dissatisfaction
and many have contemplated leaving.

Employee satisfaction is a major factor in employee retention. Fifty-five percent of surveyed employees reported being satisfied with their job, which is lower than a federal government average. Factors impacting satisfaction among survey respondents were workloads, professional development opportunities, pay,5 and communication and support from city leadership.

Some City of Berkeley employees reported low job satisfaction and over half have contemplated leaving.

Only ɬɬ percent of current city employees who responded to our survey reported that they were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their job. This is lower than the job satisfaction rate among federal government agencies, which is ɮɪ percent (Figure ɫ).

Figure ɫ. Surveyed City of Berkeley employees reported lower job satisfaction than federal government employees in similar-sized agencies.

Note: Federal employee data is from medium-sized agencies with ɨ,ɧɧɧ-ɰ,ɰɰɰ employees; Berkeley had ɨ,ɫɭɯ full-time employees as of ɩɧɩɩ. Job satisfaction data from local government agencies was not readily available.

Sources: ɩɧɩɩ City of Berkeley employee satisfaction survey and ɩɧɩɩ federal employee viewpoint survey Many current employees we surveyed also contemplated leaving the City. Over half, or ɬɬ percent of current employees surveyed reported looking for another job in the year before taking the survey. Additionally, about ɫɮ percent of surveyed former employees reported that organizational culture problems were among their primary reasons for leaving the City (Appendix II).

5 We did not review city pay structures, as it was outside the scope of this audit. 73%
55%
Federal government
Berkeley

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 13 Employee dissatisfaction is one of the main causes of turnover, according to the Society for Human Resources Management. High turnover is costly and affects an organization’s performance. Benchmarking data estimates that the total cost to recruit, train and develop a new hire may be at least half to two times that employee’s salary.

Some employees reported unmanageable workloads related to staff shortages, new work, and inefficient systems.

Some surveyed employees reported that one of the primary reasons they looked for a job in the past year was because they had a high workload due in part to staff shortages. Only ɫɫ percent of current employees felt their workload was manageable (Figure ɬ). For comparison, in a survey of federal government employees, ɭɨ percent agreed that their workload was reasonable. Nearly a quarter of surveyed former employees also listed high workload as one reason for leaving the City.

Figure ɬ. Forty-four percent of surveyed employees reported that their workload was manageable.

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey
Staff Perspectives

“There are not enough positions in my unit for the workload. I have demonstrated this time and again, and the solution from management has been for me, as the lowest level employee in my functional area exempt from overtime, to work 50 hours a week or more.” – Current employee

“The department I worked for was understaffed and lacked the resources to support city employees. I was provided insufficient training and had trouble keeping up with the workload. The workload and lack of support were primary reasons why I opted to look for new opportunities less than six months after starting at the City of Berkeley.” – Former employee

“When there are vacancies, it affects staff’s ability to do the work. It also impacts morale when people are stressed out. Some people left the department due to the unreasonable volume of work they were expected to produce.” – Department director

Sources: 2022 exit and satisfaction surveys, employee interviews

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 14 One department director also noted that certain job descriptions are out of date, which can make it difficult to recruit new employees to fill vacancies and help relieve the workload for current employees. The Chair of the Personnel Board also stated that the City has not reviewed certain job descriptions in recent years. Updated job descriptions can help ensure that city job postings accurately reflect job duties.

Employees receive new work beyond their regular duties, including referrals from City Council or public commissions, or additional items assigned in each department as noted in the Employer of Choice report.6 Some employees reported that because service delivery expectations remained the same when their department or division lacked adequate staffing, they were overloaded with work during periods of short staffing, which compounded their already unmanageable workload. City Council has a process to prioritize referrals to staff, though that process was not used in fiscal year ɩɧɩɧ and fiscal year ɩɧɩɨ due to the COVID-ɨɰ pandemic.

However, it does not include a formal method of accounting for staffing impacts when assigning additional work. Without limiting or prioritizing referrals based on staff capacity, staff may not be able to balance council referrals with their regular duties or providing baseline services.

Employee workload is also exacerbated by ineffective internal and administrative systems. As one department director stated, “The substandard internal systems we have make a lot of our work inefficient.” This includes software systems such as ERMA, the City’s financial management platform. The City switched to ERMA from FUND$, their prior HR/payroll management system, in January ɩɧɩɨ. Some employees explained that this transition added to their workload significantly. Other employees described city systems as antiquated, with IT assistance, timesheets, telephones, and key access cited as examples. Some technology and system issues may be affected by retention challenges if an employee in charge of managing a system is new or not fully trained.

Some employees and department directors expressed a sense that internal systems are outdated and hard to use, which is a source of frustration and affects their ability to do their jobs efficiently.

6 Council referrals are short or long-term projects assigned to departments based on City Council’s direction. Since the City starting tracking referrals in ɩɧɨɫ, there have been approximately ɬɧɧ referrals assigned. About ɩɬɬ of the referrals are completed, ɨɯ are in progress, and the rest have not yet been started or have been rejected by Council action.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 15 Opportunities for professional development were limited.

Lack of career opportunities impacted retention.

Some surveyed employees reported dissatisfaction with career advancement opportunities in the City.

Approximately ɩɮ percent of surveyed former employees cited inadequate promotional opportunities as one of their primary reasons for leaving the City of Berkeley. Forty percent of surveyed current employees were also dissatisfied with their career advancement opportunities, compared to ɫɨ percent who were satisfied, with ɨɰ percent neutral (Figure ɭ).

Figure ɭ. Forty percent of surveyed employees reported being dissatisfied with career advancement opportunities.

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey
Berkeley is a mid-sized city, therefore options for career advancement might be more limited than in larger jurisdictions. However, there may be opportunities to improve promotional pathways through succession planning with a cross-training component. Succession planning identifies long range needs and cultivates internal talent to meet those needs and prepare for new roles in the organization. Cross-training is an approach to employee development that places employees in a position to learn skills and abilities that are not part of their current roles. The City can use cross-training in conjunction with succession planning to facilitate knowledge and skill transfer to current employees, which can help them meet the qualifications for future career advancement.

Staff Perspectives

“The promotions process is ambiguous and not transparent. People get promoted and those who do not are left wondering what they could have done to improve themselves and their chances for promotion. The promotional criteria are a mystery. Rather than continue waiting for a possible promotion, I decided to retire.” – Former employee

“Berkeley does not have many opportunities for advancement which has caused some people to leave the department.” – Department director

Source: 2022 exit survey, employee interviews

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 16 Though some departments have an internal succession planning process, there was no citywide initiative during the audit period. The City listed succession planning as a priority in its ɩɧɨɯ-ɩɧɨɰ Strategic Plan report, but placed the project on hold during the pandemic according to a July ɩɧɩɩ update. A stronger effort to upskill employees could help Berkeley better prepare for future retirements while broadening career advancement opportunities.

Providing adequate professional development opportunities is a best practice for employee retention.

Employees will be more likely to remain at an organization if they are able to improve their job title, salary and/or responsibilities. This can help ensure that programs continue to run successfully through staffing changes, ultimately benefiting the Berkeley community.

Over half of surveyed employees did not receive regular performance evaluations.

Sixty-seven percent of surveyed employees reported that they did not receive a performance evaluation in the prior year. However, it is difficult to determine how often evaluations were happening and how that varied by department, as HR does not consistently keep records of past employee performance evaluations.

Along with constructive guidance and regular feedback, performance evaluations are one component of successful employee performance management. Well-functioning performance management programs improve individual and team performance, and make organizations more effective. Performance evaluations also allow supervisors and employees to discuss areas for skill development, and identify learning opportunities for future advancement.

Some surveyed employees were dissatisfied with trainings and professional development opportunities.

Trainings and professional development opportunities are essential for employee satisfaction and can support career growth. Continuous skill development ensures employees have the tools they need to succeed, and it helps organizations retain top talent. However, many current employees reported dissatisfaction with Berkeley’s available training opportunities. Among surveyed employees, ɫɧ percent were dissatisfied with citywide trainings and professional development opportunities, compared to ɩɮ percent who were satisfied, with ɪɪ percent neutral (Figure ɮ).
67%
of surveyed employees reported that
they did not receive a performance
evaluation in the past year.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 17 Figure ɮ. Forty percent of surveyed employees were dissatisfied with citywide training and professional development opportunities.

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey
Among surveyed supervisors, ɫɧ percent found their citywide supervision training inadequate, compared to ɪɯ percent who found it adequate (ɩɩ percent neutral). Supervisors are an important resource to the City in employee retention and satisfaction. Thirty-five percent of former employees who responded to our survey stated that a poor relationship with their supervisor was a primary consideration for leaving the City. This indicates that the relationship between supervisees and supervisors is a factor in retention. The City used to organize a leadership development program for supervisors, but has not conducted that training since prior to the pandemic. Consistent citywide training for supervisors may help foster a positive relationship with supervisees and improve retention.

Staff Perspectives

“Citywide training and professional development opportunities are nearly non-existent.

The training opportunities that do exist are generally subpar and not many employees know how to access them.” – Current employee

“Citywide training has a great deal of room for improvement and offers no tailored opportunities for public safety, which has different challenges than other departments.” – Current employee

“The City should be intentional in its efforts to prepare all employees who transition into leadership roles. To have high expectations of our supervisors, we should provide meaningful training and education so they are better prepared for these critical roles throughout the City.” – Department director

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey and employee interviews

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 18 Prior to March ɩɧɩɧ, many trainings received positive evaluations. The City put a pause on most trainings at the start of the COVID-ɨɰ pandemic in March ɩɧɩɧ. The City resumed some regular trainings in June of ɩɧɩɨ and developed more trainings in ɩɧɩɩ. The skilled workers academy is one example of a comprehensive training program that the City started in ɩɧɩɩ to help some employees develop professional skills and computer skills, among others. However, there are not similar professional development opportunities available for employees at all levels across all departments, and current dissatisfaction levels with city trainings suggest a need for improvement in this area. According to the HR Director, the City is currently looking at ways to provide specialized training to more employees.

HR’s training division also had record keeping challenges during the audit period. California law requires that all employers of five or more people provide one to two hours of sexual harassment prevention training to staff every two years. According to the HR Director, since at least ɩɧɩɩ the City has been out of compliance with state-mandated sexual harassment prevention training. Due to inadequate data, we were unable to determine how long the City has been out of compliance with this law. In March ɩɧɩɪ, the City set a goal to ensure all employees complete mandatory trainings by December ɪɨ, ɩɧɩɪ.

Some surveyed employees were dissatisfied with pay.

Pay was a common issue among surveyed employees, and some department directors also reported issues with pay. We did not perform a salary analysis of Berkeley’s compensation compared to market rates for similar positions as it was outside the scope of this audit. However, there are opportunities to improve retention by addressing some specific issues in Berkeley.

Some employees and department directors expressed in surveys and interviews that dissatisfaction with pay impacts employee retention. Thirty-seven percent of employees surveyed were dissatisfied with their compensation, while ɫɮ percent were satisfied (ɨɭ percent neutral). Comparatively, ɬɭ percent of federal employees were satisfied with their pay in ɩɧɩɩ. Satisfaction survey data also shows that the longer employees worked for the City, the less satisfied they generally were with their compensation (Figure ɯ).

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 19 Figure ɯ. Pay satisfaction generally decreased as employee tenure increased.

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey
When asked to elaborate on pay and benefits, some surveyed employees expressed perceptions that their pay is not commensurate with their job duties. One department director noted that some staff are underpaid relative to staff performing the same work in other jurisdictions. Other surveyed employees expressed dissatisfaction with differences in pension benefit compensation. According to a ɩɧɨɰ report from union members, there is a significant difference in pension benefit compensation between Classic and California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act members represented by Local One and Service Employees International Union bargaining groups, as well as unrepresented employees.7 Additionally, many surveyed employees expressed a perception that the City’s cost of living adjustments (COLAs) to salaries are inadequate, or that the City needs to develop a plan to have more frequent COLAs.

7 The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) took effect in January, ɩɧɨɪ. The law changed the way the state’s public employee retirement and health benefits are applied, and placed compensation limits on new members.

In the City of Berkeley, the Pay Equity Committee for PEPRAs noted in ɩɧɨɰ that Classic members contributed ɯ.ɭɫ percent of their paycheck to the pension fund, whereas PEPRA members contributed ɨɬ.ɩɬ percent. In ɩɧɩɩ, the City agreed to reduce some PEPRA members’ pension contributions, though the terms of that ramp down varied by bargaining group.
61% 60%
48% 44%
37%
42%
Under 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years
Surveyed Employees Satisfied with
Compensation
Employee Tenure at the City of Berkeley

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 20 The City typically renegotiates certain elements of employee pay about once every three years with each employee union. In the satisfaction survey, some employees expressed perceptions that the City’s pay system is inflexible or unfair based on workload, classification or job duties. Pay may also be a factor in the recruitment and retention of specialized positions. Some specialized positions are particularly hard to recruit for based on the labor market. For example, some hiring managers stated that it has been difficult for the City to recruit firefighters, engineers, and mental health clinicians, among others, which may be related to the labor market in those fields. One director noted that this difficulty in recruiting made it hard to fill vacancies, which contributed to burnout among employees. Identifying ways to ensure that pay is competitive may improve recruitment and retention of these positions.

High turnover is costly, therefore organizations that invest in employee compensation may avoid recruitment and hiring costs that come with turnover. While the City must consider available revenue streams when making pay decisions, improved retention may ultimately lead to reduced turnover costs for the City. Ensuring pay is commensurate with comparable jurisdictions is frequently cited as an important aspect of employee retention.

Communication and support from city leadership may have impacted employee satisfaction.

Almost half, or ɫɯ percent, of surveyed employees did not feel that city management communicated well when making decisions that affect Berkeley employees, compared to ɩɪ percent who were satisfied with city management’s communication, with ɩɰ percent neutral (Figure ɰ). When asked to elaborate, surveyed employees gave examples including too little communication from city management, confusing communication, lack of transparency in communication, and too few opportunities to provide feedback.

Staff Perspectives

“Positions, job duties, and classifications are not equitable. People doing basically the same job but in different classifications can have upward of a $30k difference in pay.” – Current employee

“I realize terms are limited by union agreements, but it is my opinion that the compensation system is not nimble and cannot respond to the severe cost of living conditions at this time. Wage increases seriously lag the cost of living, and cannot adequately respond to current inflation conditions.” – Current employee

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 21 Figure ɰ. Almost half of surveyed employees did not believe city management communicates well when making decisions that impact employees.

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey

One example of insufficient communication was a lack of clarity around COVID-ɨɰ policies. In the satisfaction survey, some employees expressed confusion around COVID-ɨɰ reporting, notifications, or inconsistencies around mask policy enforcement upon returning to the office. Lapses in communication can increase risk to the City and employees if they are not connected to the correct resources during emergencies, disasters or other important situations. For example, one employee described receiving inadequate information from city management around safety issues such as threats to employee safety. Effective communication is also important in building employee morale, satisfaction, and engagement.

Maintaining frequent and organized internal communication is often listed as a best practice for employee retention. Effective communication is essential for proper employee management, as it helps employees understand the terms of their employment, gives employees opportunities to provide feedback which is important for internal satisfaction, and reduces potential employee grievances due to misunderstandings.

Staff Perspectives

“I believe the translation of what city management is asking or saying gets lost when transferring the information back to the individual departments. Like a bad game of telephone, you get some of the information, none of the information, or a lot of bad information.” – Current employee

“I feel far removed from city management and that I am the last to find out about decisions from city management. I wish there was a way to bridge this gap.” – Current employee

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 22 Lack of support from city or department management was among the most common reasons why surveyed employees looked for another job in the year prior. Additionally, ɫɭ percent of surveyed employees reported that they did not believe city management cares about employees, compared to ɩɮ percent who did (ɩɮ percent neutral). These responses suggest there may be opportunities for city and department leaders to build stronger communication with employees and develop strategies to ensure employees feel adequately supported at all levels of the organization.

Recommendations
To ensure job duties align with job descriptions, we recommend the City Manager’s Office:

2.1 Review the highest priority city job descriptions to ensure they accurately reflect job duties.

To alleviate workloads associated with Council referrals, we recommend:

2.2 City Council consider staff capacity when introducing new legislation, and limit or prioritize new legislation during periods of short staffing.

2.3 The City Manager’s Office report on the status of approved projects to City Council, including information about delays caused by staff vacancies.

To improve employee satisfaction, we recommend the City Manager’s Office:

2.4 Improve pathways for promotion in the City through a citywide succession plan, which may include cross-training for positions.

2.5 Direct departments to ensure that all employees receive an annual performance evaluation.

To improve employee satisfaction, we recommend Human Resources:

2.6 Implement a comprehensive training program that ensures staff at all levels receive the training they need to fulfill their job duties and develop their job skills as needed. Consider increasing the training budget and redesigning the training curriculum to best address the needs of a post-pandemic workforce, improving training for supervisors and managers, ensuring that experts conduct trainings, and allowing employees to request specific trainings.

To improve transparency, we recommend Human Resources:

2.7 Ensure that all city employees complete mandatory trainings in accordance with the state law. Report data on mandated trainings to Council annually.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 23 We also recommend the City Manager’s Office:

2.8 Update City Council on the recruitment status of hard-to-fill positions during the biennial budget process, as well as steps taken to fill these positions.

2.9 Identify positions that are hard-to-recruit and retain and consider reassessing pay for those positions.

To improve communication channels in the City, we recommend the City Manager’s Office:

2.10 Assess employees’ needs regarding communication from the City Manager’s Office and design a communication strategy that addresses those needs.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 24 Instability in Human Resources delayed hiring and
impacted internal services.

The average time it takes to hire increased by almost three months between fiscal years ɩɧɨɯ and ɩɧɩɩ, from ɫ.ɰ months to ɮ.ɮ months. Understaffing and instability in HR contributed to these hiring delays during our audit period. Additionally, increases in the number of budgeted positions in HR did not keep pace with increases in budgeted positions citywide. Thus, remaining staff in HR were burdened with heavy workloads to manage the City’s hiring needs. There are opportunities for HR to improve citywide hiring practices as well as onboarding for new employees.

The average time to hire increased by almost three months.

One of HR’s established performance measures is to reduce the average time to hire each year, but it has increased since fiscal year ɩɧɨɯ. According to Berkeley’s internal hiring data, the average time it takes for Berkeley to hire new employees increased from ɫ.ɰ to ɮ.ɮ months between fiscal years ɩɧɨɯ and ɩɧɩɩ (Figure ɨɧ).8 During the audit period, HR did not hire fast enough to address the growing gap between resignations and retirements compared to new hires as shown in Figure ɩ (page ɯ).

Figure ɨɧ. The average time to hire increased since fiscal year ɩɧɨɯ.

Source: NEOGOV

8 The time to hire calculation measures the average time between the date the department created a requisition to hire a new employee and the date of the employee’s first day on the job.

4.9 6.3

5.3 7.4 7.7
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Berkeley's Average Time to Hire in
Months

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 25 One explanation for the hiring timeline increase may be the citywide hiring freeze that lasted from April ɩɧɩɧ to September ɩɧɩɩ. The City asked departments to suspend all hiring activities, though they could request exceptions to be approved by the City Manager on a case-by-case basis. The additional approval may have lengthened the hiring timeline.

Another factor of the increased hiring timeline may be HR’s instability due to their staff shortage. HR had the highest vacancy rate among departments in October ɩɧɩɩ, at ɫɬ percent (Figure ɨɨ). HR’s vacancy rate more than quadrupled between ɩɧɨɯ and ɩɧɩɩ, from ɨɧ percent to ɫɬ percent. 9 Therefore, fewer HR staff were available to work on hiring and filling vacancies in other departments. There was also a loss of institutional knowledge in the department when many employees departed. Some positions turned over multiple times—ɩɭ HR employees left the City between fiscal year ɩɧɨɯ and fiscal year ɩɧɩɩ. For context, HR was budgeted to have ɩɨ FTEs in fiscal year ɩɧɨɯ, and ɩɩ FTEs beginning in fiscal year ɩɧɩɧ. As of September ɩɧɩɩ, the average employee tenure in HR was ɪ.ɨ years compared to the citywide average tenure of ɨɧ.ɫ years. According to the Society for Human Resources Management, losing key employees can impact workflow and result in productivity losses. These impacts were felt around the City, as HR provides hiring support and other internal services to every department.

Figure ɨɨ. Human Resources had the City’s highest vacancy rate in October ɩɧɩɩ.

Source: Department directors

9 This number is based on a point-in-time count using payroll data from October ɩɧɨɯ and a department director interview from ɩɧɩɩ.
45%
35%
30%
25%
25%
21%
20%
20%
20%
18%
16%
15%
15%
14%
13%
13%
11%
8%
Human Resources
City Attorney
Finance
Health, Housing and Community Services
City Manager
Information Technology
Police
City Clerk
Office of the Director of Police Accountability
Berkeley Public Library
Planning
Public Works
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront
City Auditor
Office of Economic Development
Mayor and Council
Fire
Rent Stabilization Board

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 26 There has additionally been instability within HR leadership. During the audit period, there were four different people in the role of HR Director. Leadership turnover can lead to organizational instability, lower employee morale and productivity, and decrease employee retention.

In addition to vacancy challenges, the number of budgeted positions in HR has not kept pace with citywide increases in the number of FTEs. The City added about ɨɩɭ additional full-time positions between fiscal years ɩɧɨɯ and ɩɧɩɩ, but only one of these new positions was allocated to the HR department. According to the HR Director, the ɨɩɭ new positions increased recruitment and hiring demands, as well as the need for HR support in areas including transactions, training, employee relations, benefits, equal employment opportunity investigations, occupational safety, and workers’ compensation. The HR Director also noted that some of these HR functions were staffed by a single member of the department. If a staff member took time off or left the City, there may have been no one managing an essential HR function. This combined with HR’s high vacancy rate may have contributed to the issues with personnel data we discuss in Finding ɬ on page ɪɭ.

HR was faced with a cyclical problem over the audit period: the City’s average time to hire increased (Figure ɨɧ) due in part to lack of staff capacity in HR (Figure ɨɨ). Some former employees reported that they left the City because of an unmanageable workload tied to staff shortages, which only increased the overall number of vacancies for HR to help fill. The Employer of Choice report also identified the importance of investing in HR and recommended hiring up to six additional FTEs in HR. As of May ɩɧɩɪ, City Council authorized HR to hire three additional HR staff members.

HR is now in the process of stabilizing. As of May ɩɧɩɪ, HR has staffed ɰɬ percent of the department’s original ɩɩ FTEs. Other department directors have noticed a positive change, with one stating:

The team that has been assembled is responsive, informative, and has demonstrated an ability to support our needs, which is not an easy task. Having an effective, responsive and knowledgeable HR team is critical to maintaining operations throughout the City and I am so grateful to the team as I know how hard they are working to support us.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 27 Ineffective procedures may have contributed to hiring challenges.

There are opportunities for HR to modernize, streamline, and standardize hiring procedures. Updating hiring processes can help the City attract and hire qualified candidates in order to fill vacancies.

HR did not generally use modern hiring processes during the audit period. For example, HR has not historically used LinkedIn, or other job boards such as college and university job boards as recruiting platforms. Additionally, according to one manager, application processes could be lengthy due to multiple supplemental questions included in the application. Best practices for hiring recommended by the Society for Human Resources Management include using social media to advertise positions, making sure the application process is streamlined and easy-to-use, and collaborating with universities, colleges and high schools to increase the applicant pool. Some department directors also expressed that the management approval process for new positions slowed down the hiring process.

HR did not provide department hiring managers with comprehensive procedures or trainings for the hiring process during the audit period. One department director stated that they never received any training from HR on citywide recruitment processes, and they had to learn the City’s hiring system NEOGOV on an ad hoc basis.10 The former Interim HR Director also noted that the department had no one to train HR employees on how to use NEOGOV. According to the current HR Director, HR has recently developed trainings on the City’s hiring process and how to use NEOGOV, and they have conducted these trainings with some departments. The HR Director also stated that every department now has an assigned HR analyst who works with departments to strategize for recruitments.

Some surveyed employees reported inadequate onboarding .

Thirty-eight percent of surveyed employees did not believe that HR provided them with adequate onboarding to the City, compared to ɪɭ percent who did (ɩɭ percent neutral). Onboarding involves providing the employee with the tools and information they need to become a productive member of the team. According to the Society for Human Resources Management, a well-designed onboarding process can improve employee engagement and retention.

10 NEOGOV is a talent management system used by many public sector agencies, including the City of Berkeley. The City uses NEOGOV software to support the City’s hiring process. 38%
of surveyed
employees did not
think HR provided
them with adequate
onboarding to the
City.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 28 Of the surveyed employees who answered demographic questions, ɬɨ percent of employees hired within the past two years were dissatisfied with their onboarding, compared to ɪɮ percent of employees hired before then.

This may indicate that the quality of the City’s onboarding process has declined in recent years. This time period overlaps with the COVID-ɨɰ pandemic, which may have impacted employees’ onboarding experiences.

Nevertheless, it is still important to ensure employees receive adequate onboarding so that they feel welcomed and understand their role and responsibilities.

Recommendations
To improve hiring procedures, we recommend the City Manager’s Office:

3.1 Assess the level of staff and resources needed to meet the City’s recruitment and hiring needs. Prioritize filling these positions when vacancies in this area fall below a level that would jeopardize the City’s ability to hire quickly.

3.2 Assess the approval process for hiring new employees and identify opportunities to reduce inefficiencies.

We also recommend Human Resources:

3.3 Develop and execute a plan to modernize recruitment and hiring using social media and community engagement.

3.4 Communicate standard procedures and trainings for NEOGOV and the City’s hiring process to all department heads and hiring managers.

3.5 Improve the employee onboarding process so employees have the tools and information they need to do their jobs.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 29 Telework can benefit the City but the current policy is limited.

Among surveyed employees who were able to telework, ɭɫ percent reported being satisfied with their experience. In addition to other benefits, telework may help retain employees by increasing employee satisfaction, performance, and commitment to the organization. It may also serve as a draw to potential applicants. Telework may also produce additional environmental and financial benefits to the City. Still, the current telework policy is not comprehensive and lacks accountability.

Most surveyed city employees report being satisfied with telework.

In March of ɩɧɩɧ, the City began allowing some employees the option to telework in response to the COVID-ɨɰ pandemic. The City prohibited teleworking prior to ɩɧɩɧ. This policy was implemented quickly due to the pandemic emergency, and there has not been much analysis on the impact of telework on employees.

Therefore, we asked current employees about their satisfaction with telework.

Sixty-seven percent of all survey respondents believed they could do some or all of their work remotely, while ɪɪ percent did not. Though some employees cannot telework based on their job duties—public safety officers, maintenance workers, and others—the majority of city employees have some job duties that can be done remotely. Of the employees we surveyed who were able to telework, ɭɫ percent reported being satisfied with their experience. Only ɨɬ percent reported being dissatisfied with telework (ɩɨ percent neutral). When asked to elaborate on their telework responses, the majority of employees described the positive impacts of telework on their life. This included decreased commute time, improved job satisfaction, improved work-life balance, and improved workplace safety. Seventy-five percent of surveyed employees who telework reported still feeling connected to their colleagues. Fifty-two percent of surveyed employees who telework also stated they would look for other employment if they are not able to telework at least some of the time. This indicates that telework is an important factor in retaining Berkeley employees.

52%
of surveyed employees
who telework said they
would seek other
employment if the City
removes the option to
telework.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 30 Telework is one method of reducing employee commute times, which may increase employee satisfaction.

Many City of Berkeley employees have long work commutes, as only ɨɮ percent of full-time employees live in Berkeley. The majority of surveyed employees reported commuting ɪɧ minutes or more to their worksite, with a quarter reporting a commute of an hour or more (Figure ɨɩ). Telework can therefore alleviate the burden of a long commute for these employees and the time spent commuting can be replaced with something more valuable to the employee.

Figure 12. A quarter of surveyed employees reported commuting an hour or more to work.

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey
6%
19%
39%
24%
12%Less than 15
minutes
15 to 29
minutes
30 to 59
minutes
60 to 119
minutes
120 minutes
or more
Staff Perspectives

“I am grateful for the City's decision to continue telework. It allows me to save time and money on commuting. […] My colleagues and I all work effectively from home and stay connected via phone, email, Teams chat and conference calls. Remote work is a primary consideration for staying with the City.” – Current employee

“Being able to telework is a fantastic aspect of working with the City. The City's COVID rules are rarely followed in the offices, so being able to cut down on exposure time is great, especially because I have a young infant and an immunocompromised spouse at home.” – Current employee

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 31 Telework likely increased employee wellbeing and overall satisfaction for those who were able to telework during the pandemic, but some employees expressed needing telework policies that were fairer and more flexible. Over a quarter of surveyed employees expressed that they did not feel safe going to their worksite because of COVID-ɨɰ. In open-ended survey responses, employees expressed different opinions regarding COVID-ɨɰ safety. Some believed the City provided enough protection around the virus, while others expressed concern about contracting COVID-ɨɰ at their worksite. Some felt that the City was inflexible around telework allowances, even for employees with underlying health conditions.

Telework may have additional benefits to the City.

There may be additional recruitment, environmental, financial, and disaster preparedness benefits associated with telework.

Telework can improve the recruitment pipeline by increasing the pool of available applicants to city positions.

Many job seekers specifically look for flexible and remote working arrangements in an organization, therefore, Berkeley may be a more attractive employer by offering telework. Additionally, if Berkeley lacks funding to invest in improving workspaces, allowing employees to telework is one way to remain competitive with other organizations hiring from the same candidate pool. Other government organizations are also responding to job seekers’ increased desire for telework. A recent NEOGOV survey of public sector HR directors found that ɪɧ percent of organizations had expanded telework opportunities in order to attract more job candidates. This number will likely increase in the coming years as the public sector adapts to changing workforce norms.

Telework can also reduce carbon emissions created from employee commutes. An analysis of carbon emissions shows that if full-time career employees commute to Berkeley five days a week, this will generate approximately ɫ,ɪɧɮ metric tons of carbon annually. By allowing employees to work from home, the City can reduce its carbon footprint generated by employee commutes. We estimate that the City could reduce carbon emissions tied to employee commutes between ɬɮɬ and ɨ,ɮɩɫ metric tons per year depending on the level of telework (Figure ɨɪ). Decreasing the emissions from employee commutes also aligns with Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan goal to reduce the year ɩɧɧɧ emission levels by ɯɧ percent by ɩɧɬɧ.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 32 Figure ɨɪ. Telework can reduce the amount of COɩ produced by employee commutes.

Note: This calculation assumes ɭɮ percent of full-time, career employees are participating in telework program. The current telework policy states employees can telework up to three days per week. We did not receive information on the number of city employees teleworking or how often they are teleworking.

Source: Berkeley City Auditor analysis

Telework can potentially reduce some costs for the City. Based on an analysis conducted by Global Workplace Analytics, Telework in the ɩɨst Century, employers can save an estimated $ɨɨ,ɧɧɧ per half-time telecommuter per year.11 Their estimate includes cost savings as a result of increased productivity, lower real estate costs, reduced absenteeism and turnover, and better disaster preparedness. We did not conduct an analysis of potential savings in the City of Berkeley.

Having a telework plan is a critical component of any emergency operations plan. During the COVID-ɨɰ pandemic, telework allowed the City to continue providing essential city services when employees could not be in their normal worksites. However, because the City did not have any teleworking policy or practice in place prior to the pandemic, there was no infrastructure in place for employees and managers to transition to working remotely. Having a practiced and thorough telework program would enable the City to adapt quickly to any event requiring the closure of city buildings without compromising service delivery.

11 Telework in the ɩɨst Century: https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics 4,307
3,732
3,158
2,583
- 575
- 1,149
-1,724
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
No telework 1 day per week 2 days per week 3 days per week Annual CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons)
Telework Schedule

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 33 The telework policy is not comprehensive and lacks accountability elements.

Despite employees’ overall support for telework, the City’s existing telework policy is not comprehensive, and does not address accountability issues. In February ɩɧɩɪ, the City indicated that the telework policy would continue indefinitely after notifying employees that the COVID-ɨɰ masking and vaccine mandates would end at the end of that month. As of May ɩɧɩɪ, no updates were made to create a more robust, long-term policy, though the contractor that produced the Employer of Choice report was developing a hybrid workplace best practices guide. One city employee union also pointed out the need for predictable and fair work from home policies as telework continues. A comprehensive telework policy should define eligibility, work expectations, and equipment and resource requirements.

In open-ended survey responses, ɩɫ employees expressed feeling that there are equity issues between teleworking and non-teleworking staff. According to a peer reviewed study, a perceived telework disparity can potentially lead to job dissatisfaction, a decrease in productivity, and difficulty retaining non-teleworking employees.12 Transparency is one way to reduce perceived telework disparity. To realize the maximum benefits of teleworking, practices and policies should be made as transparent as possible. Additionally, teleworkers should provide their telework schedule and availability as well as having regular and fixed times to give updates to supervisors and colleagues.

12 A Dark Side of Telework: A Social Comparison-Based Study from the Perspective of Office Workers:
https://rdcu.be/cɯplU
Staff Perspectives

“Accountability needs to be redefined to make telework successful. Rather than physical presence as a measure of productivity, there should be performance benchmarks linked to clear goals with timeframes to make telework more equitable across the City. It would refocus accountability on results rather than physical presence (which is a poor indicator of productivity anyways).” – Current employee

“The City needs to identify ways to increase accountability in teleworking for it to be sustainable.” – Current employee

“Berkeley doesn’t provide a lot of guidance on telework policies, so we aren’t able to give candidates clear information on how much flexibility they can expect.” – Manager

Source: 2022 satisfaction survey, employee interviews

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 34 Updates to the telework policy can help improve transparency and encourage accountability. The current telework policy does not contain eligibility guidance, but leaves the determination of eligibility up to departments. It states that workers must be available by phone, email, or other specified method of communication during scheduled work hours, and it requires each remote worker to indicate how often they will check their email or phone during the workday. However, there appears to be no best practice guidelines in Berkeley’s policy for these communication levels, and no accountability element if a remote employee is unresponsive. Berkeley’s policy also does not require supervisors to justify their decision to deny telework requests.

Additionally, it is unclear which standard work equipment the City can provide to teleworkers. The policy only states that employees should contact their supervisor if they need equipment, but offers no guidance to supervisors on what they are allowed to provide to teleworkers. One department director said that the City did not consistently offer adequate training for supervisors of teleworking employees during the audit period.

The State of California, Alameda County, and the City and County of San Francisco developed comprehensive telework policies and guides for their employees (Table ɩ). These telework policies all require employees to receive training before teleworking, as well as specific trainings for supervisors to effectively manage their teleworking teams. These policies also outline a clear process for requesting equipment. Alameda County’s policy has a checklist that managers must review before allowing a supervisee to telework, to ensure that the employee will be successful. Supervisors in the State of California and Alameda County are additionally required to justify their decision to deny or request a modification to employees’ telework requests.

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 35 Table ɩ. The City of Berkeley does not have a comprehensive telework policy.

Source: State of California telework guide, Alameda County telework policy, City and County of San Francisco’s teleworking policy, City of Berkeley telework policy

Recommendations
To improve the telework policy, we recommend the City Manager’s Office:

4.1 Identify ways of reducing unused space in city buildings to save on overhead costs. This initiative may require additional resources beyond city staff.

4.2 Expand the citywide telework policy to include elements that align with best practices. This can include eligibility, employee accountability, equipment requests, telework training, and justifications for denying employee requests to telework.

Elements of a Comprehensive Policy State of
California
Alameda
County
City and County of
San Francisco
City of
Berkeley
The policy requires employees to be available for
contact while teleworking.    
The policy states that employees must comply with
health and safety requirements at their telework
site.
   
The policy has specific eligibility guidance.    X
The policy has clear communication guidelines and
expectations.   X X
There is an accountability element for
unresponsive employees.    X
There are clear instructions for requesting
equipment.    X
There are training resources and requirements.    X
Supervisors must provide justification for denying
telework requests.   X X

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 36 The City lacked reliable data to address staff
shortages.

Berkeley did not maintain accurate data to track retention trends. The City’s internal personnel data system, ERMA, was unable to produce reliable reports on vacancy and turnover rates during our audit period.

Inaccurate data may impact the City’s service delivery if it cannot identify and respond to department vacancies or staff shortages in real-time. The City also has not consistently collected data on employee satisfaction. HR has not consistently sent exit surveys to departing employees or shared the data with departments.

Additionally, city management has not reported sufficient data in recent years to track progress towards its diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility goals and identify opportunities for improvement.

The City did not have reliable data on retention trends.

According to data systems owners in the City, ERMA was unable to produce reliable vacancy reports during our audit period. This means department directors did not receive vacancy data from HR and had to manually calculate vacancy rates. The vacancy rate is the percent of vacant positions within an organization. ERMA was also unable to produce accurate turnover reports during the audit period. The turnover rate measures the number of employees who leave in a given time period. Due to the City’s data challenges, we could not report on any information regarding employee turnover.

Table ɪ. Key Retention Data Was Unreliable
Data Definition Status

Vacancy rate Percent of total positions that are
vacant.

Unreliable
Turnover rate Percent of employees to leave an
organization during a given time period.

Unreliable
Source: Auditor conclusion

Staff Shortages: City Services Constrained by Staff Retention Challenges and Delayed Hiring 37 Calculating turnover allows organizations to monitor the movement of employees out of an organization over a specific time period rather than a single point in time. Tracking data on employee retention such as vacancies and turnover rates helps organizations identify and proactively address employee retention challenges. The International Public Management Association, an organization that represents HR professionals in government, states that HR professionals must have access to accurate, real time workforce data. Maintaining accurate workforce data is also important when developing the budget. The Government Finance Officers Association notes that since salaries generally make up the greatest portion of the expenditure budget, governments should use personnel data to account for the number of budgeted positions and expected vacancies. According to the HR Director, the City’s ability to produce accurate and reliable vacancy and turnover reports are limited by pre-set data fields in ERMA which do not always capture data that HR would like to track. Custom data fields do not feed automated dashboards but must be manually extracted. The City is currently working on solutions to improve ERMA’s reporting capabilities.

The City’s personnel system is cumbersome and prone to errors. According to data system owners, migrating data from the previous system FUND$ to ERMA in ɩɧɩɨ resulted in errors. Consequently, certain employee information was missing or incorrect in ERMA. Other data errors may have been due to the system’s inability to accurately represent underfilled positions, or data entry errors that went unresolved. According to the former Interim HR Director, there were no established procedures around entering and managing personnel data in ERMA.

With these data limitations, the City will not be able to easily track or report on retention. This could affect the City’s service delivery if it does not have the data to proactively identify concerning trends in vacancies and turnover. It also increases departments’ workload as they manually calculate and update this data, instead of using ERMA to quickly produce a report. According to the HR Director, HR has made progress in cleaning up personnel data and engaged a consultant to produce accurate reports in ERMA.

The City did not consistently collect data on employee satisfaction or conduct exit surveys.

With the exception of the recent Employer of Choice report, the City has very little data on employee satisfaction and does not share available data with departments. While HR has an exit survey, they have not sent it to every employee who resigns, and the number of responses is low. Additionally, the data HR does collect is not shared with departments, and it is unclear how the City uses the data. Further, there is currently no process in place for ongoing monitoring of retention and satisfaction data.