2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 5 of 17
File:
Once a Permit for a use is exercised and the use is established, the permit authorizing the use remains effective even if the property becomes vacant. The same use as allowed by the original permit may be re-established without obtaining a new permit, except as set forth in Standard Condition #5 above.
7. Permit Modifications (BMC Section 23.404.070)
No change in the use or structure for which this Permit is issued is permitted unless the Permit is modified by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The Zoning Officer may approve changes to plans approved by the Board, consistent with the Board’s policy adopted on May 24, 1978, which reduce the size of the project.
8. Permit Revocation (BMC Section 23.404.080)
The City may revoke or modify a discretionary permit for completed projects due to: 1) violations of permit requirements; 2) Changes to the approved project; and/or 3) Vacancy for one year or more. However, no lawful residential use can lapse, regardless of the length of time of the vacancy. Proceedings to revoke or modify a permit may be initiated by the Zoning Officer, Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB), or City Council referral.
9. Pay Transparency Acknowledgement (BMC Section 13.104.030) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any Project subject to this Chapter:
A. A Responsible Representative of the Permittee shall certify under penalty of perjury that:
(1) the Permittee has reviewed Chapter 13.104 of the Berkeley Municipal Code; and (2) the Permittee will be responsible for demonstrating compliance with this Chapter.
B. The Permittee shall provide to the City a Contractor Pay Transparency Acknowledgment on a form approved by the City for this purpose. A Responsible Representative of the Permittee shall certify under penalty of perjury that the Contractor and all Qualifying Subcontractors performing work on the Project will comply with Chapter 13.104 of the Berkeley Municipal Code and with Labor Code sections 226(a) and 2810.5 for each employee who works on the Project.
10. Pay Transparency Attestations Following Project Completion (BMC Section 13.104.040) Within 10 days of the approved final inspection of any Project subject to this Chapter, each Permittee shall provide to the City for each Contractor and Qualifying Subcontractor a Pay Transparency Attestation on a form approved by the City. On each Pay Transparency Attestation, a Responsible Representative of the Contractor or Qualifying Subcontractor shall attest under penalty of perjury that the Contractor or Qualifying Subcontractor complied with Chapter 13.104 of the Berkeley Municipal Code and Labor Code sections 226(a) and 2810.5 for each employee who performed work on the Project. The City will maintain Pay Transparency Attestation forms for period of at least three years after their date of receipt by the City.
11. Posting of Ordinance (BMC Section 13.104.050)
Each day work is performed on the Project, each Permittee shall post, and keep posted in a conspicuous location where it may be easily read by employees during the hours of the workday, a notice that: (A) contains the text of Chapter 13.104 of the Berkeley Municipal Code; (B) explains that workers can report violations of Labor Code sections 226 and 2810.5 to the Labor Commissioner of the State of California; and (C) provides current contact information, including office address, telephone number, and email address of the Labor Commissioner of the State of California.
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 6 of 17
File:
12. Conditions of Approval (BMC Section 13.104.060)
The requirements of Sections 13.104.030 through 13.104.050 shall be included as conditions of approval of any Use Permit or Zoning Certificate for any Project that is subject to this Chapter.
Failure to comply with the requirements of any provision of this Chapter shall be grounds for issuance of an administrative citation under Chapter 1.28 and/or the revocation or modification of any Use Permit issued for the Project under Chapter 23B.60.
13. Indemnification Agreement
The applicant shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the City of Berkeley and its officers, agents, and employees against any and all liability, damages, claims, demands, judgments or other losses (including without limitation, attorney’s fees, expert witness and consultant fees and other litigation expenses), referendum or initiative relating to, resulting from or caused by, or alleged to have resulted from, or caused by, any action or approval associated with the project. The indemnity includes without limitation, any legal or administrative challenge, referendum or initiative filed or prosecuted to overturn, set aside, stay or otherwise rescind any or all approvals granted in connection with the Project, any environmental determination made for the project and granting any permit issued in accordance with the project. This indemnity includes, without limitation, payment of all direct and indirect costs associated with any action specified herein. Direct and indirect costs shall include, without limitation, any attorney’s fees, expert witness and consultant fees, court costs, and other litigation fees. City shall have the right to select counsel to represent the City at Applicant’s expense in the defense of any action specified in this condition of approval. City shall take reasonable steps to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, demand, or legal actions that may create a claim for indemnification under these conditions of approval.
V. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Pursuant to BMC 23.404.050(H), the City Council attaches the following additional conditions to this Permit:
Prior to Submittal of Any Building Permit:
14. Project Liaison. The applicant shall include in all building permit plans and post onsite the name and telephone number of an individual empowered to manage construction-related complaints generated from the project. The individual’s name, telephone number, and responsibility for the project shall be posted at the project site for the duration of the project in a location easily visible to the public. The individual shall record all complaints received and actions taken in response, and submit written reports of such complaints and actions to the project planner on a weekly basis. Please designate the name of this individual below:
Project Liaison ____________________________________________________ Name Phone #
15. Final Design Review. The Project was referred by ZAB to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for design review. The applicant shall obtain approval of a Final Design Review (FDR) application by the DRC. The applicant shall present plans at FDR that incorporate visual enhancements to the east and west facades of the building, as discussed by the ZAB at the May 26th hearing.
16. Address Assignment. The applicant shall file an “Address Assignment Request Application” with the Permit Service Center (1947 Center Street) for any address change or new address
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 7 of 17
File:
associated with this Use Permit. The new address(es) shall be assigned in accordance with BMC 16.28.030, and entered into the City’s database after the building permit is issued but prior to final inspection.
Prior to Issuance of Any Building & Safety Permit (Demolition or Construction)
17. Construction and Demolition Diversion. Applicant shall submit a Construction Waste Management Plan that meets the requirements of BMC Chapter 19.37 including 100% diversion of asphalt, concrete, excavated soil and land-clearing debris and a minimum of 65% diversion of other nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.
18. Toxics. The applicant shall contact the Toxics Management Division (TMD) at 1947 Center Street or (510) 981-7470 to determine which of the following documents are required and timing for their submittal:
A. Environmental Site Assessments:
1) Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (latest ASTM 1527-13). A recent Phase I ESA (less than 2 years old*) shall be submitted to TMD for developments for:
All new commercial, industrial and mixed use developments and all large improvement projects.
All new residential buildings with 5 or more dwelling units located in the Environmental Management Area (or EMA).
EMA is available online
at: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_-_General/ema.pdf 2) Phase II ESA is required to evaluate Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) identified in the Phase I or other RECs identified by TMD staff. The TMD may require a third party toxicologist to review human or ecological health risks that may be identified.
The applicant may apply to the appropriate state, regional or county cleanup agency to evaluate the risks.
3) If the Phase I is over 2 years old, it will require a new site reconnaissance and interviews.
If the facility was subject to regulation under Title 15 of the Berkeley Municipal Code since the last Phase I was conducted, a new records review must be performed.
B. Soil and Groundwater Management Plan:
1) A Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) shall be submitted to TMD for all non- residential projects, and residential or mixed-use projects with five or more dwelling units, that: (1) are in the Environmental Management Area (EMA) and (2) propose any excavations deeper than 5 feet below grade. The SGMP shall be site specific and identify procedures for soil and groundwater management including identification of pollutants and disposal methods. The SGMP will identify permits required and comply with all applicable local, state and regional requirements.
2) The SGMP shall require notification to TMD of any hazardous materials found in soils and groundwater during development. The SGMP will provide guidance on managing odors during excavation. The SGMP will provide the name and phone number of the individual responsible for implementing the SGMP and post the name and phone number for the person responding to community questions and complaints. 3) TMD may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary. All requirements of the approved SGMP shall be deemed conditions of approval of this Use Permit.
C. Building Materials Survey:
1) Prior to approving any permit for partial or complete demolition and renovation activities involving the removal of 20 square or lineal feet of interior or exterior walls, a building
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 8 of 17
File:
materials survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional. The survey shall include, but not be limited to, identification of any lead-based paint, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PBC) containing equipment, hydraulic fluids in elevators or lifts, refrigeration systems, treated wood and mercury containing devices (including fluorescent light bulbs and mercury switches). The Survey shall include plans on hazardous waste or hazardous materials removal, reuse or disposal procedures to be implemented that fully comply state hazardous waste generator requirements (22 California Code of Regulations 66260 et seq). The Survey becomes a condition of any building or demolition permit for the project.
Documentation evidencing disposal of hazardous waste in compliance with the survey shall be submitted to TMD within 30 days of the completion of the demolition. If asbestos is identified, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 11-2-401.3 a notification must be made and the J number must be made available to the City of Berkeley Permit Service Center.
D. Hazardous Materials Business Plan:
1) A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) in compliance with BMC Section
15.12.040 shall be submitted electronically at http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/ within 30 days if on-site hazardous materials exceed BMC 15.20.040. HMBP requirement can be found at http://ci.berkeley.ca.us/hmr/
Prior to Issuance of Any Building (Construction) Permit
19. Percent for Public Art: Consistent with BMC Section 23.316, the applicant shall either pay the required in-lieu fee or provide the equivalent amount in a financial guarantee to be released after installation of the On-Site Publicly Accessible Art.
20. Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee: Consistent with BMC Section 22.20.065, and fee resolution applicable to this project, the applicant shall provide a schedule, consistent with a schedule approved by the City Manager or her designee, outlining the timeframe for payment of the AHMF, and they shall pay this fee.
21. HVAC Noise Reduction. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit plans that show the location, type, and design of proposed heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) equipment. In addition, the applicant shall provide product specification sheets or a report from a qualified acoustical consultant showing that operation of the proposed HVAC equipment will meet the City’s exterior noise requirements in BMC Section 13.40.050. The City’s Planning and Development Department shall review the submitted plans, including the selected HVAC equipment, to verify compliance with exterior noise standards.
22. Interior Noise Levels. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Division and the Zoning Officer by a qualified acoustic engineer certifying that the interior residential portions of the project will achieve interior noise levels of no more than 45 Ldn (Average Day-Night Levels). If the adopted Building Code imposes a more restrictive standard for interior noise levels, the report shall certify compliance with this standard.
23. Solar Photovoltaic (Solar PV). A solar PV system, on the solar zone specified in Section 110.10 of the 2019 Energy Code, shall be installed (subject to the exceptions in Section 110.10) as specified by the Berkeley Energy Code (BMC Chapter 19.36). Location of the solar PV system shall be noted on the construction plans.
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 9 of 17
File:
24. Water Efficient Landscaping. Landscaping, totaling 500 square feet of more of new landscaping or 2,500 square feet or more of renovated irrigated area, shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). MWELO-compliant landscape documentation including a planting, grading, and irrigation plan shall be included in site plans. Water budget calculations are also required for landscapes of 2,500 square feet or more and shall be included in site plans. The reference evapotranspiration rate (ETo) for Berkeley is 41.8.
25. Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings. The project shall comply with the City of Berkeley Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings (BMC Chapter 12.80).
26. Recycling and Organics Collection. Applicant shall provide recycling and organics collection areas for occupants, clearly marked on site plans, which comply with the Alameda County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance (ACWMA Ordinance 2012-01).
27. Public Works ADA. Plans submitted for building permit shall include replacement of sidewalk, curb, gutter, and other streetscape improvements, as necessary to comply with current City of Berkeley standards for accessibility.
During Construction:
28. Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 AM and Noon on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or any Federal Holiday.
29. Public Works - Implement BAAQMD-Recommended Measures during Construction. For all proposed projects, BAAQMD recommends implementing all the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, listed below to meet the best management practices threshold for fugitive dust:
A. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
B. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
C. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
D. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
E. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
F. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
G. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
H. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 10 of 17
File:
30. Construction and Demolition Diversion. Divert debris according to your plan and collect required documentation. Get construction debris receipts from sorting facilities in order to verify diversion requirements. Upload recycling and disposal receipts if using Green Halo and submit online for City review and approval prior to final inspection. Alternatively, complete the second page of the original Construction Waste Management Plan and present it, along with your construction debris receipts, to the Building Inspector by the final inspection to demonstrate diversion rate compliance. The Zoning Officer may request summary reports at more frequent intervals, as necessary to ensure compliance with this requirement.
31. Low-Carbon Concrete. The project shall maintain compliance with the Berkeley Green Code (BMC Chapter 19.37) including use of concrete mix design with a cement reduction of at least 25%. Documentation on concrete mix design shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff.
32. Transportation Construction Plan. The applicant and all persons associated with the project are hereby notified that a Transportation Construction Plan (TCP) is required for all phases of construction, particularly for the following activities:
Alterations, closures, or blockages to sidewalks, pedestrian paths or vehicle travel lanes (including bicycle lanes);
Storage of building materials, dumpsters, debris anywhere in the public ROW; Provision of exclusive contractor parking on-street; or Significant truck activity.
The applicant shall secure the City Traffic Engineer’s approval of a TCP. Please contact the Office of Transportation at 981-7010, or 1947 Center Street, and ask to speak to a traffic engineer. In addition to other requirements of the Traffic Engineer, this plan shall include the locations of material and equipment storage, trailers, worker parking, a schedule of site operations that may block traffic, and provisions for traffic control. The TCP shall be consistent with any other requirements of the construction phase.
Contact the Permit Service Center (PSC) at 1947 Center Street or 981-7500 for details on obtaining Construction/No Parking Permits (and associated signs and accompanying dashboard permits). Please note that the Zoning Officer and/or Traffic Engineer may limit off-site parking of construction-related vehicles if necessary to protect the health, safety or convenience of the surrounding neighborhood. A current copy of this Plan shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff.
33. Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Initial site disturbance activities, including vegetation and concrete removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 to August 30), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation and concrete removal. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 11 of 17
File:
feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed inside the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground- disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and January 31.
34. Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be instituted.
Therefore:
A. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant and/or lead agency shall consult with a qualified archaeologist, historian or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find.
B. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent and/or lead agency and the qualified professional would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City of Berkeley. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.
C. In considering any suggested measure proposed by the qualified professional, the project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary or feasible in light of factors such as the uniqueness of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.
D. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.
E. If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall prepare a report on the findings for submittal to the Northwest Information Center.
35. Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during ground-disturbing activities, all work shall immediately halt and the Alameda County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, and following the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all excavation and site preparation activities shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find until appropriate arrangements are made. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously.
36. Paleontological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]). The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed,
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 12 of 17
File:
evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented.
The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
37. Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected. The project applicant and project construction contractor shall notify the City Planning Department within 24 hours. The City will again contact any tribes who have requested consultation under AB 52, as well as contact a qualified archaeologist, to evaluate the resources and situation and provide recommendations. If it is determined that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.
38. Stormwater Requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as described in BMC Section 17.20. The following conditions apply:
A. The project plans shall identify and show site-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to activities conducted on-site to limit to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants to the City's storm drainage system, regardless of season or weather conditions.
B. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) shall be covered; no other area shall drain onto this area. Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system; these drains should connect to the sanitary sewer. Applicant shall contact the City of Berkeley and EBMUD for specific connection and discharge requirements. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the City of Berkeley and EBMUD.
C. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that contribute to stormwater pollution. Where feasible, landscaping should be designed and operated to treat runoff.
When and where possible, xeriscape and drought tolerant plants shall be incorporated into new development plans.
D. Design, location and maintenance requirements and schedules for any stormwater quality treatment structural controls shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review with respect to reasonable adequacy of the controls. The review does not relieve the property owner of the responsibility for complying with BMC Chapter 17.20 and future revisions to the City's overall stormwater quality ordinances. This review shall be shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
E. All paved outdoor storage areas must be designed to reduce/limit the potential for runoff to contact pollutants.
F. All on-site storm drain inlets/catch basins must be cleaned at least once a year immediately prior to the rainy season. The property owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with proper operation and maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (pipelines, inlets, catch basins, outlets, etc.) associated with the project, unless the City accepts such facilities by
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 13 of 17
File:
Council action. Additional cleaning may be required by City of Berkeley Public Works Engineering Dept.
G. All private or public projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface must comply with Provision C.3 of the Alameda County NPDES permit and must incorporate stormwater controls to enhance water quality. Permit submittals shall include a Stormwater Requirement Checklist and detailed information showing how the proposed project will meet Provision C.3 stormwater requirements, including a) Site design measures to reduce impervious surfaces, promote infiltration, and reduce water quality impacts; b) Source Control Measures to keep pollutants out of stormwater runoff; c) Stormwater treatment measures that are hydraulically sized to remove pollutants from stormwater; d) an O & M (Operations and Maintenance) agreement for all stormwater treatment devices and installations; and e) Engineering calculations for all stormwater devices (both mechanical and biological).
H. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled “No Dumping – Drains to Bay” or equivalent using methods approved by the City.
I. Most washing and/or steam cleaning must be done at an appropriately equipped facility that drains to the sanitary sewer. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be managed in such a way that there is no discharge or soaps or other pollutants to the storm drain.
Sanitary connections are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the sanitary district with jurisdiction for receiving the discharge.
J. Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. If pressure washed, debris must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm drain system. If any cleaning agent or degreaser is used, wash water shall not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the sanitary district with jurisdiction for receiving the discharge.
K. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and sub-contractors are aware of and implement all stormwater quality control measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs shall result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or a project stop work order.
39. Public Works. All piles of debris, soil, sand, or other loose materials shall be covered at night and during rainy weather with plastic at least one-eighth millimeter thick and secured to the ground.
40. Public Works. The applicant shall ensure that all excavation takes into account surface and subsurface waters and underground streams so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties and rights-of-way.
41. Public Works. The project sponsor shall maintain sandbags or other devices around the site perimeter during the rainy season to prevent on-site soils from being washed off-site and into the storm drain system. The project sponsor shall comply with all City ordinances regarding construction and grading.
42. Public Works. Prior to any excavation, grading, clearing, or other activities involving soil disturbance during the rainy season the applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion prevention plan by the Building and Safety Division and the Public Works Department. The applicant shall
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 14 of 17
File:
be responsible for following these and any other measures required by the Building and Safety Division and the Public Works Department.
43. Public Works. The removal or obstruction of any fire hydrant shall require the submission of a plan to the City’s Public Works Department for the relocation of the fire hydrant during construction.
44. Public Works. If underground utilities leading to adjacent properties are uncovered and/or broken, the contractor involved shall immediately notify the Public Works Department and the Building & Safety Division, and carry out any necessary corrective action to their satisfaction.
Prior to Final Inspection or Issuance of Occupancy Permit:
45. Compliance with Conditions. The project shall conform to the plans and statements in the Use Permit. The developer is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the requirements throughout the implementation of this Use Permit.
46. Compliance with Approved Plan. The project shall conform to the plans and statements in the Use Permit. All landscape, site and architectural improvements shall be completed per the attached approved drawings dated March 23, 2022, except as modified by conditions of approval.
47. Transportation Demand Management. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
property owner shall facilitate a site inspection by Planning Department staff to confirm that the physical improvements required in Section 23.334.030(C) and 23.322.090 (bike parking) have been installed. The property owner shall also provide documentation that the programmatic measures required in 23.334.030(A) and 23.334.030(B) will be implemented.
A. Consistent with Section 23.334.030(A), all parking spaces provided for residents be leased or sold separate from the rental or purchase of dwelling units for the life of the dwelling units, such that potential renters or buyers shall have the option of renting or buying a dwelling unit at a price lower than would be the case if there were a single price for both the dwelling unit and the parking space(s).
B. Consistent with Section 23.334.030(B), at least one of the following transit benefits shall be offered, at no cost to the resident, for a period of ten years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. A notice describing these transportation benefits shall be posted in a location or locations visible to all employees.
1. One monthly pass for unlimited local bus transit service for every bedroom in each dwelling unit, up to a maximum of two benefits per dwelling unit.
2. Subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Officer in consultation with the Transportation Division Manager, a functionally equivalent transit benefit in an amount at least equal to the price of a non-discounted unlimited monthly local bus pass.
C. Consistent with Section 23.334.030(C), publicly-available, real-time transportation information in a common area, such as a lobby or elevator bay, on televisions, computer monitors or other displays readily visible to residents and/or visitors, shall be provided. Transportation information shall include, but is not limited to, transit arrivals and departures for nearby transit routes.
Property owners may be required to pay administrative fees associated with compliance with this Condition.
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 15 of 17
File:
BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS
48. Number of Below Market Rate Units. The project shall provide two Low-Income, below market rate rental dwelling units (“BMR Units”), which are required to comply with the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The BMR Units shall be designated in the Regulatory Agreement and shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project; be of the same size and contain, on average, the same number of bedrooms as the non-BMR units in the project; and be comparable with the design or use of non-BMR units in terms of appearance, materials and finish quality. The designation of BMR Units shall conform to the addresses assigned to the building by the City.
49. Regulatory Agreement. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into a Regulatory Agreement that implements Government Code Section 65915 and this Use Permit.
The Regulatory Agreement may include any terms and affordability standards determined by the City to be necessary to ensure such compliance. The maximum qualifying household income for the BMR Units shall be 50 percent of area median income (AMI), and the maximum housing payment shall be 30 percent of 50 percent of AMI, as set forth in the following paragraphs of this condition. If the BMR units are occupied by very low-income tenants receiving a rental subsidy through the Section 8 or Shelter Plus Care programs, the rent received by the project sponsor may exceed the restricted rent to the payment standards allowed under those programs so long as the rent allowed under the payment standards is not greater than the market rents charged for comparable units in the development. The applicant shall submit the Regulatory Agreement to the Housing and Community Services Department (HHCS) via email to [email protected] for review and approval.
50. In addition, the following provisions shall apply:
A. Maximum rent shall be adjusted for the family size appropriate for the unit pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 50052.5 (h).
B. Rent shall include a reasonable allowance for utilities, as published and updated by the Berkeley Housing Authority, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas, and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuels. Such allowance shall take into account the cost of an adequate level of service. Utilities do not include telephone service. Rent also includes any separately charged fees or service charges assessed by the lessor which are required of all tenants, other than security deposits.
C.BMR units will be provided for the life of the project under Section 22.20.065.
51. Determination of Area Median Income (AMI)
The “AMI” (Area Median Income) shall be based on the income standards for the Oakland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area reported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In the event HUD discontinues establishing such income standards, AMI shall be based on income standards determined by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). If such income standards are no longer in existence, the City will designate another appropriate source or method for determining the median household income.
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 16 of 17
File:
The applicable AMI for the purpose of determining the allowable rent for each unit (but not for the purpose of determining eligibility for occupancy of an inclusionary unit) shall be determined in accordance with the following table:
Unit Size AMI Standard
Studio unit AMI for a one-person household
One-bedroom unit AMI for a two-person household
Two-bedroom unit AMI for a three-person household
Three-bedroom unit AMI for a four-person household
52. Nothing in these conditions shall be interpreted to prohibit, or to require modification of the Use Permit or Regulatory Agreement to allow, the provision of additional BMR units, or additional affordability, than are required in the foregoing provisions.
At All Times:
53. Transportation Demand Management Compliance. The property owner shall submit to the Planning Department periodic TDM Compliance Reports in accordance with Administrative Regulations, subject to the review and oversight of the Zoning Officer. Property owners may be required to pay administrative fees associated with compliance with this Condition, pursuant to BMC Section 23.334.040(B).
54. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent excessive glare beyond the subject property.
55. Rooftop Projections. No additional rooftop or elevator equipment shall be added to exceed the approved maximum roof height without submission of an application for a Use Permit Modification, subject to Board review and approval.
56. Drainage Patterns. The applicant shall establish and maintain drainage patterns that do not adversely affect adjacent properties and rights-of-way. Drainage plans shall be submitted for approval of the Building & Safety Division and Public Works Department, if required.
57. Electrical Meter. Only one electrical meter fixture may be installed per dwelling unit.
58. Residential Permit Parking. No Residential Permit Parking (RPP) permits shall be issued to project residents, nor shall commercial placards be issued to non-residential occupants and/or users of the site. The project planner shall notify the Finance Department, Customer Service Center, to add these addresses to the list of addresses ineligible for RPP permits. The property owner shall notify all tenants of rental units, and/or buyers of condominium units, of this restriction in leases and/or contracts, and shall provide sample leases and/or contracts including such notification to the project planner prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection.
59. Tenant Notification. The developer shall provide tenant notification, via a lease rider or deed covenant, that each dwelling unit is located in a mixed-use area that includes commercial, food service and entertainment uses, and that each occupant shall not seek to impede their lawful operation.
2018 BLAKE STREET - USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095 FINDINGS & CONDITIONS October 6, 2022 Page 17 of 17
File:
60. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent excessive glare beyond the subject property.
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A0.1
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: AS NOTED
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
TITLE SHEET
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/20213PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
3 3
APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES
2018 BLAKE STREET
ALL WORK NOTED SHALL BE IN FULL ACCORD &
COMPLY WITH THE LATEST RULES, REGULATIONS,
ORDINANCES, CODES & STANDARDS LISTED
BELOW & ANY AND ALL LOCAL CODES AND
ORDINANCES CURRENTLY IN EFFECT IN THE
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.
2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)
2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)
2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (CGBC)
2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODES (CPC)
2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)
2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)
2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC)
BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC)
2018 BLAKE STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94704
ARCHITECTURAL
A0.1 TITLE SHEET
A0.2 NOTES & LEGEND
A0.3 DENSITY BONUS STATEMENT
A0.4 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS & VICINITY MAP
A0.5 CALGREEN CHECKLIST
A0.6 CALGREEN CHECKLIST
A0.7 CONSTRUCTION BMPS
A0.8 BAY-FRIENDLY BASICS LANDSCAPE CHECKLIST
A0.9 SITE PHOTOS
A1.1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
A1.2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A1.3 LANDSCAPE AREA DIAGRAM
A1.4 SHADOW STUDIES
A2.1 GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A2.2 LEVEL 2-6 FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLAN
A3.1 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A3.2 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A3.3 STREET ELEVATION
A4.1 BUILDING SECTIONS
SURVEY
SU1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LANDSCAPE
L1.1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1.2 PLANT LIST, IMAGES AND WELO
L1.3 PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN
L1.4 IRRIGATION NOTES AND DETAILS
TRAFFIC STUDY
Draft Focused Traffic Study for the
2018 Blake Street Project_2021-08-31.pdf
THE SCOPE OF WORK UNDER THIS PERMIT:
PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO
REPLACE THE EXISTING BURNED DOWN STRUCTURE
WITH A SIX (6) STORIES, IN TOTAL OF TWELVE (12)
UNITS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, INCLUDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND STATE DENSITY
BONUS UNITS.
OWNERS
2018 BLAKE STREET LLC
2905 S Vermont ave suite 204
Los Angeles CA 90007
424-644-5703
[email protected]
ARCHITECT
HUAN FANG
FIFTH ARCH
1177 ALABAMA ST.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
510-541-2398
[email protected]
SURVEYOR
LEA & BRAZE ENG., INC.
2495 INDUSTRIAL PKWY WEST
HAYWARD, CA 94545
510-887-4086
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
RW STOVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1620 NORTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 4
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
TRAFFIC CONSULTANT
W-TRANS
7901 OAKPORT STREET, SUITE 1500
OAKLAND, CA 94621
510-444-2600
SITE LOCATION MAP
LEGAL
LOCATION: 2018 BLAKE STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94704
APN: 055182102100
ZONING: R-4
GENERAL PLAN AREA: HDR
FIRE ZONE: 1
FLOOD ZONE: NO
OCCUPANCY GROUP
R-2, MULTI-RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION TYPE
TBD
ACCESSIBILITY:
THIS IS A MULTI-LEVEL, ELEVATOR BUILDING.
IT IS FULL COMPLIANCE WITH CBC SECTION 11-B,
ACCESSIBLE IN ALL COMMON AREA ACCESSED BY THE
ELEVATOR AND ACCESSIBLE ADAPTABLE IN PRIVATE
DWELLING UNITS ON ACCESSIBLE FLOORS
PROJECT DATAPROJECT SCOPEPROJECT TEAM DRAWING LIST INDEX N
PROJECT LOCATION
Attachment 1, Exhibit B
from ZAB 5/26/2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A0.2
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: AS NOTED
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
NOTES & LEGEND
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL 04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/2021 3PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
SHEET REFERENCE
PLUMBING FIXTURE MARKER
WINDOW MARKER
1. NOTIFY ARCHITECT PROMPTLY IF ANY CONDITIONS
CONFLICT WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.
2. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO FABRICATION/ CONSTRUCTION.
3. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN
DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN
ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS.
4. PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE FOR THE
UNDERGROUNDING OF ALL UTILITIES SERVING THE
PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRICAL,
TELEPHONE, AND CABLE TELEVISION, BY THE
INSTALLATION OF APPROPRIATELY SIZED UNDERGROUND
CONDUITS EXTENDING FROM THE STREET PROPERTY, AS
PER BBC 705A.1.
5. ALL PERSONS WORKING AT THIS SITE MUST IMPLEMENT
APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE STATE STORM WATER
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL FOR
CONSTRUCTION TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING
INTO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. FAILURE TO UTILIZE
ADEQUATE CONTROLS IS A VIOLATION OF BMC 17.20. A
COPY OF THE MANUAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST AT
THE PERMIT SERVICE CENTER AND AVAILABLE ONLINE AT
WWW.CABMPHANDBOOKS.COM.
6. APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT FOR WORK IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT DOES NOT RELIEVE THE
APPLICANT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OBTAINING
PERMISSION TO ENTER NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR
PROPERTIES IN THE COURSE OF THIS WORK IF
NECESSARY. IT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A LICENSE
TO ALTER OR ADVERSELY IMPACT ANY FACILITIES
LOCATED IN THESE EASEMENTS WHICH ARE PRIVATELY
OWNED. FULL RESTITUTION AND RESTORATION SHALL BE
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE. PERMITTEE
SHALL NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNER OF INTENTIONS 72 HRS
PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PROPERTY.
NATURAL GAS PROHIBITION, BERKELEY ENERGY & GREEN CODE
THE BUILDING WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE IN COMPLIANCE WITH BMC CHAPTER 12.80.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE BERKELEY ENERGY CODE (BMC CHAPTER 19.36) AND BERKELEY GREEN CODE (BMC CHAPTER 19.37), ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 3RD, 2019,
INCLUDING SOLAR PV SYSTEM, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING, AND LOW-CARBON CONCRETE REQUIREMENTS. BUILDING DESIGN MUST
INCORPORATE ALL-ELECTRIC SYSTEMS UNLESS AN EXCEPTION OR PUBLIC INTEREST EXEMPTION TO THE NATURAL GAS PROHIBITION IS GRANTED.
SB 407
NON-COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE REPLACED BY
WATER-CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES PER SB 407.
CONSTRUCTION HOURS
WEEKDAYS: 7:00AM - 7:00PM
SATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PM
SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: 10:00AM - 6:00PM
CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM.
DIMENSION LINES
CUT CONSTRUCTION
KEYNOTE
APPLIANCE MARKER
PROJECT NOTES & CONDITIONS
DRAWING NUMBER
SECTION MARKER
CUT CONSTRUCTION
SHEET REFERENCE
CUT CONSTRUCTION
DETAIL MARKER
DRAWING NUMBER
SHEET REFERENCE
DETAIL MARKER
DRAWING NUMBER
SHEET REFERENCE
ISOLATED DETAIL AREA
REVISION MARKER
DRAWING NUMBER
DRAWING NUMBER
SHEET REFERENCE
DIMENSIONING CONVENTIONS
1. DIMENSIONS AS NOTED IN THE PLANS SHALL TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.
2. DIMENSIONS ARE FROM GRID LINE TO FACE OF
CONCRETE OR STUD ON PLANS AND FACE OF FINISH ON
ALL OTHER DRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ANY
ERRORS, OMMISSIONS, OR AMBIGUITIES IN THE PLANS
ARE TO BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. SEE ENLARGED PLANS,
FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS & INFORMATION.
3. DETAILS SHALL GOVERN OVER PLANS AND
ELEVATIONS. LARGE SCALE PLANS GOVERN OVER SMALL
SCALE PLANS. LARGE SCALE DETAILS SHALL GOVERN
OVER SMALL SCALE DETAILS. IF UNABLE TO LOCATE THE
DIMENSIONS FOR ANY ITEM OF WORK, CONSULT THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
4. ALL DIMENSIONS ON ELEVATIONS ARE INDICATED
FROM FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION TO FIXTURE AND/OR
FINISH WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
5. ALL HEIGHTS ARE DIMENSIONED FROM THE TOP OF
PLYWOOD OR SLAB, UNLESS NOTED "A.F.F."
6. DIMENSIONS ARE NOT ADJUSTABLE , UNLESS NOTED
(+/-), WITHOUT ARCHITECT'S WRITTEN APPROVAL.
7. EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY NOTED TO THE
CONTRARY, ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS CONFORM TO THE
FOLLOWING CONVENTIONS:
- STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL GRID LINES
- CENTERLINE OF STEEL
- CENTERLINE OF DOOR, WINDOW, OR CASED OPENING
8. WHERE WALLS AND / OR PARTITIONS OF UNEQUAL
THICKNESS ABUT, ALIGN EXPOSED FACES, UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
ELEVATION MARKER
PRIMARY VERTICAL ELEVATION
DOOR MARKER
1 1
A1.1
A1.1
1 A1.1
A1.1
SIM
SIM
SIM
SIM
1 3
24 203A
205
1 A1
P1
X
A1.1
1 ABBREVIATIONSGENERAL NOTES & CONDITIONS PROJECT SYMBOLS X'-X"
X'-X"
Acoustical Ceiling Tile
Building
Blocking
Bottom of Steel
Bottom
Bearing
Cabinet
Corner Guard
Control/Construction Joint
Centerline
Ceiling
Clear/Clearance
Concrete Masonry Unit
Column
Concrete
Construction
Continuous
Coordinate/Coordination
Carpet
Casework
Centerpoint
Ceramic Tile
Demolition
Drinking Fountain
Diameter
Diagonal
Dimension
Dispenser
Down
Door
Detail
Drawing/Drawings
East
Existing
Exterior Insulation & Finish System
Elevation
Electric/Electrical
Elevator
Elastomeric Membrane
Equal
Equipment
Exposed/Expansion
Expansion Joint
Exterior
Fasten/Fastener
Floor Drain
Fire Extinguisher
Fire Extinguisher Cabinet
Finish Floor
Finish
Fixture
Floor
Face of Stud
Frame(s), (ing)
Fiber Reinforced Polyester
Footing
Furr(ed), (ing)
Guage
Galvanized
Gypsum Backing Board
General Contractor
General
Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Glass/Glazing
Gypsum Wallboard
Gypsum
Hose Bibb
Hollow Core, Hose Cabinet
Hollow Metal
Horizontal
Height
Heating
Heating/Ventilation/AC
Hardwood
ACT
BLDG
BLKG
BOS
BOT
BRG
CAB
CG
CJ
CL
CEIL
CLR
CMU
COL
CONC
CONST
CONT
COORD
CPT
CSWK
CP
CT
DEMO
DF
DIA
DIAG
DIM
DISP
DN
DR
DTL
DWG(S)
E
EXIST
EIFS
EL
ELEC
ELEV
EPDM
EQ
EQUIP
EXP
EJ
EXT
FAST
FD
FE
FEC
FF
FIN
FIXT
FL/FLR
FOS
FR
FRP
FTG
FUR
GA
GALV
GBB
GC
GEN
GFRC
GL
GWB
GYP
HB
HC
HM
HOR
HT
HTG
HVAC
HDW
Inside Diameter
Include(ed), (ing)
Insulation
Interior
Invert
Janitor
Joint
Kitchen/Kitchenette
Knockout
Lavatory
Left Hand
Manufacture(r)
Material(s)
Maximum
Mechanical
Medium
Membrane
Mezzanine
Metal
Minimum
Mirror(ed)
Miscellaneous
Masonry Opening
Mounted
Mullion
North
Northeast
Not in Contract
Number
Nominal
Not to Scale
Northwest
On Center(s)
Outside Diameter
Owner Furnished/ Contractor Installed
Owner Furnished/ Owner Installed
Overflow Roof Drain
Overflow Scupper
Overhead
Opening
Opposite
Permanent
Perpendicular
Plate
Plywood
Panel
Pair
Prefabricate(d)
Prefinish(ed)
Parking
Property
Paint(ed)
Quarry Tile
Quantity
Riser
Radius(ed)
Rubber
Reflected Ceiling Plan
Roof Drain
Recessed
Receptical
Reference/Refrigerator
Reinforce(d), (ing)
Required
Reverse
Right Hand
Room
Rough Opening
Resilient Tile
Roof Vent
ID
INCL
INSUL
INT
INV
JAN
JT
KIT
KO
LAV
LH
MANF
MATL
MAX
MECH
MED
MEMBR
MEZZ
MTL
MIN
MIR
MISC
MO
MTD
MULL
N
NE
NIC
NO,#
NOM
NTS
NW
OC
OD
OF/CI
OF/OI
OFRD
OFS
OH
OPNG
OPP
PERM
PERP
PL
PLYWD
PNL
PR
PREFAB
PREFIN
PRKG
PROP
PT
QT
QTY
R
RAD/(R)
RB
RCP
RD
REC
RECPT
REF
REINF
REQD
REV
RH
RM
RO
RT
RVS
SC
SCH
SE
SECT
SHT
SHTG
SIM
SPEC(S)
SPKLR
SQ
SS
STD
STL
STOR
STRUCT
SURF
SUSP
SW
SYS
T>
TI
TAN
TBD
TEL
TEMP
THRU
TOB
TOC
TOF
TOFW
TOP
TOS
TOW
TP
TYP
UNFIN
UNO
V
VB
VCT
VERT
VEST
VIF
VNR
VT
VWC
W/
W/O
W
WC
WD
WDW
WH
WFF
South
Solid Core, Sealed Concrete
Schedule
Southeast
Section
Sheet
Sheathing
Similar
Specification(s)
Sprinlker
Square
Stainless Steel
Standard
Steel
Storage
Structural
Surface
Suspend(ed)
Southwest
System(s)
Tongue and Groove
Tread, Thermostat
Tenant Improvement(s)
Tangent
To Be Determined
Telephone
Temperature/Temporary
Through
Top of Beam
Top of Curb/Coping/Concrete
Tof of Floor
Top of Foundation Wall
Top of Parapet
Top of Steel
Top of Wall
Toilet Partition
Typical
Unfinished
Unless Noted Otherwise
Vinyl
Vinyl Base
Vinyl Composition Tile
Vertical
Vestibule
Verify in Field
Veneer
Vinyl Tile
Vinyl Wall Covering
With
Without
West
Water Closet
Wood
Window
Wall Hung
Welded Wire Fabric
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A0.3
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: AS NOTED
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
DENSITY BONUS STATEMENT
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL 04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/2021 3PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
3 3
ELEVATOR
MECH
MEP
USEABLE OPEN SPACE:
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREA
Roof MEP
Roof MEP
Unit3,5 Unit7
Lower level
Stair1 Stair1
BASE_ROOFBASE_LEVEL 1
Stair2
Stair1
Open space: 685 SF
Landscape: 35%
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Stair1
Stair2
Unit1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Stair2
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Stair1
MEP
Unit2
Open space
760 SF
Stair1
PROPOSED_ROOF
Open space
544 SF
Open space: 253 SF
Landscape: 72%
Bikes (19)
Open space: 784 SF
Landscape: 38%
Stair2
Unit8
Upper level
Open space
432 SF
Unit2
USEABLE OPEN SPACE
LANDSCAPE AREA
Stair2
Roof MEP
MEP
MEP/UTILITY
Roof MEP
Lobby
UTILITY
Bikes (10)
ELEVATOR
Stair1
Unit8
Lower level
Unit7
Upper level
Stair2
RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
Open space: 268 SF
Landscape: 100%
WAIVERS / MODIFICATIONS
1. SIDE SETBACKS
2. REAR SETBACKS
3. LOT COVERAGE
Open space: 440 SF
Landscape: 75%
PROPOSED_LEVEL 2-6PROPOSED_LEVEL 1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
TRASH
Unit1
BASE_LEVEL 2-3
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
MEP
BASE_LEVEL 4 BASE_LEVEL 5
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Unit4,6,8,10,12
Unit4,6
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Unit3,5,7,9,11
LEGEND
4'-0"
Side setback
15'-0"
Front setback
4'-0"
Side setback
30'-0"
Separation
19'-0"
Rear setback
8'-0"
Side setback
19'-0"
Rear setback
10'-0"
Side setback
10'-0"
Side setback
19'-0"
Rear setback
15'-0"
Front setback
17'-0"
22'-0"
10'-0"
Side setback
10'-0"
Side setback
6'-0"
Side setback
15'-0"
Front setback
14'-0"
15'-0"
Rear setback
30'-0"
Separation
15'-0"
Front setback
19'-0"
Rear setback
15'-0"
Rear setback
10'-0"
Side setback
4'-0"
Side setback
6'-0"
Side setback
4'-0"
Side setback
22'-0" 10'-0"
10'-0"
Side setback
15'-0"
Front setback
15'-0"
Rear setback
30'-0"
Separation
15'-0"
Front setback
15'-0"
Front setback
4'-0"
Side setback
19'-0"
Rear setback
12'-0"
10'-0"
Side setback
4'-0"
Side setback
15'-0"
Front setback
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A0.4
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: AS NOTED
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS & VICINITY MAP
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL 04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/2021 3PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
2030 BLAKE
2015 BLAKE
2034 BLAKE
2538 MILVIA
2023 BLAKE
2515 MILVIA
2515 MILVIA
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
2509 MILVIA
2519 MILVIA
2001 BLAKE
2524 SHATTUCK
2528 MILVIA
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1/30" = 1'-0" 1
2022 BLAKE
2509 MILVIA
2019 BLAKE 2524 SHATTUCK
2016 BLAKE
2019 BLAKE
2538 MILVIA
2018 BLAKE STREET
2034 BLAKE2030 BLAKE
2539 MILVIA
2015 BLAKE
2528 MILVIA
2022 BLAKE
2524 MILVIA
2001 BLAKE
2520 MILVIA
2520 MILVIA
2006 BLAKE2016 BLAKE
2006 BLAKE
PROJECT LOCATION
2020 BLAKE
2524 MILVIA
2023 BLAKE
2020 BLAKE
MILVIA STREET
BLAKE STREET
EXISTING SITE PLAN
2539 MILVIA
2519 MILVIA
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
DATE
DRAWING BY: HF
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
CHECKED BY: PS SCALE:
SITE PHOTO
2018 BLAKE STREET
PROJECT
1ST PLANNING COMMENTS
DESCRIPTION
A0.9
107/05/2021
NO.
04/28/2021 PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL
ISSUES & REVISIONS
DATE: 8/11/2021
8 2
6 3
5 SITE
8 6 4
7 5
7 1
4 2
3 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A1.1
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
EXISTING SITE PLAN
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/20213PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPERTY LINE
1 BLAKE STREET
BRICK
2020 BLAKE STREET
APN: 55-1821-22
UNIT A
SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE
9" TREE (DEAD)
10" TREE
20" TREE CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
CONCRETE
SSCO
SSCO WM WM
2018 BLAKE STREET
EXISTING GARAGE
DEMOLISHED
IN THE FIRE
WM
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
2016 BLAKE STREET
APN: 55-1821-20
THREE-STORY
APARTMENT BUILDING
WMSSCO
9"10" TREE
BURNED DOWN
15" TREE (DEAD)
24" REDWOOD
2018 BLAKE STREET
EXISTING BUILDING
DEMOLISHED
IN THE FIRE
APN: 55-1821-21
LINE TYPES:
6" STUMP
EXISTING WALL / ELEMENT TO REMOVE
EXISTING WALL / ELEMENT TO REMAIN
BRICK WALL
2020 BLAKE STREET
APN: 55-1821-22
UNIT B
SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE
4'-10"
4'-5"
3'-2" 40'-0"
2'-8"
130'-0"
47'-4"
3'-10"
10'-5"
19'-6"
130'-0"
40'-0"
(E) 6' WOOD FENCE
TO BE DEMO
(E) 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
REPLACE W/ 6' WOOD FENCE
(E) 6' WOOD FENCE
REPAIR AS NEEDED
CONCRETE SLAB
GATEGATE
(E) 6' WOOD FENCE
REPAIR AS NEEDED
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A1.2
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/20213PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
3 PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
BLAKE STREET
2016 BLAKE STREET
APN: 55-1821-20
THREE-STORY
APARTMENT BUILDING
USEABLE OPEN
SPACE
2020 BLAKE STREET
APN: 55-1821-22
UNIT A
SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE
2020 BLAKE STREET
APN: 55-1821-22
UNIT B
SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE
24" REDWOOD
WM
20" TREE
9" TREE (DEAD)
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
USEABLE OPEN
SPACE
2018 BLAKE STREET
USEABLE OPEN
SPACE
USEABLE OPEN
SPACE
2018 BLAKE STREET
USEABLE OPEN
SPACE
SITE SETBACK
SITE SETBACK
SITE SETBACK
SSCO
SITE SETBACK
3'-2"
4'-10"
2'-8"
4'-5"
15'-0"
4'-0"4'-0"
15'-0"
130'-0"
130'-0"
40'-0"
30'-0"
40'-0"
(E) 6' WOOD FENCE
REPAIR AS NEEDED
(E) 6' WOOD FENCE
REPAIR AS NEEDED
+154.57' +154.7'
+152.6'+152.7' (E) 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
REPLACE W/ 6' WOOD FENCE
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
F
F
F
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A1.3
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
LANDSCAPE AREA DIAGRAM
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/20213PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
3 GROUND FLOOR LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPERTY LINE
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPERTY LINE
USEABLE OPEN SPACE
LANDSCAPE AREA
Ground Level:
Open space3: 440 SF
Landscape: 75%
Ground Level
Open space2: 253 SF
Landscape: 72%
Ground Level
Open space1: 268 SF
Landscape: 100%
OPEN SPACE LANSCAPE AREA PERCENTAGE
OPEN SPACE AREA TOTAL:
LANDSCAPE AREA TOTAL:
PERCENTAGE:
SHEET NOTES:
1. ALL (N) PLANTER AREAS TO HAVE SOIL AMENDED W/
1" COMPOST LAYER. ALL PLANTINGS ARE TO BE
SUFFICIENTLY DEVELOPED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION
TO ASSURE SURVIVAL AND GROWTH OF PLANTINGS.
2. ALL TREES TO HAVE SUFFICIENT CENTRAL LEADERS
TO ASSURE GROWTH AND SURVIVABILITY.
3. (N) LAWNS & PLANTER BEDS SHALL BE IRIGATED W/
DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ON A DESIGN/BUILD BASIS.
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED, INSTALLED
AND OPERATED AT THE LOWEST PRACTICAL AMOUNT
OF WATER NOT TO EXCEED 70% OF REFERENCE
EVAPOTRANSPIRATIONFOR THE LANDSCAPED AREA.
4. IRRIGATION VALVES & CIRCUITS SHALL BE
SEPARATED HYDROZONED BASED ON PLANT WATER
REQUIREMENT (INCLUDING VARYING ROOT DEPTH),
SUN EXPOSURE, TOP AND BOTTOM OF SLOPE, &
IRRIGATION RATE AS APPLICABLE.
BUILDING A:
BUILDING B:
ELEVATOR:
TOTAL:
BLAKE STREET
2430 SQ. FT.
1223 SQ. FT.
50.3% ( > 40%)
234 SQ. FT.
37 SQ. FT.
183 SQ. FT.
27 SQ. FT.
328 SQ. FT.
146 SQ. FT.
40 SQ. FT.
157 SQ. FT.
71 SQ. FT.
1223 SQ. FT.
37 CUBIC YARDS
PLANTER AREA
183 SQ. FT.
BLAKE STREET
USEABLE OPEN SPACE:
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREA
Roof Level:
Open space5: 784 SF
Landscape: 38%
1120 SQ. FT.
1213 SQ. FT.
58 SQ. FT.
2391 SQ. FT. ( < 2500 SQ. FT.)
PLANTER AREA CALCS:
ROOF LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
PLANTER AREA
234 SQ. FT.
Roof Level:
Open space4: 685 SF
Landscape: 35%
FRONT YARD PLANTER:
CENTRAL YARD PLANTER 1:
CENTRAL YARD PLANTER 2:
CENTRAL YARD PLANTER 3:
REAR YARD PLANTER:
ROOF PLANTER 1:
ROOF PLANTER 2:
ROOF PLANTER 3:
ROOF PLANTER 4:
TOTAL AREA:
MIN. 3" MULCH LAYER:
2 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CALCS:
COVERED SPACE
BUILDING A
1120 SQ. FT.
LEGEND
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
PLANTER AREA
71 SQ. FT.
PLANTER AREA
157 SQ. FT.
PLANTER AREA
328 SQ. FT.
PLANTER AREA
146 SQ. FT.
ROOF LEVEL
MEP SPACE
PLANTER AREA
40 SQ. FT.
ROOF LEVEL
MEP SPACE
ELEVATOR
PLANTER AREA
27 SQ. FT.
PLANTER AREA
37 SQ. FT.
BUILDING B
1213 SQ. FT.
40'-0"
4'-0"
40'-0"
130'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"11'-0"
130'-0"
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 3/6/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018
BLAKE STREET
BERKEL
EY, CA 94704
A1.4
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: 1/60"=1'-0"
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
SHADOW STUDIES
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL 04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/2021 3PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
2 2029 BLAKE
FIVE STORY
MIXED-USE
2029 BLAKE
FIVE STORY
MIXED-USE
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
2029 BLAKE
FIVE STORY
MIXED-USE
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
TWO STORY
MULTI FAMILY
ONE STORY
APARTMENT
TWO STORY
APARTMENT
SHADOW STUDY (APR 5:37 PM)SHADOW STUDY (APR 8:45 AM)
SHADOW STUDY (DEC 2:50 PM)
THREE STORY
APARTMENT
SHADOW STUDY (JUNE 6:30 PM)SHADOW STUDY (JUNE 8:00 AM)
SHADOW STUDY (APR NOON)
SCALE: 1/80" = 1'-0" 1
1 1SCALE: 1/80" = 1'-0"
DECEMBER
APRIL
(SUBMITTED MONTH)
JUNE
3SCALE: 1/80" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 1/80" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 1/80" = 1'-0" 32
SHADOW STUDY (JUNE NOON)
2 2SCALE: 1/80" = 1'-0"
ONE STORY
WAREHOUSE
2029 BLAKE
FIVE STORY
MIXED-USE
TWO STORY
RETAIL AND OFFICE
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
ONE STORY
WAREHOUSE
2029 BLAKE
FIVE STORY
MIXED-USE
TWO STORY
RETAIL AND OFFICE
THREE STORY
APARTMENT
2029 BLAKE
FIVE STORY
MIXED-USE
THREE STORY
APARTMENT
TWO STORY
RETAIL AND OFFICE
2029 BLAKE
FIVE STORY
MIXED-USE
SCALE: 1/80" = 1'-0"
TWO STORY
APARTMENT
ONE STORY
OFFICE
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
SCALE: 1/80" = 1'-0"
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
3 ONE STORY
APARTMENT
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
TWO STORY
MULTI FAMILY
THREE STORY
APARTMENT
TWO STORY
APARTMENT
THREE STORY
APARTMENT
ONE STORY
OFFICE
SCALE: 1/80" = 1'-0"
ONE STORY
OFFICE
2029 BLAKE
FIVE STORY
MIXED-USE
2029 BLAKE
FIVE STORY
MIXED-USE
SHADOW STUDY (DEC NOON)
TWO STORY
MULTI FAMILY
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
SHADOW STUDY (DEC 9:00 AM)
ONE STORY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
TWO STORY
MULTI FAMILY
THREE STORY
APARTMENT
EXISTING SHADOW
LINE TYPES:
PROPOSED SHADOW
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
F
F
F
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A2.1
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/20213PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
3 PROPERTY LINE
1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
BLAKE STREET
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
SHEET NOTES:
1. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND GLASS DOORS SHALL BE
DOUBLE PANED, INSULATED W/ MAX U-VALUES AS
STATED ON THE CALIFORNIA TITLE-24 REPORT. TEMP.
MFGR LABELS SHOWING NEW GLAZING U-VALUES
SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL BLDG. INSPECTOR
AUTHORIZES TO DO SO.
2. SHOWER COMPARTMENTS AND WALLS ABOVE
BATHTUBS WITH INSTALLED SHOWER HEADS SHALL BE
FINISHED W/ A NONABSORBENT SURFACE TO A HEIGHT
NOT LESS THAN 6 FT. ABV. THE FLOOR PER CRC R307.2.
114
KITCHEN/DINING
2 2
A4.1A4.1
1 1
A3.1
2 A3.1
1 A3.2
A4.1
112 SQ. FT.
BIKE RACK (2)
123 SQ. FT.112 SQ. FT.
112 SQ. FT.
BICYCLE STORAGE (17)
125
124123122
98 SQ. FT.
BEDROOM
ELEVATOR
BEDROOMBEDROOM
110
D
C
BEDROOM
C
111 SQ. FT.
EXISTING WALL / ELEMENT TO REMOVE
B B
113
OPEN SPACE
KITCHENBEDROOM
MEP RM
49 SQ. FT.
109
F
136 SQ. FT.
FAN (PER 2013 CGC §4.506)
4 112
4 EXISTING WALL / ELEMENT TO REMAIN
(N) PROPOSED WALL
(N) 1-HR PROPOSED WALL111
84 SQ. FT.
D
UTILITY
MEP RM
A
120
112 SQ. FT.
55 SQ. FT.
A
STAIR 2
100
3 3
BEDROOM
BIKE PARKING
2 ELEVATOR MECH
29 SQ. FT.
132
2 131
49 SQ. FT.
121
1 1
66 SQ. FT.
STAIR 1
130
BATH
275 SQ. FT.
BATH
112 SQ. FT.
BATH
2 133
LEGEND
BATH
A3.2
1 TRASH RM
294 SQ. FT.
OPEN SPACE
A4.1
13'-10"
30'-0" 35'-0"
15'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0"
32'-0"
10'-8"
100'-0"
15'-0"
10'-9"
35'-0"
10'-8"
23'-4"
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
F
F
F
F
F
F
11'-2"
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A2.2
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
LEVEL 2 -6 FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLAN
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/20213PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
33 2SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPERTY LINE
ROOF PLAN2ND - 6TH FLOOR PLAN 1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SHEET NOTES:
1. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND GLASS DOORS SHALL BE
DOUBLE PANED, INSULATED W/ MAX U-VALUES AS
STATED ON THE CALIFORNIA TITLE-24 REPORT. TEMP.
MFGR LABELS SHOWING NEW GLAZING U-VALUES
SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL BLDG. INSPECTOR
AUTHORIZES TO DO SO.
2. SHOWER COMPARTMENTS AND WALLS ABOVE
BATHTUBS WITH INSTALLED SHOWER HEADS SHALL BE
FINISHED W/ A NONABSORBENT SURFACE TO A HEIGHT
NOT LESS THAN 6 FT. ABV. THE FLOOR PER CRC R307.2.
112 SQ. FT.
C C
228
29 SQ. FT.
49 SQ. FT. 66 SQ. FT.
224
CONTROL
ROOM
230
233 235
316 SQ. FT.
232
ELEVATOR
294 SQ. FT.
BATH
BATH
210
BATH
BATH
KITCHEN/DINING
BATH
112 SQ. FT.
112 SQ. FT.
BATH
123 SQ. FT.
222
ELEVATOR
602
211
221
231
220
BEDROOM
234
SOLAR PANEL AREA 2
BEDROOMBEDROOM
56 SQ. FT.
49 SQ. FT.
A3.2
1 A3.2
1 A4.1
1 A4.1
A3.2
A3.1
1 A4.1
2 A4.1
A4.1
1 2
A3.1
A4.1
2 2
2 A3.1
A4.1
A4.1
2 A3.1
112 SQ. FT.
4 4
DD
OPEN
CORRIDOR
OPEN
CORRIDOR
C
A
ROOF EQUIPMENT AREA
BEDROOM
ROOF OPEN SPACEKITCHEN/DINING
3 3
(N) 1-HR PROPOSED WALL
2 A
(N) PROPOSED WALL
EXISTING WALL / ELEMENT TO REMAIN
ROOF OPEN SPACE
EXISTING WALL / ELEMENT TO REMOVE
2 FAN (PER 2013 CGC §4.506)
223
112 SQ. FT.
F
1 STAIR 2
1 112 SQ. FT.
112 SQ. FT.
ROOF EQUIPMENT AREA
123 SQ. FT.
B B
112 SQ. FT.
1 C
STAIR 1
BEDROOM
112 SQ. FT.
1 STAIR 2
BEDROOM
4 4
D
STAIR 1
A3.2
D
BEDROOM
A A
BEDROOM
SOLAR PANEL AREA 1
3 3
2 227
2 2
BEDROOM
1 1
2 601
226225
29 SQ. FT.
LEGEND
B B
1 10'-8"
100'-0"
10'-9"10'-8"
35'-0" 35'-0"30'-0"
32'-0"
100'-0"
10'-9"10'-8" 10'-8"
35'-0" 35'-0"30'-0"
32'-0"
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A3.1
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: AS NOTED
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL 04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/2021 3PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
3 WEST ELEVATION
MATERIAL
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
LEGEND
2 SHEET NOTES:
1. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND GLASS DOORS SHALL BE
DOUBLE PANED, INSULATED W/ MAX U-VALUES AS
STATED ON THE CALIFORNIA TITLE-24 REPORT. TEMP.
MFGR LABELS SHOWING NEW GLAZING U-VALUES
SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL BLDG. INSPECTOR
AUTHORIZES TO DO SO.
1 2
A4.1A4.1
CEMENT BOARD
T.O. ROOF
+60'-0"
T.O. ROOF
+60'-0"
GROUND LVL
-0'-6"
1ST LVL
+0'-0"
1ST LVL
+0'-0"
3RD LVL
+20'-0"
2ND LVL
+10'-0"
4TH LVL
+30'-0"
5TH LVL
+40'-0"
CEMENT BOARD
3RD LVL
+20'-0"
6TH LVL
+50'-0"
5TH LVL
+40'-0"
6TH LVL
+50'-0"
OPEN CORRIDOR
VERTICAL BOARD
FORMED CONCRETE
STUCCO
OPEN CORRIDOR
CEMENT BOARD
OPEN CORRIDOR
VERTICAL BOARD
FORMED CONCRETE
A
OPEN CORRIDOR
METAL CANOPY
B
CEMENT BOARD
3 METAL DOOR
21 UNODIZED ALUM.
STOREFRONT
4 STUCCO
UNODIZED ALUM.
WINDOW
T.O. MEP
+70'-0"
STUCCO
VERTICAL STEEL
BAR GUARDRAIL
STUCCO
CEMENT BOARD
4TH LVL
+30'-0"
EGRESS WINDOW, MAX 44" ABV. F.F., 20" MIN.
CLEAR WIDTH & 24" MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING
HEIGHT
C
VERTICAL STEEL BAR GRUARDRAIL
2ND LVL
+10'-0"
STAIR2
VERTICAL BOARD
FORMED CONCRETE
GROUND LVL
-0'-6"
T.O.P
+60'-6"
T.O. MEP
+70'-0"
VERTICAL STEEL
BAR GUARDRAIL
OPEN CORRIDOR
D
STUCCO
UNODIZED ALUM.
WINDOW
T.O.P
+60'-6"
VERTICAL BOARD
FORMED CONCRETE
30'-0"
6"
35'-0"
10'-0"
6"10'-0"
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
61'-0"
32'-0"
10'-8" 10'-9" 10'-8"
6"
3'-6", TYP
100'-0"
35'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"6" 10'-0"
61'-0"
10'-0"
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A3.2
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: AS NOTED
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL 04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/2021 3PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
3 SOUTH ELEVATION2SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
LEGEND
MATERIAL SHEET NOTES:
1. ALL NEW WINDOWS AND GLASS DOORS SHALL BE
DOUBLE PANED, INSULATED W/ MAX U-VALUES AS
STATED ON THE CALIFORNIA TITLE-24 REPORT. TEMP.
MFGR LABELS SHOWING NEW GLAZING U-VALUES
SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL BLDG. INSPECTOR
AUTHORIZES TO DO SO.
A4.1
2 A4.1
OPEN CORRIDOR
4 STUCCO
T.O.P
+60'-6"
1B
GROUND LVL
-0'-6"
1ST LVL
+0'-0"
3RD LVL
+20'-0"
4TH LVL
+30'-0"
6TH LVL
+50'-0"
UNODIZED ALUM.
WINDOW
T.O. MEP
+70'-0"
D
VERTICAL STEEL
BAR GUARDRAIL
T.O.P
+60'-6"
A
GROUND LVL
-0'-6"
1ST LVL
+0'-0"
2ND LVL
+10'-0"
4TH LVL
+30'-0"
5TH LVL
+40'-0"
6TH LVL
+50'-0"
METAL CANOPY
ELEVATOR DOOR
CEMENT BOARD
3RD LVL
+20'-0"
CEMENT BOARD
3 VERTICAL STEEL BAR GRUARDRAIL
T.O. ROOF
+60'-0"
EGRESS WINDOW, MAX 44" ABV. F.F., 20" MIN.
CLEAR WIDTH & 24" MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING
HEIGHT
VERTICAL BOARD
FORMED CONCRETE
5TH LVL
+40'-0"
C
2ND LVL
+10'-0"
STUCCO
T.O. ROOF
+60'-0"
OPEN CORRIDOR
STUCCO
CEMENT BOARD
T.O. MEP
+70'-0"
2 VERTICAL BOARD
FORMED CONCRETE
OPEN CORRIDOR
UNODIZED ALUM.
WINDOW
VERTICAL BOARD
FORMED CONCRETE
OPEN CORRIDOR
STUCCO
1 STUCCO
VERTICAL BOARD
FORMED CONCRETE
OPEN CORRIDOR
VERTICAL STEEL
BAR GUARDRAIL
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
61'-0"
6"
10'-0"
6"10'-0"
10'-9"35'-0"
6"
30'-0"
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
61'-0"
100'-0" 32'-0"
35'-0"
6" 10'-0"
10'-8"
10'-0"
10'-8"
10'-0"
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A3.3
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: AS NOTED
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
STREET ELEVATION
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL 04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/2021 3PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
3 1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED STREET ELEVATION 1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
BURNED DOWN CONDITION
2016 BLAKE STREET 2006 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET2020 BLAKE STREET
2022 BLAKE STREET
EXISTING STREET ELEVATION
2022 BLAKE STREET 2016 BLAKE STREET
BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET2020 BLAKE STREET
2006 BLAKE STREET
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PLANNING APPROVAL 2ND COMMENTS
DATE: 1/15/2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CA 94704
A4.1
NO. DATEDESCRIPTION
SCALE: AS NOTED
ISSUES & REVISIONSPROJECT
DRAWING BY: YZ
CHECKED BY: PS
BUILDING SECTIONS
PLANNING APPROVAL SUBMITTAL04/28/2021
107/05/2021PLANNING APPROVAL 1ST COMMENTS
209/25/2021
12/20/20213PLANNING APPROVAL 3RD COMMENTS
3 1SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED SHORT SECTION2PROPOSED LONG SECTION
3 BEDROOM
LOBBY
BEDROOM
BEDROOM BATH
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
STAIR 1
3RD LVL
+20'-0"
BEDROOM
C
BEDROOMBEDROOM
4 BEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOM
BEDROOMBEDROOM
B
BEDROOM
ELEVATOR
BEDROOM
2 ROOF OPEN SPACE
D
ROOF MEP
BEDROOM
FRONT YARD LOBBY
T.O. MEP
+70'-0"
REAR
COURT YARD
1 A
CENTRAL
COURT YARD
BEDROOM
BATH
T.O.P
+60'-6"
BATH
BEDROOM BATH BEDROOM
BEDROOM
T.O. ROOF
+60'-0"
GROUND LVL
-0'-6"
2ND LVL
+10'-0"
BATH
3RD LVL
+20'-0"
T.O.P
+60'-6"
5TH LVL
+40'-0"
6TH LVL
+50'-0"
BEDROOM BATH
BEDROOM BATH
ROOF OPEN SPACE
4TH LVL
+30'-0"
BEDROOM BATH
1ST LVL
+0'-0"
T.O. ROOF
+60'-0"
BEDROOM
GROUND LVL
-0'-6"
1ST LVL
+0'-0"
2ND LVL
+10'-0"
ROOF OPEN SPACE
BATH
BEDROOM
4TH LVL
+30'-0"
5TH LVL
+40'-0"
CENTRAL
COURT YARD
6TH LVL
+50'-0"
BATH
STORAGE
BEDROOM BATH
MEP RM
BEDROOM
32'-0"
10'-9"100'-0"
6"
6"10'-0"
10'-8"
35'-0"
6"
35'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
61'-0"
30'-0"
10'-8"
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
61'-0"
6"
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
F
F
F
BLAKE STREET
24" HT. BUILT-IN RAISED
COURTYARD PLANTERS
W/ PLASTER FINISH TO
MATCH ARCHITECTURAL WALLS
DECORATIVE PORCELAIN PAVER
AREA WITH WOOD APPEARANCE
DECORATIVE PRECAST PAVERS
#1 THROUGHOUT GROUND
LEVEL PAVED AREA
DECORATIVE PORCELAIN PAVER
AREA WITH WOOD APPEARANCE
30" HT. BUILT-IN RAISED PLANTERS
WITH PLASTER FINISH TO MATCH
ARCHITECTURAL WALLS
TALL BACKGROUND SHRUBS
(SPICE BUSH)
ACCENT PLANTING
(PENSTEMON & SAGE)
GRASSES (GRAY RUSH)
ACCENT PLANTING
(DOUGLAS IRIS W/ BEACH ASTER)
MINOR ACCENT PATIO TREES
(SILK TASSEL STANDARDS)
FLOWERING ACCENT TREE
(WESTERN REDBUD STANDARD)
LOW ACCENT PLANTING ALONG
STREET FRONTAGE
BIKE RACK (2 BIKES)
EXISTING STREET TREE
TO REMAIN (CAMPHOR TREE)
BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREES
(HOLLY-LEAF CHERRY)
MEDIUM-HEIGHT PLANTING
IN RAISED PLANTERS
MINOR ACCENT PATIO TREES
(SILK TASSEL STANDARDS)
DECORATIVE 24" SQ. PAVERS #3
ON PEDESTALS
DECORATIVE 24" SQ. PAVERS #2
ON PEDESTALS
MEDIUM-HEIGHT PLANTING
IN RAISED PLANTERS
MINOR ACCENT PATIO TREES
(SILK TASSEL STANDARDS)
DECORATIVE 24" SQ. PAVERS #2
ON PEDESTALS
DECORATIVE 24" SQ. PAVERS #3
ON PEDESTALS
SCREENED
MECHANICAL
AREA
SCREENED
MECHANICAL
AREA
30" HT. BUILT-IN RAISED PLANTERS
WITH PLASTER FINISH TO MATCH
ARCHITECTURAL WALLS
30" HT. BUILT-IN RAISED PLANTERS
WITH PLASTER FINISH TO MATCH
ARCHITECTURAL WALLS
REFER TO SHEET L1.2 FOR PROPOSED PLANT LIST,
PLANT AND AMENITY MAGES & WELO BUDGET
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
RW Stover & Associates, Inc.
Landscape Architecture
Ph: 925.933.2583
1620 North Main Street, Suite 4
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLANS
L1.1
ROOF LEVEL GROUND LEVEL
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL LIST (ALL BUILDING LEVELS):
BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAME QUANTITYSIZEWUCOLSNATIVE
TREES: WATER USE CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS (LOW-BRANCH)WESTERN REDBUD124" BOXLOWYES GARRYA ELLIPTICA (STANDARD)SILKTASSEL924" BOXLOWYES
PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA (STANDARD)HOLLY-LEAF CHERRY224" BOXLOWYES SHRUBS:
CALYCANTHUS OCCIDENTALISSPICE BUSH85 GALOWYES
ERIOGONUM ARBORESCENSBUCKWHEAT255 GALOWYES
SALVIA CLEVE. 'WINNIFRED GILLMAN'CALIFORNIA BLUE SAGE165 GALOWYES TEUCRIUM 'COMPACTA'DWARF GERMANDER145 GALOWNO
PERENNIALS / GRASSES:
ERIGERON GLAUCUSBEACH ASTER111 GALOWYES
IRIS DOUGLASIIPACIFIC COAST IRIS111 GALOWYES
JUNCUS PATENSCALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH181 GALOWYES
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'DWARF MAT RUSH75 GALOWNO
PENSTEMON SPECTABILISBEARD TONGUE431 GALOWYES
POLLINATOR PLANTS NOTE: 75% OF PLANT PALETTE IS NATIVE POLLINATOR SPECIES (114 OF 153 SPECIMENS) 2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
RW Stover & Associates, Inc.
Landscape Architecture
Ph: 925.933.2583
1620 North Main Street, Suite 4
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
PLANT LIST,
IMAGES AND WELO
L1.2
ACCENT PAVERS #2
PORCELAIN PAVERS ON PEDESTALS (ROOF)
TILE TECH QUARTZITE SERIES
'QUARTZITE PEARL' 24" SQ.
2 ACCENT PAVERS #3
PORCELAIN PAVERS ON PEDESTALS (ROOF)
TILE TECH QUARTZITE SERIES
'QUARTZITE LAGUNA' 24" SQ.
3 GROUND LEVEL PLAZA PLANK PAVERS
NICOLOCK PLANK PAVERS (6"x17")
COLORS: GRANITE CITY, RAVEN & PEWTER)
1 BIKE RACKS
COLUMBIA CASCADE LOOP RACK
WITH GALVANIZED FINISH
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS (STANDARD FORM)
WESTERN REDBUD
GARRYA ELLIPTICA (STANDARD FORM)
SILKTASSEL
PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA (STANDARD FORM)
HOLLY-LEAF CHERRY
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
F
F
F
BLAKE STREET
MAINLINE STUB TO
ROOF LEVEL PLANTERS
MAINLINE STUB TO
ROOF LEVEL PLANTERS
BACKFLOW AND FLOW
SENSOR MASTER
VALVE ASSEMBLY
MAINLINE STUB TO
GROUND LEVEL
PLANTERS
MAINLINE STUB TO
GROUND LEVEL
PLANTERS
IRRIGATION MAINLINE
ROUTE BENEATH
PAVERS
IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY CONNECTION
AND METER TO BE COORDINATED WITH
CIVIL ENGINEER
S
INTERIOR WALL-MOUNT
CONTROLLER
LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED
IRRIGATION CONTROLLER
WEATHER SENSOR INSTALLATION
AT BUILDING ROOF LINE
DRIP APPLICATION FOR PLANTER
AREAS; SEPARATE IRRIGATION
CIRCUIT OF BUBBLERS AT TREES
DRIP APPLICATION FOR PLANTER
AREAS; SEPARATE IRRIGATION
CIRCUIT OF BUBBLERS AT TREES
ROOF PLANTER IRRIGATION
TO EXTEND FROM MAINLINE
STUB-OUT IN RAISED PLANTER
ROOF PLANTER IRRIGATION
TO EXTEND FROM MAINLINE
STUB-OUT IN RAISED PLANTER
IRRIGATION MAINLINE
WITHIN PLANTERS
DRIP APPLICATION FOR PLANTER
AREAS; SEPARATE IRRIGATION
CIRCUIT OF BUBBLERS AT TREES
DRIP APPLICATION FOR PLANTER
AREAS; SEPARATE IRRIGATION
CIRCUIT OF BUBBLERS AT TREES
REFER TO SHEET L1.4 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES AND DETAILS
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
RW Stover & Associates, Inc.
Landscape Architecture
Ph: 925.933.2583
1620 North Main Street, Suite 4
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
PRELIMINARY
IRRIGATION PLANS
L1.3
ROOF LEVEL GROUND LEVEL
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
2018 BLAKE STREET
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
RW Stover & Associates, Inc.
Landscape Architecture
Ph: 925.933.2583
1620 North Main Street, Suite 4
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
IRRIGATION
NOTES & DETAILS
L1.4
IRRIGATION NOTES:
GENERAL NOTES: DO NOT WILLFULLY INSTALL THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS IN
THE FIELD THAT OBSTRUCTIONS, GRADE DIFFERENCES OR DIFFERENCES IN AREA DIMENSIONS EXIST THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM. SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS OR DIFFERENCES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY ASPECTS OF LAYOUT, WHICH WILL PROVIDE
INCOMPLETE OR INSUFFICIENT WATER COVERAGE OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DO NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE OBTAINED. IN THE EVENT THIS NOTIFICATION IS NOT PERFORMED, THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REVISIONS NECESSARY. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH ALL THE GRADE DIFFERENCES, LOCATION OF WALKS, RETAINING WALLS, ETC. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONS. IT
SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IN PLACE (BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY) ALL EXISTING UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PANS. CITY STANDARD DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, SPECIFIC NOTES & DETAIL DRAWINGS AND THE SOILS REPORT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL DRAWINGS AND PLANS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED.
ANY DEVIATION FROM APPROVED PLANS DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUIRE 48 HOURS PRIOR NOTICE TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. AT LEAST ONE SET OF PLANS SHALL BE ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTION. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE, COUNTY AND CITY LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, O.S.H.A. AND INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION RELATING TO THE SAFETY AND CHARACTER OF WORK, EQUIPMENT AND LABOR PERSONNEL. THE IRRIGATION CONSULTANT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND THE ADEQUACY OF THE DESIGN CONTAINED HEREIN.
DRAWINGS: DUE TO THE SCALE OF DRAWINGS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO INDICATE ALL OFFSETS, FITTINGS, SLEEVES, ETC., WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO CAREFULLY INVESTIGATE THE STRUCTURAL AND FINISHED CONDITIONS AFFECTING ALL OF HIS WORK, PLAN HIS WORK ACCORDINGLY AND FURNISH SUCH FITTINGS, ETC. AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO MEET SUCH CONDITIONS. DRAWINGS ARE GENERALLY DIAGRAMMATIC AND INDICATIVE OF THE WORK TO BE INSTALLED. THE
WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO AVOID CONFLICTS BETWEEN IRRIGATION SYSTEM, PLANTING AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. ALL PIPING, VALVES, ETC. SHOWN WITHIN PAVED AREAS ARE FOR DESIGN CLARIFICATION ONLY AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN PLANTING AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE.
CONTROLLER: IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS TO PROGRAM TIMING OF STATIONS ON CONTROLLER TO IRRIGATE IN THE MOST EFFICIENT, WATER CONSERVING MANNER POSSIBLE. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR
AND/OR THE OWNER TO PROGRAM THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF WATER NEEDED TO SUSTAIN PROPER PLANT HEALTH. THIS INCLUDES MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROGRAM FOR SEASONAL WEATHER CHANGES, PLANT MATERIAL NEEDS, WATER REQUIREMENTS, CHANGES IN ELEVATION, SUN, SHADE AND WIND EXPOSURES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE, EROSION, PUDDLING, ETC. DUE TO IMPROPER PROGRAMMING. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY 120-VOLT A.C. (2.5 AMP) SERVICE & DISCONNECT, JUNCTION BOX AND CONDUIT, AS NECESSARY, TO CONTROLLER LOCATION. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO MAKE FINAL CONNECTION FROM ELECTRICAL STUB-OUT TO CONTROLLER.
INSTALL NEW 9-VOLT DURACELL BATTERY(S) IN EACH CONTROLLER (IF REQUIRED) TO RETAIN PROGRAM IN MEMORY DURING TEMPORARY POWER FAILURES. CONTROLLER SHALL HAVE GROUND WIRE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.
VALVES: BACKFLOW DEVICE, ISOLATION AND CONTROL VALVE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. INSTALL IN
GROUNDCOVER / SHRUB AREAS AT THE EDGES OF THE PLANTING AREAS SO AS TO NOT INTERFERE WITH PLANT HOLE EXCAVATION. INSTALL VALVE BOXES 12 INCHES FROM AND PERPENDICULAR TO: WALKS, CURBS, ETC. AND EACH BOX SHALL BE 12 INCHES APART. THE SHORT SIDE OF VALVE BOX SHALL BE PARALLEL TO WALK, CURB, ETC. INSTALL (1) VALVE PER RECTANGULAR BOX INLINE WITH THE LENGTH OF THE BOX. LOCATE QUICK COUPLING VALVES 2 INCHES FROM HARDSCAPE AREA.
WIRING: CONTROL WIRES SHALL BE U.L. APPROVED FOR DIRECT BURIAL IN GROUND, COPPER SIZE #14-1. COMMON GROUND WIRE SHALL HAVE WHITE INSULATION JACKET. CONTROL WIRE SHALL HAVE INSULATION JACKET OF COLOR OTHER THAN WHITE.
SPLICING SHALL BE DONE WITH 3M #3570 SCOTCHLOK SEAL PACKS. SPLICING OF 24-VOLT WIRES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED EXCEPT IN VALVE BOXES. LEAVE A 24 INCH COIL OF EXCEL WIRE AT EACH SPLICE AND AT 100 FEET ON CENTER ALONG WIRE RUN. TAPE WIRE IN BUNDLES AT 10 FEET ON CENTER. NO TAPING PERMITTED IN SLEEVES. INSTALL A CONTROL WIRE FOR EACH EXTRA STATION LEFT ON THE CONTROLLER AND A SPARE CONTROL WIRE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR ALONG THE ENTIRE MAIN LINE. LOOP 24 INCHES OF EXCESS WIRE INTO EACH SINGLE VALVE BOX AND INTO ONE VALVE BOX IN EACH GROUP OF VALVES.
ON-GRADE DRIP LINE SYSTEM: ALL DRIP LINE TO BE SET ON GRADE IN PARALLEL ROWS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE COVERAGE OF GROUND COVER AREAS AS WELL AS SHRUB PLANTING. EMITTERS PROVIDE 0.90 GALLONS PER HOUR FLOW (APPROXIMATELY 1.0 GALLON PER 100 LINEAR FEET OF DRIP LINE). DESIGN LIMITS RECOMMEND NOT EXCEEDING 200 FEET OF TUBING FOR ANY SINGLE LENGTH. STAKE TUBING TO GRADE WITH GALVANIZED TIE-DOWN STAKES AT 3 FT. (MAX.) SPACING.
PROVIDE XF DRIPLINE INSERT FITTINGS FOR ALL CONNECTIONS. PROVIDE REMOVABLE THREADED END CAPS AT THE TERMINUS OF EACH DRIP LINE LENGTH FOR EASY FLUSHING OF SYSTEM.
PIPING/TRENCHING: INSTALL MAIN LINE PIPING WITH CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION.
MAIN AND LATERAL LINES SHALL BE SURROUNDED WITH A MINIMUM OF 2" OF SAND OR ROCK FREE SOIL. PIPE SEALANT COMPOUND SHALL BE RECTOR SEAL T+2, PERMATEX 51 OR LASCO #905305. PRESSURE THE MAIN LINE @ 150 PSI FOR 2 HOURS AND THE LATERAL LINES @ 100 PSI FOR 2 HOURS, WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO EXCAVATE ADJACENT TO EXISTING TREES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE ALL POSSIBLE CARE TO AVOID INJURY TO TREES, AND TREE ROOT SYSTEMS. EXCAVATION IN AREA WHERE TWO (2) INCH AND LARGER ROOTS EXIST SHALL BE DONE BY HAND. CUT ROOTS ONE (1) INCH AND LARGER IN DIAMETER SHALL BE PAINTED WITH TWO COATS OF TREE SEAL, OR EQUAL. TRENCHES ADJACENT TO TREES SHOULD BE CLOSED WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS; AND WHERE THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE, THE SIDE OF THE TRENCH ADJACENT TO THE TREE SHALL BE KEPT SHADED WITH WET BURLAP OR CANVAS.
SLEEVES: THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND OTHER SUBCONTRACTORS
FOR THE LOCATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF SLEEVES, CONDUIT OR PIPE THROUGH WALLS, UNDER ROADWAYS, PAVING, STRUCTURES, ETC. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IN ADDITION TO THE SLEEVES AND CONDUITS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, THE
IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COORDINATION AND/OR INSTALLATION OF SLEEVES AND CONDUITS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE UNDER ALL PAVED AREAS.
IRRIGATION SYSTEM: THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN CURRENTLY POTABLE, SET UP FOR POSSIBLE RETROFIT TO RECYCLED WATER SOURCE IN FUTURE. DESIGN IS BASED ON A MINIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE (PSI) AND A FLOW DEMAND (GPM) AS NOTED ON PLAN. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WATER PRESSURE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REPORT ANY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE WATER PRESSURE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND THE ACTUAL PRESSURE READING AT THE IRRIGATION POINT-OF CONNECTION TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN THE CONTRACTOR BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NECESSARY CHANGES DUE TO THIS DIFFERENCE.
GUARANTEE: ALL CONSTRUCTION, PARTS AND PRODUCTS BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AND/OR HIS SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE (1) FULL YEAR AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
REPLACE (AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER) ANY AND ALL IRRIGATION PRODUCTS THAT ARE IN AN UNACCEPTABLE CONDITION FOR THE TIME OF USE. REPLACEMENT OF ANY ITEMS SHALL MATCH ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION OF ITEM(S) ON CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SHALL BE INSTALLED PER SPECIFICATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR LOSS OF IRRIGATION PARTS
OR PRODUCTS DUE TO VANDALISM, ACCIDENTAL CAUSES, OR ACTS OF NEGLECT BY OTHERS THAN THE CONTRACTOR, HIS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES.
DO NOT BID, ORDER MATERIALS OR INSTALL ANY OR ALL OF SYSTEM BEFORE READING THE IRRIGATION NOTES IN THEIR ENTIRETY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CHANGES, REVISIONS AND OR ADDITIONS TO SYSTEM DUE TO FAILURE TO DO SO.
XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE FLUSH POINT
WITH EASY FIT COMPRESSION FITTINGS
XFD ON-SURFACE DRIPLINE
QUICK LAYOUT
XFCV Dripline Maximum Lateral Lengths
(Feet)
Inlet Pressure psi
12" Spacing18" Spacing
Nominal Flow (gph)Nominal Flow (gph)
0.60.90.60.9 20192136254215
30289205402337
40350248498416
50397281573477
60436309637529
ATTACHMENT 2
ZAB 05-26-2022
Attachment 2
Z ONING
A DJU
STMENT S
B OARD
Staff Report
1947 Center
Street, Second Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]
FOR BOA
RD ACTION
MAY 26, 2022
2018 Blake Street
Use Permit #ZP2021-0095 to construct a six-story, multi-family residential building with 12 units (including two Low-Income units).
I. Background
A. Land Use
Designations:
• General Plan: High Density Residential (HDR)
• Zoning: Multi-Family Residential (R-4)
B. Zoning Perm
its Required:
• Use Permit under Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 23.202.020(A) to construct a multifamily residential building
• Use Permit under BMC Section 23.202.110(E)(2) to construct a main building that exceeds 35 feet in average height and three stories, up to 65 feet and six stories • Administrative Use Permit under BMC Section 23.304.050(A) to construct rooftop projections, such as mechanical appurtenances or architectural elements which exceed the maximum height limit for the districts
C. Concessio
ns/ Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law:
• No concessions
• Waiver of BMC Section 23.202.110(E)(1) to reduce minimum side setback (above the 2nd floor) and rear yard setback (above the 3rd floor) • Waiver of BMC Section 23.202.110(E)(2) to exceed lot coverage D. CEQA
Recommendation: It is staff’s recommendation to ZAB that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 (“In-Fill Development Projects”) of the CEQA Guidelines. The determination is made by ZAB.
The projec
t meets all of the requirements of this exemption, as follows:
• The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and policies, and with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. • The project occurs within the Berkeley City limits on a project site of no more than five acres, and is surrounded by urban uses.
Attachment 3
ZONING
ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 2 of 14
File: \
\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
• The parcels within the project site have previously been developed and have no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. • The project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. Standard Conditions of Approval would address potential impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality. • The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Furtherm
ore, none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, as follows: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and (f) the project would not affect any historical resource.
E. Parti
es Involved:
• Applicant Huan Fang, FIFTH ARCH, 200 Brannan Street, Apt 222, San Francisco CA 94107
• Property Owner 2018 Blake Street LLC, 2905 South Vermont Avenue, Ste 204, Los Angeles, CA 90007
F. Application Materials, Staff Reports and Correspondence are available on the Internet:
https://aca.cityofberkeley.info/citizenaccess/Default.aspx https://cityofberkeley.info/your-government/boards-commissions/zoning-adjustments- board
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 3 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
Figure 1: Zoning Map
Legend
AC Transit Bus Route
R-4: Multi-Family Residential District
C-AC: Adeline Corridor Commercial District
R-2A: Restricted Multi-Family Residential District
Project Site
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 4 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
Figure 2: Site Plan
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 5 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
Table 1: Land Use Information
Location Existing Use Zoning
District
General
Plan
Designation
Subject Property Vacant (remnants of fire-damaged Single- Family dwelling)
R-4 HDR
Surrounding
Adjacent
Properties
North Skylight Manufacturing
East Multi-Family Residential
South Single / Multi-Family Residential R-2A MDR
West Multi-Family Residential R-4 HDR
Table 2: Special Characteristics
Characteristic Applies to
Project? Explanation
Affordable Child Care Fee
& Affordable Housing Fee
for qualifying non-
residential projects (Per
Resolutions 66,618-N.S. &
66,617-N.S.) No
These fees apply to projects with more than 7,500 square feet of net new non-residential gross floor area. The project contains no non-residential gross floor area. Therefore, the project would not be subject to these fees. Affordable Housing Fee for qualifying non-
residential projects (Per
Resolution 66,617-N.S.)
Affordable Housing
Mitigations for rental
housing projects (Per
BMC Section 22.20.065)
Yes
The project would include five or more market rate dwelling units and is therefore subject to the affordable housing provisions of BMC Section 22.20.065.
Coast Live Oaks No There are no oak trees on the project site.
Creeks No The project site is not within a creek buffer.
Density Bonus Yes
The project would provide two Low-Income units, or 25% of the Base Project units, and qualifies for a 50% density bonus, or 4 bonus units. See Section III.B for discussion.
Green Building Score No The project is not located in the C-DMU, Downtown Mixed- Use District, and is not subject to this requirement.
Historic Resources No
The project site is vacant (contains remnants of fire-
damaged, demolished single-family dwelling), and does not contain any known historic resource.
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 6 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
Characteristic Applies to
Project? Explanation
Housing Accountability
Act
(Govt. Code 65589.5(j))
Yes
The project is a “housing development project” and requests no modifications to development standards beyond waivers and concessions requested under density bonus law.
Therefore, the HAA findings apply to this project, and the project cannot be denied at the density proposed unless the findings for denial can be made. See Section III.C for
discussion.
Public Art on Private
Projects
(BMC Chapter 23.316)
Yes
The project is subject to the Percentage for Public Art on Private Projects Ordinance. The applicant is electing to pay the fee (0.8% of total building permit valuation) to comply.
Rent Controlled Units No No rent-controlled units are proposed to be demolished.
Residential Preferred
Parking No
The site is located in RPP Zone C. However, per BMC
Section 14.72.080.C, no permits shall be issued to residents in the project.
Seismic Hazards (SHMA) No
The project site is not located in a seismic hazard area, as defined by the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA).
No further investigation is necessary.
Soil/Groundwater
Contamination No
The project site is not located within the City’s
Environmental Management Area. No further investigation is necessary. Standard Conditions of Approval related to
hazardous materials would apply.
Transit Yes
The project site is served by multiple bus lines (local, rapid, and Transbay) that operate along Shattuck Avenue, and is approximately ½-mile from the Downtown Berkeley BART
Station.
Table 3: Project Chronology
Date Action
June 3, 2021 Application submitted
March 16, 2022 Application deemed complete; level of CEQA review determined by staff – Categorically Exempt
May 11, 2022 Public hearing notices mailed/posted
May 26, 2022 ZAB Hearing
July 25, 2022 CEQA Determination Deadline
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 7 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
Table 4: Development Standards
R-4 Standards,
BMC Section 23.202.110(E)(1) to (2) Existing Proposed Permitted/Required Lot Area (sq. ft.) 5,189 5,189 n/a
Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) n/a1 13,427 n/a
Dwelling Units n/a 12 n/a
Building
Height
Average n/a 64’-6”
(top of railing)
35’ max.
(65’ with Use Permit)2
Maximum n/a 64’-6”
(top of railing) n/a
Stories n/a 6 3 max.
(6 with Use Permit)2
Building
Setbacks
Front n/a 15’ 15’ min.
Rear
(by floor, 1 through 6) n/a 15’/15’/15’/15’/
15’/15’ 15’ /15’/15’/17’/19’/21’min.
Left Side
(by floor, 1 through 6) n/a 4’/4’/4’/4’/4’/4’ 4’/4’/6’/8’/10/12’ min.
Right Side
(by floor, 1 through 6) n/a 4’/4’/4’/4’/4’/4’ 4’/4’/6’/8’/10/12’ min.
Lot Coverage (%) n/a 49 35
Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) n/a 2,430 2,400 min.
(200 s.f./d.u.)
Parking n/a 0 0 min./6 max.
(0.5 spaces/du max.)
Bicycle
Parking
Residential - Long
Term n/a 17 17
(1 space/3 bedrooms)
Residential - Short
Term n/a 1 1
(1 space/40 bedrooms, or 2)
Total n/a
17/1
(long term/short
term)
17/1
(long term/short term)
________ = Waiver requested to modify the district standard. 1 The site is considered vacant, and contains remnants of the previously existing single-family dwelling that was damaged by fire and that was demolished in 2020 after the City deemed the building unsafe. 2 The use permit to allow height up to 65 feet and six stories is included in the Base Project for the calculation of the density bonus, and is not a requested waiver.
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 8 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
II. Project Setting
A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The project site is located on the south side of Blake Street . Adjacent parcels to the north are occupied by one- story commercial/industrial buildings; parcels to the west, immediately east (R-4 Multi- Family Residential District) and to the south (R-2A, Restricted Multi-Family Residential District) are occupied by one- and two-story, single- and multi-family dwellings. Parcels beyond the R-4 district, further east of the site are occupied by one- and two-story commercial buildings (C-AC, Adeline Corridor Commercial District).1 The parcel across the street and to the northeast at 2029 Blake Street (C-AC) is occupied by a recently-constructed, five -story, 82-unit, mixed-use building . U se permit s for other large projects were approved within the past two years on the same block: a six-story, 113-unit, community care facility for seniors at 2000 Dwight Way, and a seven- story, 155-unit, multi-family building at 2015 Blake. (See Figure 1: Zoning Map.) B. Site Conditions/Background: The project site is a rectangular parcel that is generally flat, with a frontage measuring 40 feet and length measuring 140 feet. The site is occupied by the remnants of a single-family dwelling and accessory structure that were damaged by fire in 2019. A Notice of Violation was issued on April 15, 2020, wherein the City Building Official deemed the building unstable, unsafe, and an immediate threat to health and safety. Hazardous portions of the building were demolished in response to the Notice shortly after. The dwelling is considered fully demolished.2
III. Project Description
A. The proposed project would involve the construction of a residential building with the following main components:
• Six stories and 64 feet, 6 inches in height (measured to the top of railing) • 12 dwelling units – 1 one-bedroom, 5 four-bedroom and 6 five-bedroom • 51 bedrooms in total
• Two Low-Income (LI) units
• 2,433 square feet of usable open space – ground-floor landscape and patio areas and two roof decks
• 17-space bi
ke room and two outdoor bike racks
(See Figure 2: Site Plan.)
1 Parcels west of the site now designated as C-AC, Adeline Corridor Commercial District, were rezoned in 2021 from previously R-4, Multi-Family Residential District. 2 A full demolition of a building is defined in the BMC Section 23.502.020.D: “A building or enclosed structure shall be considered demolished for the purposes of this chapter when, within any continuous 12- month period, such building or enclosed structure is destroyed in whole or in part or is relocated from one lot to another. For purposes of this definition, destroyed in part means when 50 percent or more of the enclosing exterior walls and 50 percent or more of the roof are removed”.
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 9 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
B. Base Project and Density Bonus: By committing to provide two LI units, the project is eligible for a density bonus under Government Code Section 65915. Under the City’s density bonus procedures, the Base Project was calculated to have eight units as the maximum allowable density for the site. 3 The Base Project has an average unit size of 983 square feet in a five-story building. Two LI units, or 25 percent of the Base Project, qualifies the project for a 50 percent density bonus or four bonus units. The resulting Proposed Project would be a six-story building with 12 units, with an average unit size of 1,053 square feet. (See Table 5: Density Bonus.)
Table 5: Density Bonus – CA Gov’t Code 65915
Base Project
Units* Qualifying Units Percent Density
Bonus
Number of Density
Bonus Units*
Proposed Project
Units
8 2 LI
(25% of BP) 50% 4
(50%x8) 12
*Per Gov’t Code Section 65915(q), all unit calculations are rounded up to the nearest whole number.
C. Housing Accountability Act: The Housing Accountability Act (HAA), California Government Code Section 65589.5(j), requires that when a proposed housing development complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, but a local agency proposes to deny the project or approve it only if the density is reduced, the agency must base its decision on written findings supported by substantial evidence that:
1) The development would have a specific adverse impact 4 on public health or
safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and 2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density.
The Base Project, including the additional floors and rooftop elements allowed by use permits to extend the district height limit
5 complies with applicable, objective general
plan and zoning standards. Further, Section 65589.5(j)(3) provides that a request for a density bonus “shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an
3 Per the City’s Density Bonus Procedures (DBP), the Base Project is the largest project allowed on the site that is fully compliant with district development standards (i.e. height, setbacks, usable open space, parking, etc.), or, the maximum allowable density for the site. The City uses the DBP to calculate the maximum allowable density for a site where there is no density standard in the zoning district, and to determine the number of units in the Proposed Project, which is the number of B ase Project units plus the number of density bonus units that can be added according to the percentage of BMR units proposed, per Government Code, Section 65915(f). 4 A “specific, adverse impact” means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete”.
5 The City has determined that the “protections afforded by the HAA and the definition of a base project for density bonus calculations apply to a housing development project up to and including the maximum development allowed with use permits and/or administrative use permits”. Therefore, use permits to extend the district height limit to 65’ and six stories and to allow rooftop elements to exceed height limits are included in the Base Project for the purpose of determining the applicability of Section 65589.5(j).
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 10 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.” Therefore, the City may not deny the Base Project or density bonus request or reduced the density with respect to those units without basing its decision on the written findings under Section 65589.5(j), above.
Staff is aware of no specific adverse impacts that could occur with the construction of the Base Project or the density bonus units. Therefore, Section 65589.5(j) does apply to the Proposed Project. All findings discussed below are subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 65589.5.
IV. Community Discussion
A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: After receiving the application on June 3, 2021, the City mailed a Notice of Received Application to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site, and to interested neighborhood organizations.6 On June 23, 2021, staff received two letters from neighbors describing concerns over too much oversized development on the block; the building design exceeding the height limit; and the project’s incompatibility with one- and two-story dwellings adjacent to the site.
On September 20, 2021, staff received a letter from neighbors describing concerns that the project would exacerbate the shortage of street parking in the area, and concerns over air pollution from the construction of too many new buildings and the impact of more demand on water and electricity systems.
On May 11, 2022, the City mailed public hearing notices to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site, and to interested neighborhood organizations, and the City posted notices within the neighborhood in three locations.
No further communications regarding the project were received as of the writing of this staff report.
B. Landmarks Preservation Commission: This application is not subject to review by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
C. Design Review Committee: This application is not subject to review by the Design Review Committee.
V. Issues and Analysis
A. SB 330 – Housing Crisis Act of 2019: The Housing Crisis Act, also known as Senate Bill 330, seeks to boost homebuilding throughout the State with a focus on urbanized zones by expediting the approval process for and suspending or eliminating restrictions on housing development projects. A “housing development project” means
6 The Pre-Application Yellow Poster and Neighborhood Outreach components of the land use application submittal requirements were temporarily suspended at the time of the application submittal due to City emergency health orders. The suspension was lifted on July 1, 2021.
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 11 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
a use that is: all residential; mixed use with at least two- thirds of the square footage as residential; or transitional or supportive housing. Sections of SB 330 that apply to the proposed project include the following:
1. Government Code Section 65905.5(a) states that if a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, then the city shall not conduct more than five hearings in connection with the approval of that housing development project. This includes all public hearings in connection with the approval of the housing development project and any continuances of such public hearings. The city must consider and either approve or disapprove the project at any of the five hearings consistent with applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act [Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920)].
The May 26, 2022 ZAB Hearing represents the first public hearing for the proposed project since the project was deemed complete. The City can hold four additional public hearing s on this project, if needed, provided that one hearing must be reserved for a potential appeal to the City Council.
2. Government Code Section 65913.10(a) requires that the City determine whether the proposed development project site is an historic site at the time the application for the housing development project is deemed complete. The determination as to whether the parcel is an historic site must remain valid during the pendency of the housing development project, unless any archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources are encountered during any grading, site disturbance, or building alteration activities.
The site is vacant, and there is no known cultural resource associated with the site.
Therefore, it was determined that the site is not an historic resource. S tandard conditions of approval have been included to halt work if any unanticipated discovery of archeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources.
3. Government Code Section 65950(a)(5) requires a public agency to approve or disapprove a project within 60 days fro m the determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The project was deemed complete on March 16, 2022. Staff also determined on this date that the level of CEQA review was to be “ Categorically Exempt”. If the ZAB d etermines the application is categorically exempt from CEQA at the May 26, 2022 public hearing, the application must be approved or disapproved by July 25, 2022.
4. Government Code Section 66300(d) prohibits the demolition of residential dwelling units unless the project will create at least as many residential units as will be demolished. The project does not propose the demolition of housing units, as the single-family dwelling that previously existed on the site was demolished after the City Building Official deemed the building unsafe and prior to the submittal of this permit application. Therefore, this section does not apply to the project.
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 12 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
B. Density Bonus Waivers and Concessions: The project is entitled to three concessions (or incentives), under Government Code Section 65915(d) for providing at least 24 percent of total units to lower-income households, and an unlimited number of waivers, under Section 65915(e). No concessions are requested.
Waiver. A waiver is a modification of a development standard that would otherwise physically preclude the construction of the project with the permitted density bonus and concessions. Waivers of the side and rear yard setbacks minimums and the lot coverage maximum are requested because they are necessary to physically accommodate the full density bonus project on the site.
The City may only deny the waivers if it finds that the waivers would have a specific adverse
impact7 upon public health and safety, or the physical environment, or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low income, very low income, and moderate income households, or if the waiver would be contrary to State or Federal law. Staff has not identified any evidence that would support such a finding.
VI. Other Considerations
The following analyses of conformance with district purposes, use permit findings for non- detriment, and the 2002 General Plan goals and policies are provided for informational purposes only, to provide context; they are not required because the proposed project is HAA- compliant.
A. Use Permits for Additional Height: BMC Section 23.406.040.E.1 states that before the ZAB approves an application for a Use Permit, it must find that the project, under the circumstances of this particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City.
The project applicant proposes a 64-foot, 6-inch (maximum height), six-story building.
Use Permits to exceed the height limit of 35 feet and three stories, up to 65 feet and six stories (the fourth through sixth floors), and for the rooftop elements to exceed the district height limits are included in the Base Project for the density bonus, and are subject to the findings in Section 65589.5(j) of the HAA. (See section III.C for discussion on the HAA.)
Non-Detriment: The
six-story building would be taller than existing buildings on nearby properties on its block which are generally one- and two-story residential development to the west and south, and one- and two-story residential and commercial development
7 See Footnote 5.
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 13 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
to the east. If approved, however, the project would follow a trend of increasing density in the neighborhood, including the recently-constructed, five-story, mixed-use building at 2029 Blake Street, the approved six -story, community care facility for seniors at 2000 Dwight Way, and the approved seven-story, multi-family building at 2015 Blake.
The proposed project would provide new housing in a location with easy access to public transit and nearby commercial services and stores, and would fulfill the purpose of the R-4 Multi-Family Residential District by providing high- density residential development with sufficient usable open space at a convenient location for desirable services.
Also, the project is subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding construction noise and air quality, waste diversion, toxics, and stormwater requirements, thereby ensuring the project would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
Shadows: Accor
ding to the shadow studies submitted for the project (See Attachment 1, Project Plans – Sheet A1.4) the project would cause new shadows to affect surrounding dwellings as follows:
• multi-family dwellings to the wes t of the site, during the hours after sunrise in the spring months and summer months
• the newly constructed mixed- use building to the northeast, during the hours before sunset in the winter months
• the single-family dwelling to the east of the site during the hours around noon in the winter months
• single- and multi-family dwellings to the east of the site, during the hours before sunset in the summer, winter and spring months
The use permits for additional height beyond the district height limits allow a 64-foot, 6-inch, six -story building. The additional height above the district limits would cast shadows in the affected directions further than if the project were limited to the base district height standards. However, the shadow impacts on any one adjacent property would occur during limited hours and times of the year. Furthermore, shadow impacts on adjacent dwellings are difficult to avoid given the lot widths, height and building-to- building separations permitted in the R-4 district. Staff therefore recommends that the ZAB find that shadow impacts would be non-detrimental.
B. General Plan Consistency: The following is an analysis of conformance with the 2002 General Plan goals and policies, provided for informational purposes only:
1. Policy LU-3–Inf
ill Development: Encourage infill development that is architecturally and environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2018 BLAKE STREET
May 26, 2022 Page 14 of 14
File: \\cobnas11\g$\Departmental-Data\Planning\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Blake\2018\ZP2021-0095\DOCUMENT FINALS\2022-05- 26 ZAB\2022-05-26_ZAB_SR_2018 Blake.docx
2. Policy LU-7–Neighborhood Quality of Life, Action A: Require that new development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area.
3. Policy LU-23–Tran sit-Oriented Development: Encourage and maintain zoning that allows greater commercial and residential density and reduced residential parking requirements in areas with above- average transit service such as Downtown Berkeley.
4. Policy UD-16–Contex t: The design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect the built environment in the area, particularly where the character of the built environment is largely defined by an aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings.
5. Policy UD- 24–Area
Character : Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are truly compatible with and, where feasible, reinforc e the desirable design characteristics of the particular area they are in.
6. Policy UD-32–Shadow s: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows.
7. Policy UD- 33–Sust ainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings.
8. Policy H-19–Regi onal Housing Needs: Encourage housing production adequate to meet the housing production goals established by ABAG’s Regional Housing Needs Determination for Berkeley.
9. Policy EM-5–“
Green” Buildings: Promote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards. (Also see Policies EM-8, EM-26, EM-35, EM-36, and UD-6.)
As discu
ssed in section VI.A through VI.C, the project would improve the utilization of the site with infill development that is of appropriate intensity, that is compatible with the existing surrounding development. The project site is served by multiple bus lines, including local, rapid, and Transbay lines, that operate along Shattuck Avenue, and a nearby BART Station.
The project would help Berkeley meet its regional housing needs by adding 11 net new housing units, including two LI units. The project would be subject to standard conditions of approval that promote sustainable building design, including conditions for solar PV systems, water efficient landscaping, and natural gas prohibitions.
VI. Recommendation
Because of the project’s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and minimal impact on surrounding properties, staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board APPROVE Use Permit #ZP2021-0095, pursuant to BMC Section 23.406.040 and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1).
Attachments:
1. Findings and Conditions
2. Project Plans, received March 23, 2022
3. Notice of Public Hearing
Staff Planner: Sharon Gong, [email protected], (510) 981-7429
Index &
Administrative Record
ZAB Appeal:
2421 Fifth Street
These attachments are on file and available for review
upon request from the City Clerk Department,
or can
be accessed from the City Council Website.
City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900
or from:
The City of Berkeley, City Council’s Web site
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil/
Attachments 4 & 5
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING – BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY REMOTE VIDEO ONLY
ZAB APPEAL: 2018 BLAKE STREET, USE PERMIT #ZP2021-0095
Notice is hereby given by the City Council of the City of Berkeley that on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2022 at 6:00 P.M. a public hearing will be conducted to consider an appeal of the decision by the Zoning Adjustments Board to APPROVE Zoning Permit #ZP2021-0095 to construct a six-story, multi-family residential building with 12 units (including two Low-Income units).
The hearing will be held via videoconference pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and the state declared emergency.
A copy of the agenda material for this hearing will be available on the City’s website at www.CityofBerkeley.info as of SEPTEMBER 29, 2022. Once posted, the agenda for this meeting will include a link for public participation using Zoom video technology.
For further information, please contact Sharon Gong, Project Planner, (510) 981-7429 or [email protected]. Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the City Clerk, 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, in order to ensure delivery to all Councilmembers and inclusion in the agenda packet.
Communications to the Berkeley City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e- mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the City Clerk. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk at 981-6900 or [email protected] for further information.
________________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Mailed: SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny (Code Civ. Proc. 1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5) an appeal, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, no lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny or approve a Zoning Adjustments Board decision may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed.
Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Zoning Adjustments Board decision, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.
If you challenge the above in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Berkeley at, or prior to, the public hearing. Background information concerning this proposal will be available by request from the City Clerk Department and posted on the City of Berkeley webpage at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.
DRAFT 7/7/2022
ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.
FAIR WORKWEEK EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.110 is added to read as follows:
CHAPTER 13.110
FAIR WORKWEEK EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
Sections:
13.110.010 Purpose and Intent
13.110.020 Definitions.
13.110.030 Applicability.
13.110.040 Waiver through Collective Bargaining
13.110.050 Advance Notice of Work Schedules.
13.110.060 Notice, Right to Decline, and Compensation for Schedule Changes.
13.110.070 Offer of Work to Existing Employees.
13.110.080 Right to Rest.
13.110.090 Right to Request a Flexible Working Arrangement.
13.110.100 Notice and Posting.
13.110.110 Implementation.
13.110.120 Enforcement.
13.110.130 Retaliation Prohibited
13.110.140 Retention of Records.
13.110.150 City Access.
13.110.160 No Preemption of Higher Standards.
13.110.170 Severability.
13.110.010 Purpose and Intent
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Berkeley Fair Workweek Ordinance”. It is the purpose of this chapter and the policy of the City: (i) to enact and enforce fair and equitable employment scheduling practices in the City of Berkeley; (ii) to provide the working people of Berkeley with protections that ensure employer scheduling practices do not unreasonably prevent workers from attending to their families, health, education, and other obligations; and (iii) to require Employers needing additional hours, whether temporary or permanent, to first offer those hours to current part-time Employees.
13.110.020 Definitions
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
22a
DRAFT 7/7/2022
(a) “Building services” means the care and maintenance of property, including, but not limited to, janitorial services, building and grounds maintenance services, and security services.
(b) “Calendar week” shall mean a period of seven consecutive days starting on Sunday.
(c) “City” shall mean the City of Berkeley.
(d) “Covered employer” shall mean an employer subject to the provisions of this chapter, as specified in Section 13.110.030.
(e) "Department" shall mean the City Manager’s Department, as specified in Chapter 2.36, or another department or agency as the City Manager shall designate.
(f) “Employee” shall mean any person who:
(1) In a calendar week performs at least two hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City of Berkeley for an employer; (2) Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the California minimum wage law, as provided under Labor Code Section 1197 and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. Employees shall include learners, as defined by the California Industrial Welfare Commission; and
(3) Is (i) not exempt from payment of an overtime rate of compensation pursuant to Labor Code Section 510; and (ii) is not paid a monthly salary equivalent to at least forty hours per week at a rate of pay of twice the minimum wage required by Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.99.040.
(g) “Employer” shall mean any person, as defined in Labor Code Section 18, who directly or indirectly through any other person or employer, , employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any Employee, or any person receiving or holding a business license through Title 9 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.
(h) “Franchise” shall have the meaning in California Business and Professions Code Section 20001.
(i) “Franchisee” shall have the meaning in California Business and Professions Code Section 20002.
(j) “Franchisor” shall have the meaning in California Business and Professions Code Section 20003.
(k) “Good faith” shall mean a sincere intention to deal fairly with others. (l) “Healthcare” shall mean either a Hospital, Medical Practitioner Office, Nursing Home, or Supportive Housing as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10, or a facility that provides outpatient maintenance dialysis.
(m) “Hotel” shall mean Tourist Hotel as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10. (n) “Manufacturing” shall mean a Manufacturing Use as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10.
DRAFT 7/7/2022
(o) “Predictability pay” shall mean wages paid to an employee, calculated on an hourly basis at the employee’s regular rate of pay as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. Section 207 (e), as compensation for schedule changes made by a covered employer to an employee’s schedule pursuant to Section 13.110.060, in addition to any wages earned for work performed by that employee.
(p) “Restaurant” shall mean a Food Service Establishment as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10.
(q) “Retail” shall mean a Retail Products Store as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10. (r) “Shift” shall mean the consecutive hours an employer requires an employee to work including employer-approved meal periods and rest periods. (s) “Warehouse services” shall mean Warehouse Based Non-Store Retail as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10.
(t) “Work schedule” shall mean all of an employee’s shifts, including specific start and end times for each shift, during a calendar week.
13.110.030 Applicability
(a) This chapter shall apply to: the City of Berkeley as an employer, and any employer in the City of Berkeley that is:
(1) primarily engaged in the building services, healthcare, hotel, manufacturing, retail, or warehouse services industries, and employs 56 or more employees globally; or
(2) primarily engaged in the restaurant industry, and employs 10 or more employees in the city of Berkeley and employs 100 or more globally; or (3) is a franchisee primarily engaged in the retail or restaurant industries employing 10 or more employees in the city of Berkeley and is associated with a network of franchises with franchisees employing in the aggregate 100 or more employees globally.
(b) This chapter does not apply to a not-for-profit corporation organized under Section 501 of the United States Internal Revenue Code unless it employs 100 or more employees globally.
(c) In determining the number of employees performing work for an covered employer during a given week, all employees performing work for the covered employer for compensation on a full-time, part-time, or temporary basis, at any location, shall be counted, including employees made available to work through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity. (d) For the purposes of determining whether a nonfranchisee entity is a covered employer as defined by this chapter, separate entities that form an integrated enterprise shall be considered a single employer. Within one year of the effective date of the ordinance, the City Manager shall promulgate rules pursuant to the authority provided in
DRAFT 7/7/2022
Section 13.110.110 to implement this subsection clarifying factors to be considered in determining what constitutes an integrated enterprise. . (e) For the City of Berkeley as an employer, this chapter shall become operative with respect to non-represented employees one year after the effective date of the ordinance. Subject to a waiver under Section 13.110.040, with respect to employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement, this chapter shall become operative upon the commencement of a bona fide successor collective bargaining agreement or one year after the effective date of the ordinance, whichever is earlier. (f) For all other employers, with respect to employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement, this chapter shall become operative on the commencement of a bona fide successor collective bargaining agreement, subject to a waiver pursuant to Section
13.110.040.
(g) For all other employers not subject to a collective bargaining agreement, this chapter shall become operative one year after the effective date of the ordinance.
13.110.040 Waiver through Collective Bargaining
The requirements of all or of specific portions of this chapter may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, but only if the waiver is set forth explicitly in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms.
13.110.050 Advance Notice of Work Schedules.
(a) Initial Estimate of Minimum Hours. An employer shall provide each employee with a good faith estimate in writing of the employee’s work schedule. The employee may submit a written request to modify the estimated work schedule, and the covered employer in its sole discretion may accept or reject the request and shall notify the employee of covered employer’s determination in writing prior to or on commencement of employment.
(b) Two Weeks’ Advance Notice of Work Schedule. A covered employer shall provide its employees with at least two weeks’ notice of their work schedules by doing one of the following:
(1) posting the work schedule in a conspicuous place at the workplace that is readily accessible and visible to all employees; or
(2) transmitting the work schedule by electronic means, so long as all employees are given access to the electronic schedule at the workplace. For new employees, a covered employer shall provide the new employee prior to or on their first day of employment with an initial work schedule. Thereafter, the covered employer shall include the new employee in an existing schedule with other employees. (c) An Employee who is a victim of domestic violence or sexual violence may request that the Employee's Work Schedule not be posted or transmitted to other employees.
An oral or written request shall be sufficient and implemented immediately and is
DRAFT 7/7/2022
sufficient until the Employee gives written permission to post the Employee's schedule.
An Employer may request a written statement from the Employee that states that the Employee is a victim of domestic violence or sexual violence. The written statement shall constitute the documentation needed for the Employer to implement the request.
The Employer may not require a written statement more than once in a calendar year from any Covered Employee for this purpose.
13.110.060 Schedule Changes.
(a) Notice. A covered employer shall provide an employee written notice of any change to the employee’s posted or transmitted work schedule within 24 hours of a schedule change. This notice requirement shall not apply to any schedule changes the employee initiates.
(b) Right to Decline. Subject to the exceptions in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, an employee has the right to decline any previously unscheduled hours that the covered employer adds to the employee’s schedule, and for which the employee has been provided advance notice of less than 14 days before the first day of any new schedule.
(c) Predictability Pay for Schedule Changes. Subject to the exceptions in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a covered employer shall provide an employee with the following compensation per shift for each previously scheduled shift that the covered employer adds or subtracts hours, moves to another date or time, cancels, or each previously unscheduled shift that the covered employer adds to the employee’s schedule:
(1) with less than 14 days notice, but 24 hours or more notice to the employee: one hour of predictability pay;
(2) with less than 24 hours to the employee,
(i) When hours are cancelled or reduced, four hours or the number of cancelled or reduced hours in the employee’s scheduled shift, whichever is less; (ii) For additions and all other changes, one hour of predictability pay. The compensation required by this subsection shall be in addition to the employee’s regular pay for working such shift.
(c) Scheduling Exceptions. The requirements of this section shall not apply under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Mutually agreed-upon work shift swaps or coverage arrangements among employees;
(2) Employee initiated voluntary shift modifications, such as voluntary requests to leave a scheduled shift prior to the end of the shift or to use sick leave, vacation leave, or other policies offered by the Employer. This paragraph shall apply only to the employee initiating the voluntary shift modification; or (3) To accommodate the following transitions in shifts:
DRAFT 7/7/2022
(i) If an employee works no more than thirty minutes past the end of a scheduled shift to complete service to a customer, provided the employee is compensated at their regular rate of pay for the additional work performed by the employee.
(ii) An employee begins or ends their scheduled shift no more than ten minutes prior to or after the scheduled shift, provided the employee is compensated at their regular rate of pay for the additional work performed by the employee.
(d) Operational Exceptions. The requirements of this section shall not apply under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Operations cannot begin or continue due to threats to covered employers, employees or property, or when civil authorities recommend that work not begin or continue;
(2) Operations cannot begin or continue because public utilities fail to supply electricity, water, or gas, or there is a failure in the public utilities or sewer system;
(3) Operations cannot begin or continue due to: acts of nature (including but not limited to flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, tidal wave, drought), pandemic, war, civil unrest, strikes, or other cause not within the covered employer’s control;
(4) When, in manufacturing, events outside of the control of the manufacturer result in a reduction in the need for Covered Employees, including, but not limited to, when a customer requests the manufacturer to delay production or there is a delay in the receipt of raw materials or component parts needed for production; or
(5) With regard to healthcare employers, in (i) any declared national, State, or municipal disaster or other catastrophic event, or any implementation of an Employer's disaster plan, or incident causing a hospital to activate its Emergency Operations Plan, that will substantially affect or increase the need for healthcare services; (ii) any circumstance in which patient care needs require specialized skills through the completion of a procedure; or (iii) any unexpected substantial increase in demand for healthcare due to large public events, severe weather, violence, or other circumstances beyond the Employer's control. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a covered employer from providing greater advance notice of employee’s work schedules and/or changes in schedules than that required by this section.
13.110.070 Offer of Work to Existing Employees.
DRAFT 7/7/2022
(a) Subject to the limitations in this chapter, before hiring new employees, including hiring through the use of temporary services or staffing agencies, a covered employer shall first offer additional hours of work to existing part-time employee(s) who have worked on behalf of the employer for more than two weeks, if the part-time employee(s) are qualified to do the additional work, as reasonably and in good faith determined by the covered employer. This section shall not be construed to require any employer to offer employees work hours paid at a premium rate under Labor Code Section 510 nor to prohibit any employer from offering such work hours. . (b) A covered employer has discretion to distribute the additional work hours among part-time employees consistent with this section; provided, that: (1) the employer’s system for distribution of hours must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, age, marital or familial status, nor on the basis of family caregiving responsibilities; and (2) the employer may not distribute hours in a manner intended to avoid an increase in the number of employees working 30 or more hours per week, or with regard to the City of Berkeley, to avoid a granting of any benefits that an employee earns based on hours worked.
(c) A part-time employee may, but is not required to, accept the covered employer’s offer of additional work under this section.
(1) A part-time employee shall have 24 hours to accept an offer of additional hours of work under this section, after which time the covered employer may hire new employees to work the additional hours.
(2) The24 hour period referred to in this subsection begins either when the employee receives the written offer of additional hours, or when the covered employer posts the offer of additional hours as described in subsection (d) of this section, whichever is sooner. A part-time employee who wishes to accept the additional hours must do so in writing.
(d) When this section requires a covered employer to offer additional hours to existing part-time employees, the covered employer shall make the offer either in writing or by posting the offer in a conspicuous location in the workplace or electronically where notices to employees are customarily posted.
13.110.080 Right to Rest.
(a) An employee has the right to decline work hours that occur:
(1) Less than 11 hours after the end of the previous day’s shift; or (2) During the 11 hours following the end of a shift that spanned two days. (b) An employee who agrees in writing to work hours described in this section shall be compensated at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for any hours worked less than 11 hours following the end of a previous shift.
13.110.090 Right to Request a Flexible Working Arrangement.
DRAFT 7/7/2022
An employee has the right to request a modified work schedule, including but not limited to additional shifts or hours; changes in days of work or start and/or end times for the shift; permission to exchange shifts with other employees; limitations on availability; part-time employment; job sharing arrangements; reduction or change in work duties; or part-year employment. Notwithstanding any obligations under Section 13.110.060, an employer may accept, modify, or decline the employee’s request. A covered employer shall not retaliate against an employee for exercising their rights under this section or the rights outlined in the Berkeley Family Friendly and Environment Friendly Workplace Ordinance, Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.101.
13.110.100 Notice and Posting.
(a) The Department shall publish and make available to covered employers, in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, a notice suitable for posting by covered employers in the workplace informing employees of their rights under this chapter.
(b) Each covered employer shall give written notification to each current employee and to each new employee at time of hire of their rights under this chapter. The notification shall be in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, and shall also be posted prominently in areas at the work site where it will be seen by all employees. Every covered employer shall also provide each employee at the time of hire with the covered employer’s name, address, and telephone number in writing. Failure to post such notice shall render the covered employer subject to administrative citation, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The Department is authorized to prepare sample notices and covered employer use of such notices shall constitute compliance with this subsection.
13.110.110 Implementation.
(a) The Department shall be authorized to coordinate implementation and enforcement of this chapter and may promulgate appropriate guidelines or rules for such purposes. Any guidelines or rules promulgated by the City shall have the force and effect of law and may be relied on by covered employers, employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this chapter. Any guidelines or rules may establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost-effective implementation of this chapter, including supplementary procedures for helping to inform employees of their rights under this chapter, for monitoring covered employer compliance with this chapter, and for providing administrative hearings to determine whether a covered employer has violated the requirements of this chapter. (b) Reporting Violations. An aggrieved employee may report to the Department in writing any suspected violation of this chapter. The Department shall keep confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable laws, the name and other identifying information of the employee reporting the violation; provided, however, that with the authorization of such employee, the Department may disclose their name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this chapter or other employee protection laws.
DRAFT 7/7/2022
(c) Investigation. The Department may investigate any possible violations of this chapter by a covered employer. The Department shall have the authority to inspect workplaces, interview persons and subpoena records or other items relevant to the enforcement of this chapter.
(d) Informal Resolution. If the Department elects to investigate a complaint, the City shall make every effort to resolve complaints informally and in a timely manner. The City’s investigation and pursuit of informal resolution does not limit or act as a prerequisite for an employee’s right to bring a private action against a covered employer as provided in this chapter.
13.110.120 Enforcement.
(a) Enforcement by City. Where prompt compliance with the provisions of this chapter is not forthcoming, the Department may take any appropriate enforcement action to ensure compliance, including but not limited to the following:
The Department may issue an administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 1.28 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. The amount of this fine shall vary based on the provision of this chapter violated, as specified below:
(1) A fine may be assessed for retaliation by a covered employer against an employee for exercising rights protected under this chapter. The fine shall be $1,000 for each employee retaliated against.
(2) A fine of $500 may be assessed for any of the following violations of this chapter:
(i) Failure to provide notice of employees’ rights under this chapter. (ii) Failure to timely provide an initial work schedule or to timely update work schedules following changes.
(iii) Failure to provide predictability pay for schedule changes with less than24 hours advance notice.
(iv) Failure to offer work to existing employees before hiring new employees or temporary staff or to award work to a qualified employee. (v) Failure to maintain payroll records for the minimum period of time as provided in this chapter.
(vi) Failure to allow the Department access to payroll records. (3) A fine equal to the total amount of appropriate remedies, pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. Any and all money collected in this way that is the rightful property of an employee, such as back wages, interest, and civil penalty payments, shall be disbursed by the Department in a prompt manner. (f) City Access. Each covered employer shall permit access to work sites and relevant records for authorized City representatives for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this chapter and investigating employee complaints of noncompliance, including production for inspection and copying of its employment records, but without allowing Social Security numbers to become a matter of public record.
DRAFT 7/7/2022
(g) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, any entity a member of which is aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law, may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the Employer or other person violating this Chapter and, upon prevailing, shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and shall be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, the payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, the payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50 to each Employee or person whose rights under this Chapter were violated for each day that the violation occurred or continued, reinstatement in employment and/or injunctive relief. Provided, however, that any person or entity enforcing this Chapter on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive or restitutionary relief to Employees, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
(i) This Section shall not be construed to limit an Employee’s right to bring legal action for a violation of any other laws concerning wages, hours, or other standards or rights nor shall exhaustion of remedies under this Chapter be a prerequisite to the assertion of any right.
(j) The remedies for violation of this chapter include but are not limited to:
1. Reinstatement, the payment of predictability pay unlawfully withheld, and the payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50 to each employee whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this chapter or State law.
2. Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date the wages are paid in full.
3. Reimbursement of the City’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorney’s fees.
4. If a repeated violation of this chapter has been finally determined in a period from July 1 to June 30 of the following year, the Department may require the employer to pay an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50 to the City for each employee or person whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this Code or State law.
(k) The remedies, penalties and procedures provided under this chapter are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies, penalties and procedures established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this chapter. Actions taken pursuant to this chapter shall not prejudice or adversely affect
DRAFT 7/7/2022
any other action, administrative or judicial, that may be brought to abate a violation or to seek compensation for damages suffered.
(l) No criminal penalties shall attach for any violation of this chapter, nor shall this chapter give rise to any cause of action for damages against the City.
13.110.130 Retaliation Prohibited.
An employer shall not discharge, reduce the compensation of, discriminate against, or take any adverse employment action against an employee, including discipline, suspension, transfer or assignment to a lesser position in terms of job classification, job security, or other condition of employment, reduction of hours or denial of additional hours, informing another employer that the person has engaged in activities protected by this chapter, or reporting or threatening to report the actual or suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee, former employee or family member of an employee to a Federal, State or local agency, for making a complaint to the Department, participating in any of the Department’s proceedings, using any civil remedies to enforce their rights, or otherwise asserting their rights under this chapter.
Within 120 days of an employer being notified of such activity, it shall be unlawful for the employer to discharge any employee who engaged in such activity unless the employer has clear and convincing evidence of just cause for such discharge.
13.110.140 Retention of Records.
Each employer shall maintain for at least three years for each employee a record of their name, hours worked, pay rate, initial posted schedule and all subsequent changes to that schedule, consent to work hours where such consent is required by this chapter, and documentation of the time and method of offering additional hours of work to existing staff. Each employer shall provide each employee a copy of the records relating to such employee upon the employee’s reasonable request.
13.110.150 City Access.
Each employer shall permit access to work sites and relevant records for authorized Department representatives for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this chapter and investigating employee complaints of noncompliance, including production for inspection and copying of its employment records, but without allowing Social Security numbers to become a matter of public record.
13.110.160 No Preemption of Higher Standards.
The purpose of this chapter is to ensure minimum labor standards. This chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior employment standards (including higher wages) or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City. This chapter shall not be construed to limit a discharged employee’s right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful termination.
13.110.170 Severability.
DRAFT 7/7/2022
If any part or provision of this Chapter, or the application of this Chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Chapter, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter are severable.
Section 2. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES
THE EFFECTS OF THE EMERYVILLE FAIR WORKWEEK ORDINANCE ON
THE DAILY LIVES OF LOW-WAGE WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES
Elizabeth Ananat
Anna Gassman-Pines
John Fitz-Henley II
Working Paper 29792
http://www.nber.org/papers/w29792
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
February 2022
This research received support from the California Wellness Foundation, the Duke Sanford School of Public Policy Pilot Fund, and the Population Dynamics Research Infrastructure Program award to the Duke Population Research Center (P2C HD065563) at Duke University by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Outstanding research assistance was provided by Laura Bellows, Sarah Harris and Ade Olayinka.
Excellent project coordination was provided by Jennifer Copeland. Giovanna Merli and Candice Odgers provided helpful advice and support. Prior versions of this paper were presented at the Russell Sage Foundation, the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Research Conference, and the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official
NBER publications.
© 2022 by Elizabeth Ananat, Anna Gassman-Pines, and John Fitz-Henley II. All rights reserved.
Short
sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source.
The Effects of the Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance on the Daily Lives of Low-Wage Workers and their Families
Elizabeth Ananat, Anna Gassman-Pines, and John Fitz-Henley II NBER Working Paper No. 29792
February 2022
JEL No. I18,J08
ABSTRACT
Emeryville, CA’s Fair Workweek Ordinance (FWO) aimed to reduce service workers’ schedule unpredictability by requiring large retail and food service employers to provide advanced notice of schedules and to compensate workers for last-minute schedule changes. From a 1-in-6 sample of Emeryville retail and food service workers with young children (58 percent working in regulated businesses at baseline, the rest in the same industries in firms below the size cutoff for regulation), this study gathered daily reports of work schedule unpredictability and worker and family well-being over three waves before and after FWO implementation (N=6,059 observations). The FWO decreased working parents’ schedule unpredictability relative to those in similar jobs at unregulated establishments. The FWO also decreased parents’ days worked while increasing hours per work day, leaving total hours roughly unchanged. Finally, parent well-being improved, with significant declines in sleep difficulty.
Elizabeth Ananat
Barnard College
Columbia University
3009 Broadway
Office 1019 Milstein Building
New York, NY 10027
and NBER
[email protected]
Anna Gassman-Pines
Sanford School of Public Policy
Duke University
Box 90245
Durham, NC 27708
[email protected]
John Fitz-Henley II
Sanford School of Public Policy
Duke University
Durham, NC 27510
[email protected]
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 1
Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, low-income families were grappling with a work landscape that had changed dramatically over the last half century. Pressures of globalization and trade, and automation, led to job destruction in many industries, particularly those such as manufacturing that in the past led to stability for less-educated workers. In their place came service work, with lower wages and more unstable employment and hours (Autor, Dorn et al. 2013). At the same time, earnings volatility increased across socio-economic levels, most markedly among lower-income people (Gottschalk and Moffitt 2009, Dynan, Elmendorf et al. 2012, Morduch and Schneider 2017). These features of work left families with high and increasing levels of instability and unpredictability in work and earnings.
Even among stably employed service-sector workers, working parents faced additional forms of uncertainty. Managerial innovations have changed the daily operations of retail and food service firms such that service workers experience great daily uncertainty in both pay and hours. For example, the managerial tactic of “on-call scheduling,” in which employers facing variable customer demand minimize labor costs by requiring workers to be available for work but not compensating them for their availability if they are not needed, introduces significant unpredictability into workers’ days. By increasing uncertainty, on-call scheduling practices, in addition to last-minute schedule changes and shift cancellations, may increase parents’ difficulties in balancing work and family demands. That type of schedule unpredictability has been shown to be very common among low-wage workers (Lambert, Fugiel et al. 2014, Schneider and Harknett 2019, Ananat and Gassman-Pines 2021). Previous work has also established that, conditional on family fixed effects, days with schedule unpredictability lead to worse worker health than days in which work schedules go as expected (Ananat and Gassman-Pines 2021).
Partially in response to concerns about the harms to workers and families from schedule unpredictability, in the last 10 years governments at various levels across the United States have begun considering new regulations to limit unpredictability and compensate workers when it occurs. This paper, based on data collected prior to the pandemic, builds on the emerging research on the effects of such policy changes by examining the effects of the 2017 Fair Workweek Ordinance (FWO) in Emeryville,
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 2
CA, on working parents’ work schedules, and worker and family well-being. While the context of low- wage work has shifted in the wake of the pandemic, understanding the challenges families were facing prior to its onset can help us understand how to restructure employment policies going forward.
We focus on a highly policy relevant group of workers: parents with young children. In so doing, this study is the first to provide evidence of the effects of a local policy aimed at deterring work schedule unpredictability on working parents’ schedules and on worker and family well-being. To do so, this study used a novel sample recruitment strategy with an innovative survey data collection protocol, daily surveys using short message service (SMS) text messages, over three waves of data collection. This study is also the first to investigate this type of policy change in Emeryville, adding to ongoing work in Seattle and Oregon to build the base of knowledge about how schedule stability laws affect working families.
We recruited nearly 100 Emeryville hourly service workers with young children, a 1-in-6 sample of the universe of affected workers, using venue-time sampling, and surveyed them daily for 30 days over each of three study waves, all prior to the onset of the pandemic (2017-2018). This approach allowed us to identify how the work and family experiences of affected workers changed after the FWO, relative both to their experiences at baseline and to the experiences of workers who were otherwise similar but worked for Emeryville businesses that fell below the FWO’s size thresholds.
Work Schedule Unpredictability
Recent surveys of U.S. workers underscore the ubiquity of a variety of different types of schedule precarity, including schedule instability and unpredictability, among low-wage workers. For example, using the NLSY, researchers found that 41 percent of workers receive notice of their schedules only one week ahead of time or less (Lambert, Fugiel et al. 2014). Fluctuations in work hours are also substantial, with almost 75 percent reporting fluctuations in the number of hours they worked per week over the last month. Similarly, a survey of hourly workers in large retailers found that 60 percent of workers have variable hours and that 60 percent of workers have less than two weeks’ notice of their work schedules (Schneider and Harknett 2019). In Emeryville, the vast majority, 87 percent, of a representative sample of
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 3
parents with young children reported some unanticipated work schedule change during a one-month period, with 58 percent of parents reporting at least one canceled shift (Ananat and Gassman-Pines 2021).
Estimates suggest that about one in six hourly workers has a young child (Schwartz, Wasser et al. 2015), and prior research has established that schedule unpredictability is associated with worse worker and family well-being. Surveys of low-wage workers at a single point in time have shown that those with more unstable schedules report more psychological distress, worse sleep quality, and more parenting stress (Schneider and Harknett 2019). Unstable and unpredictable work schedules are also correlated with lower-quality parent-child interactions (Henly, Shaefer et al. 2006) and increased work-life conflict (Luhr, Schneider et al. this volume, Henly and Lambert 2014).
Research focusing on day-to-day variation in work schedules underscores the negative effects on workers and their families from unanticipated work schedule changes. In Emeryville, instances of work schedule unpredictability on any given day were related to worse daily mood and sleep quality for working parents (Ananat and Gassman-Pines 2021). Similarly, research has shown that on days when parents are “on-call” for work hours, they reported increased daily negative mood (Bamberg, Dettmers et al. 2012, Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz et al. 2016) and worse daily sleep quality (Härmä, Karhula et al. 2018, Sprajcer, Jay et al. 2018) than days when they are not “on-call.” Fewer prior studies focused on day-to-day variability in work schedules have examined the effects of work schedule unpredictability on other aspects of daily family wellbeing beyond parent mood and sleep quality. However, a related literature shows that daily parenting behaviors and child well-being were affected by daily nighttime work hours, with nighttime hours related to less daily parent time spent together with adolescent children, and harsher interactions between parents and children in early childhood (Gassman-Pines 2011, Lee, Davis et al. 2017). Increased parental nighttime work also led to less positive daily child behavior among preschool-aged children (Gassman-Pines 2011).
The findings from studies examining daily variation in work schedules are consistent with those from cross-sectional studies. Those examining daily variation, however, are able to use family fixed effects to control for all measured and unmeasured stable differences between families that might be
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 4
related to both work schedule unpredictability and family wellbeing. The research focused on within- family variation from day to day cannot be biased by between-family differences, such as parental personality or motivation. Thus, taken together, the evidence suggests that schedule unpredictability is not only correlated with worse outcomes for workers and their families, but actually causes worse well-being.
Policies to Regulate Service Workers’ Schedules
Regulation and legal standards played a large role in shaping today’s workplaces, e.g. through minimum wages and workplace safety requirements, and led to current U.S. norms around schedules, such as the 8-hour workday. But in recent years, labor-market regulation has paid little attention to schedules, despite dramatic shifts in the nature of scheduling practices. While earlier schedule regulations focused on preventing employers from extracting too much labor from workers, many workers today instead fear unpredictability in work and the instability in earnings that results. In response to research demonstrating links between unpredictable work schedules and harm to workers, and due to concerted labor organizing efforts (Ananat, Gassman-Pines et al. 2020), policymakers in localities and states have passed new regulations related to service workers’ schedules. These policies represent an innovational shift for local labor regulation and have been passed in Emeryville, CA, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and the state of Oregon. Each of the policies are unique but largely share the same general features. In particular, they require large employers to provide advanced notice of work schedules to their hourly workers and to compensate workers if schedules subsequently change.
Emeryville, CA’s Fair Workweek Ordinance
Passed in early 2017, the Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance (FWO) aims to stabilize schedules of hourly retail and food-service workers with several provisions. First, hourly workers must receive two weeks’ advanced notice of their schedules. Second, workers have the right to decline previously unscheduled hours without retaliation if they are given less than two weeks’ notice of hours.
Third, workers are eligible for compensation for schedule changes that occur within two weeks and, in particular, for “stability pay” of up to 4 hours or half of a shift paid when a shift is cancelled, with the amount of pay increasing the closer to the shift the cancellation is made. Fourth, the FWO gives workers
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 5
the right to decline hours if they are within 11 hours of the previous shift, and workers are to be paid time and a half for shifts that fall within 11 hours of each other (so-called “clopenings”).
The provisions of the Emeryville FWO apply to “ large” retail and food service employers, defined as more than 55 employees globally for retail employers and both more than 55 employees globally and 20 or more employees in Emeryville for food service employers. These cutoffs mean there is some arbitrariness to which firms are treated: the large international sandwich chain Subway, for example, has fewer than 20 Emeryville employees and is untreated, while some local, single-location stores and restaurants have more than total 55 employees and are treated.
The Emeryville FWO was implemented in two phases. Beginning on July 1, 2107, the ordinance officially became effective and the city initiated a so-called “soft roll-out.” During the soft roll-out, the city investigated complaints but did not impose fines against employers who were not compliant. They also held employer- and employee-focused forums to educate stakeholders on the ordinance’s provisions and created and disseminated written educational materials. Beginning on January 1, 2018, the city began the full enforcement of the ordinance, including fines for non-compliance. Enforcement of the ordinance is primarily conducted via an employee-driven complaint system. If employers are found to have violated the ordinance, they can be fined up to $500 per violation and $1,000 for each employee retaliated against.
Preliminary Evidence on Effects of Scheduling Policies
Emerging research from Seattle and Oregon sheds light on the effects of such policies on workers, as well as the role of managers in policy implementation. In terms of effects on workers, an evaluation of workers with a range of family statuses showed significant changes in workers’ schedules after the implementation of the Seattle policy. In particular, in the first year of implementation, the Seattle policy increased the share of workers receiving advanced notice of their work schedule and the share of workers receiving predictability pay when their hours were changed (Harknett, Schneider et al. 2019). In the second year of implementation, addition benefits were observed, including a reduction in last-minute schedule changes and improved worker well-being as measured by increases in overall happiness and self-reported sleep quality (Harknett, Schneider et al. 2021). Consistent with the Seattle findings, an
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 6
evaluation of the early implementation of Oregon’s statewide policy also revealed that the majority of workers received advance notice of their schedule (Loustaunau, Petrucci et al. 2020).
These results generally align with studies that have focused on front-line managers as the conduits for policy implementation on behalf of employers. One year after policy implementation, managers in Seattle, for example, largely reported giving workers the required 14 days advanced notice of their shifts and following rules around shift cancellations, suggesting that implementing some of the Seattle law’s provisions were relatively straightforward (Haley and Lambert 2021). Employers struggled, however, with implementing other aspects of the law: Managers reported lower levels of compliance with rules around extending shifts and offering additional hours to current employees before hiring new ones.
Similar patterns of results were reported by managers in Oregon (Loustaunau, Petrucci et al. 2020). In Oregon, an additional provision enabling managers to maintain voluntary waitlists facilitated frequent last-minute changes, making implementation easier for the employer but reducing the law’s reach from employees’ perspectives. Although the full set of costs and benefits to employers of these types of scheduling regulations is not yet known, related research suggest that employers could expect to see improvements in worker productivity and sales. A randomized experiment of a schedule stability intervention in retail stores showed such improvements in productivity and sales (Williams, Lambert et al. 2018, Kesavan, Lambert et al. 2020). Other research also suggest that improved work hours predictability leads to increased productivity (Hashemian, Ton et al. 2020).
The Current Study
With only a limited set of localities passing scheduling regulations, evaluations of policy change in each locality are crucial to building the base of knowledge about how such regulations affect workers and families. This study addresses this need by providing evidence on the effects of the scheduling regulations implemented in Emeryville, CA and by focusing on a highly policy-relevant population that has not been the focus of work investigating the effects of scheduling regulations in other jurisdictions, parents of young children.
Identification
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 7
Our main identification strategy is a difference-in-difference approach that compares over-time changes in outcomes for workers in “treatment” jobs—i.e. jobs at businesses that meet the size requirements to be regulated under Emeryville’s Fair Workweek Ordinance—to changes in out comes for workers employed at similar jobs in businesses that fall short of the size requirements. Difference-in- difference designs rely on the assumption of parallel trends: the identifying assumption of our approach is that in the absence of the FWO’s implementation, the over-time changes in outcomes of workers in treatment and control jobs would have moved in parallel, and therefore any deviation in treated workers’ outcome trends from trends for workers in control jobs can be attributed to the effects of the FWO.
Workers can and do hold multiple jobs; for outcomes that are defined at the worker-day level, such as sleep quality and interactions with the focal child, we define a worker as “treated” if they held at least one “treatment” job, even if they also held one or more control jobs. In robustness checks, we have defined treatment continuously, based on the share of hours worked at baseline in a treatment job; results are substantially similar (results available upon request).
A threat to the parallel trends assumption would occur if workers endogenously switch jobs in response to the FWO—that is, if treated jobs become more (or less) desirable due to the regulation, then workers with more advantages, e.g. those with better mental health, might switch sectors in response.
Under those circumstances a simple difference-in-differences strategy, such as the type conducted using repeated cross-sectional surveys to evaluate policy changes, would inaccurately conflate compositional changes in the treated workforce due to the FWO with changes in individual worker outcomes due to the FWO. However, our panel structure avoids this problem by allowing us to combine the strengths of a difference-in-differences identification strategy with the complementary strengths of an individual fixed- effects approach: because we follow the same workers over time, we are able to include worker fixed effects and identify only changes in individual worker outcomes over time.
Another potential threat to the parallel trends assumption would occur if regulated versus unregulated businesses faced different shocks during the evaluation period, beyond those induced by the
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 8
FWO. The somewhat arbitrary and complex size cutoff for regulation—which does not coincide with thresholds for other regulations in Emeryville or with other meaningful market distinctions—makes it relatively unlikely, however, that treated and untreated firms will face different shocks (for example, to consumer demand or to credit access) on other dimensions over the implementation period.
METHOD
Sample recruitment
Individuals were eligible for this study if they worked in an hourly position in Emeryville and had a child between ages 2 and 7. Recruitment occurred in May 2017, after the passage of FWO but prior to its enactment. We used a venue-based sampling approach to recruitment. For this purpose, we secured from the City of Emeryville a complete list of retail and food service businesses in the city. Using this list, we constructed a sampling frame of venue (business) day-time units (VDTs), randomly selected VDTs, and identified and recruited eligible individuals present in those VDTs (Muhib, Lin et al. 2001). We approached workers at each business, determined their eligibility, and asked those workers to direct us to any other currently present employee with a young child. Across VDTs, we entered each business in the area at least once, talking with over 600 workers, including at least one from each retail or food establishment in the city. We estimated, based on recent surveys of hourly retail and food service workers (Schwartz, Wasser et al. 2015), that about 15 percent of the 3,743 Emeryville hourly retail and food service workers have a young child, suggesting an eligible population of 561 workers. Of these, we talked with 170, an estimated 30 percent of eligible workers. We successfully recruited 96, or 56 percent, of the eligible workers we contacted. Our sample, although small in absolute size, reflects a substantial 1-in-6 sample of the universe of Emeryville retail and food workers with a young child. Importantly, the initial sample was balanced across: 1) retail and food firms that meet threshold local and global employment levels and are subject to regulation from the FWO and 2) otherwise similar control firms below those thresholds, which are exempt from the FWO.
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 9
Procedure and analysis sample
At the beginning of the study, respondents were asked about their demographics, health and well- being, work history, each job’s hourly wage and whether it is tipped, and reports on children. Then, every day for 30 consecutive days, respondents reported on that day’s work and family experiences via SMS text message. Daily survey completion rates among participants in the initial wave were very high: 61 percent of participants completed 100 percent of the daily surveys and 89 percent completed the majority (i.e. more than 15), providing substantial within-person variation for analysis.
We contacted the sample again two times: in the Fall of 2017 during the “soft roll-out” enforcement phase of FWO implementation (wave 2) and in the spring of 2018 during the full enforcement phase of FWO implementation (wave 3). Of the initial 96 participants, 76 participated in wave 2; 71 participated in wave 3. At each wave, we gathered information about changes in workers’ jobs and job characteristics and then again collected reports on the day’s work and family experiences via SMS text message for 30 consecutive days. In wave 2, daily participation was higher than in wave 1: 74 percent of participants completed 100 percent of the 30 daily surveys and 98 percent completed the majority of the daily surveys. In wave 3, daily participation was higher than in wave 1 or wave 2: 80 percent of participants completed 100 percent of the daily surveys and 99 percent completed the majority.
Participant compensation was structured to incentivize completion of all 30 daily surveys within each wave. In waves 1 and 2, participants received $1.00 for each survey completed, with bonuses of $7 and $10 offered for each week with 7 completed surveys, respectively. In wave 3, participants received $1.20 for each survey completed with a bonus of $12 for each week with 7 completed surveys. An additional completion bonus for those who answered all 30 daily surveys was also offered: $20 in wave 1, $25 in wave 2 and $30 in wave 3.
Our analysis sample for this study included all individuals who participated in at least one of the post-FWO implementation follow-up waves (N = 78 parents; N = ~6,000 person-days for analysis). On average, our analysis sample provided 86 days of survey responses across the waves of data collection.
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 10
All survey materials used for this study were available in both English and Spanish. All aspects of this study were approved by the Duke University Institutional Review Board (protocol #2017-0053).
Measures
Daily schedule unpredictability was characterized along a number of dimensions. We asked a series of questions about up to three jobs per respondent, based on the number of jobs reported at the initial interview for each wave. For each job, respondents were asked whether they worked that day, and if so: when they started and stopped working and whether their hours worked were their originally scheduled hours. If not, they provided their originally scheduled hours. Thus, for each day that a respondent worked at a given job, we measure whether their hours worked deviated from their originally scheduled hours at that job. Further, if respondents did not work at a given job on a given day, they were asked if they were originally scheduled to work. Thus, for each day we measure whether a respondent had a shift cancelled at that job. For both changes in work hours and shift cancellations, respondents were asked when they found out about the change: less than one hour before the shift start time; more than one hour before the shift start time, on the day of the shift; the night before; or earlier. Those who gave any response other than earlier about either a change in hours or a shift cancellation were coded as having a last-minute work schedule change at that job on that day.
To find surprise shifts, we looked at responses to the question about originally scheduled hours.
In that space, many respondents offered context, stating that they were off, weren't scheduled for that day, or offering hours on the next day (e.g. on Monday saying that they were scheduled to work Tuesday). In any of these cases, we classified this as a surprise shift, rather than a change in hours. Finally, surprise shifts, along with changes in hours and canceled shifts, were combined to create an additional measure that indicates whether the respondent had any kind of schedule change at that job on any given day.
Because information was provided about each job on each day, it was possible to examine work schedule unpredictability both by job and by day. For all outcomes discussed above, the unit of analysis was the person-job-day.
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 11
Daily family and child well-being outcomes were measured as described below. Daily mood was measured with an item that asked respondents how much of the time they felt fretful, angry, irritable, anxious, or depressed on a three-point scale from all of the time to none of the time. This question was modified from a question with a four-week recall period from the Health Utilities Index (HUI) (Furlong, Feeny et al. 2001, Horsman, Furlong et al. 2003). The single item has been validated as a daily measure of negative mood as it is positively correlated with daily stressors, including daily food insecurity (Gassman‐ Pines and Schenck‐Fontaine 2019) and daily work schedule disruptions (Ananat and Gassman-Pines 2021); it increased substantially when COVID-19 restrictions were put into place (Gassman-Pines, Ananat et al. 2020). A dichotomous indicator was created equal to 1 for those who answered Some of the time or All of the time and 0 for those who answered None of the time.
Daily perceived negative sleep quality was measured with a single item used in other daily survey studies (George, Rivenbark et al. 2019), asking: “How well did you sleep last night?” Answers were on a 10-point scale from really badly to really well. We treat self-reported sleep quality as a measure of daily well-being, as perceived sleep quality is associated with daily affect (Bower, Bylsma et al. 2010). The sleep quality measure was reverse-coded so that higher numbers indicated worse perceived sleep quality.
This measure has been validated, as it is correlated in expected directions with negative and positive daily mood, daily self-esteem (George, Rivenbark et al. 2019) and daily work schedule disruptions, a daily stressor (Ananat and Gassman-Pines 2021).
Daily parent-child interactions was measured with two questions: “Did you punish your child today?” and “Did you lose your temper with your child today?” Dichotomous indicator variables were set equal to 1 if the parent responded Yes and 0 if the parent responded No. Both of these measures have been validated as they were both positively correlated with daily disruptions to school and care during the COVID-19 pandemic (Gassman-Pines, Ananat et al. 2021).
Finally, daily child behavior was measured with two items. Daily child uncooperative behavior was measured with a single item asking: “How much was your child uncooperative today?” Answers on a four-point scale included: Not at all, Just a little, Some, and A lot. This question was modified from an
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 12
item in the Inattention/Overactivity with Aggression Conners Rating Scale (Loney and Milich 1982), which asks parents to rate how much the adjective describes their child “at this time.” Daily child worry was measured with a single item asking: “How much did your child appear to be sad or worried today?” Answer choices on a four-point scale included: Not at all, Just a little, Some, and A lot. This question was modified from an item in the Preschool Behavior Questionnaire (Behar and Stringfield 1974), which asks parents to rate how much the child exhibits each behavior.
For both child behaviors, prior research has demonstrated the reliability and validity of multi-item scale versions adapted for measuring daily externalizing and internalizing behavior problems (Gassman- Pines 2015). In the current study, single items were used to reduce respondent burden and attrition.
Dichotomous indicator variables were set equal to 1 if the parent responded Some or A lot and 0 if the parent responded Not at all or Just a little. These single-item measures have been validated as they were both positively correlated with daily disruptions to school and care during the COVID-19 pandemic (Gassman-Pines, Ananat et al. 2021).
Job type (e.g., treatment vs. control) was categorized as follows: for each of up to 3 jobs reported by a respondent, a job was coded as a “treatment” job if it was an hourly position at a venue listed by the City of Emeryville as regulated under the FWO. A job was coded as a “control” job if it was at a retail or food establishment in Emeryville that was listed by the City as not covered under the FWO, or if it was outside of Emeryville or outside of retail and food. Workers were categorized as in the treatment group if they had at least one treatment job; otherwise, they were classified as in the control group. All respondents had at least one hourly position in food service or retail in Emeryville, but respondents could also have additional jobs outside of Emeryville, outside of food or retail, and/or paid other than hourly.
Analytic strategy
To ev
aluate the job-experience relationships of interest, i.e. effects on schedule unpredictability, the following equation was used:
𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡= 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖∗ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡+ 𝛽𝛽2 ∗ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡+ 𝛽𝛽3 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖+ 𝜓𝜓𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖+ 𝜏𝜏𝑡𝑡+ 𝜖𝜖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 13
for outcome Y for person i in job j on day t, where 𝜓𝜓 represents a vector of individual-by-job fixed effects and 𝜏𝜏 is an indicator for whether day t falls on a weekend. Previous research shows that both work and home experiences differ dramatically between weekends and weekdays for workers in these types of jobs (Ryan, Bernstein et al. 2010, Shrout, Bolger et al. 2010, Gassman-Pines 2011, Gassman- Pines, Ananat et al. 2020, Ananat and Gassman-Pines 2021). Because of idiosyncratic variation in individual start days, respondents experience different numbers of weekend days, which would, if we simply averaged across days within person and wave, lead to greatly increased noise in our estimates.
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is an indicator variable equal to one if job j was at a treated firm subject to FWO regulations, and zero otherwise. We measure job-experience outcomes (hours changes, surprise shifts, and cancelled shift) at the person-job-day, rather than person-day, level because the variation in those outcomes exists at the person-job-day level. For example, we measure canceled shifts at the person-job- day level because a worker with two jobs might have had a shift canceled at one job on a given day, while on the same day their shift at another job was not canceled. As we are interested in whether the policy affects scheduling practices such as this, and as the policy can, in some cases, affect one of a respondent’s jobs but not the other, examining job outcomes separately is scientifically appropriate. Note, however, that most respondents have only one job (Table 1), so this has only a minor effect on our sample size.
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 is an indicator variable equal to one if day t falls during the post-implementation period, and zero otherwise. The definition of the post-implementation period is somewhat ambiguous because Emeryville began implementation with a “soft roll-out,” as discussed above. To accommodate this ambiguity, our main results include three separate approaches to defining pre- and post: (1) base estimates only on pre-implementation (Wave 1) and full enforcement (Wave 3) data, with full enforcement Wave 3 observations defined as post-implementation; (2) include all observations and define both soft roll-out and full-enforcement observations as post-implementation; and (3) include all observations, and estimate:
𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡= 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖∗ 𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇2𝑡𝑡+ 𝛽𝛽2 ∗ 𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇2𝑡𝑡+ 𝛽𝛽3 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖∗ 𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇3𝑡𝑡 +𝛽𝛽4 ∗ 𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊𝑇𝑇3𝑡𝑡+ 𝛽𝛽5 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖+ 𝜓𝜓𝑖𝑖+ 𝜏𝜏𝑡𝑡+ 𝜖𝜖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 14
This specification allows us to estimate the effect of the FWO during the soft roll-out (represented by the estimated value of the coefficient 𝛽𝛽1) separately from the effect of the FWO during full enforcement (represented by the estimated value of the coefficient 𝛽𝛽3), and we report the estimates for both effects in our main results.
Work
er and family well-being (worker sleep quality and mood, parenting behaviors, and child behavior) exist only at the person-day level, evaluated using the following equation:
𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡= 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖∗ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡+ 𝛽𝛽2 ∗ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡+ 𝛽𝛽3 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+ 𝜓𝜓𝑖𝑖+ 𝜏𝜏𝑡𝑡+ 𝜖𝜖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡 for o
utcome Y for person i on day t. 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 is equal to one if person i had at least one treatment job, and equal to zero otherwise. All other variables are as defined above, and a parallel specification shift was made to estimate our third approach to modeling soft roll-out and full enforcement effects.
In addition to fixed effects for each respondent, we cluster our standard errors at the person level, to reflect the fact that observations for a given respondent across jobs, days, and waves are not independent of one another. Clustering of standard errors relaxes the assumption that errors are independent and identically distributed and allows for errors within a cluster (in this case, a person) to instead be arbitrarily correlated. With 78 respondents in our analytical sample, we have a large enough sample to estimate person-fixed effects, use our average of 86 observations per respondent to estimate standard errors clustered on person, and then to estimate effects of the policy. 1 RESULTS
Descriptive Results
Table 1 reports descriptive results at baseline for the analysis sample, overall and separately for the treatment and control groups (defined at Wave 1). Respondents were, on average, 30 years old, with
1 Our highly racially diverse sample means, however, that we have a small number of respondents of each race - ethnic identity. Estimates with fixed effects and clustering, regardless of how large their total N, do not exhibit large-sample properties when they include only a small set of clusters (Angrist & Pischke 2009), meaning our sample is unfortunately not adequate to estimate such models.
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 15
11.7 years of education, and had their first child at age 24. The majority, 86 percent, of the sample identified as female. Just under 30 percent had ever been married. They were racially and ethnically diverse: 31 percent were Hispanic (of any race); 45 percent were non-Hispanic Black; 8 percent were non-Hispanic White; 8 percent were non-Hispanic Asian-American; 1.2 percent were non-Hispanic Native American; and 7.1 percent were non-Hispanic multiracial. On average, they held 1.13 jobs.
Respondents’ household income averaged $2,795 per month. The majority of respondents lived with at least one other adult: 58 percent lived with a romantic partner, and 21 percent lived with a parent. On average respondents had 1.8 children. Fifty-eight percent held at least one treatment job.
Financial strain was common among respondents. Over one in five reported generally not having enough money to make ends meet, with another half reporting generally having just enough. Nearly two- thirds of respondents doubted they could access funds to pay for a $1000 emergency. About the same number had to borrow from friends or family in the past year to make ends meet, while 37 percent had applied for government assistance.
Not surprisingly given all these stressors, respondents reported mental health challenges as well.
More than one in four reported finding it “often or always” difficult to relax, and one in ten “often or always” felt downhearted or blue. Similarly, 21 percent of respondents reported that their focal child was often “somewhat or very” worried, and 10 percent that their focal child was often “somewhat or very” unhappy, depressed, or tearful.
Across most characteristics, baseline characteristics were well-balanced across treatment and control. Among 24 characteristics, two were significantly different between the groups at the 10 percent level, consistent with chance. This balance suggests that, among hourly service workers with young children, there is little selection on observables into treatment (larger firm) versus control (smaller firm) jobs.
The exception to this balance was differences in child care arrangements, with those in treatment jobs less likely to access formal childcare and more likely to instead rely on relative care, and for more hours per week. We interpret these differences as a reflections of the jobs themselves rather than selection
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 16
into them; as shown in Figure 1, at baseline treatment jobs were more unpredictable, which, as documented in other work (Luhr et al., this volume) makes use of formal childcare more challenging.
Note, however, that even if the difference in childcare suggested imbalance on unobservables between the treatment and control groups, difference-in-difference designs do not require baseline equality between treatment and control; rather, we instead rely on the much weaker assumption of parallel trends.
Table 2 summarizes all daily work and well-being outcomes across people, jobs, and waves.
Because there were significant differences in these measures across race, we report both overall means and means for non-Hispanic Blacks, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Asian-Americans, and Hispanics (of any race). Overall, some type of schedule change was made on nearly 11 percent of job-days, with a significantly greater share of days with a change among Asian-American respondents (17 percent) and a significantly lower share among White respondents (8 percent). The majority of schedule changes were last-minute, with less than 24 hours’ notice; White respondents were less likely to experience changes at the last minute (4.7 percent of days versus 7.0 percent for the sample overall).
Among the types of schedule changes, a change in work hours was the most common, occurring on 5.4 percent of days on average but at almost twice that frequency, 10.3 percent of days, among Asian- Americans. Surprise shifts were the least common type of schedule change, occurring on less than 1 percent of days, with no differences across groups. Across all waves, respondents worked on about 55 percent of job-days; Asian-Americans and Hispanic respondents were more likely than average to work on a given day. The average shift length on any given work day was 7.1 hours, but was higher for Whites, at 7.4 hours, and lower for Asian-Americans, at 6.7 hours.
Finally, in terms of family well-being outcomes, negative mood was fairly common, with respondents overall reporting negative mood on 42 percent of days. White respondents reported significantly more days with negative mood (60 percent of days), while Hispanic respondents reported fewer (32 percent). Sleep difficulties were greater among Whites and lower among Asian-Americans; harsh parenting behaviors were higher among Whites and Asian-Americans than among the population
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 17
overall. Black and Asian-American parents reported more days with child uncooperativeness and child worry than did the sample overall. Child behavior problems were relatively infrequent across all groups.
Impacts of the Emeryville FWO
Table 3 reports effects of the FWO on schedule disruption outcomes; given small sample sizes, we were not able to separately estimate effects of the FWO by race and ethnicity, as discussed above.
Across all models, results showed that the FWO led to a decrease in any schedule change overall, with point estimates ranging from 2.5 percentage points to 5.5 percentage points, though not all point estimates reached conventional levels of statistical significance. Results from model three suggest that decreases in schedule changes occurred right away, in the soft-roll out phase of enforcement. The estimates from our third model are also presented in Figure 1, which shows that treatment jobs had more frequent schedule changes than control jobs in the pre-period, but that rates of schedule changes for the treatment jobs declined to the same level as the control jobs once the FWO was implemented. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 1, the same pattern of results was found for last-minute changes: the FWO reduced last-minute schedule changes. Again, although not all estimates reached conventional levels of statistical significance, the pattern of findings is consistent with a decline in last-minute changes following FWO implementation for the treatment jobs relative to the control jobs.
Among the types of schedule disruptions considered, we found that surprise shifts were most strongly affected by the FWO, while point estimates for changes in work hours follow a similar, but not statistically significant, pattern (Table 3). Shift cancellations were not affected by the FWO. As shown in Figure 1, treatment jobs had more frequent surprise shifts in the pre-period but rates of surprise shifts for the treatment jobs declined once the FWO was implemented, and were lower than rates in control jobs by the full-enforcement phase.
Table 4 reports effects of the FWO on daily work and hours outcomes. Results show that the FWO decreased the likelihood of working in a treatment job on any given day. The effect size was substantial, with decreases in wave three of about 12 percentage points. As shown in Figure 1, the likelihood of working in a treatment or control job on any given day were very similar prior to the
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 18
implementation of the FWO. During the post-period, the likelihood of working in a control job on any given day increased slightly while the likelihood of working in a treatment job decreased.
At the same time, however, results also showed that the FWO increased the length of shifts on work days. By the full enforcement phase, the increase in work hours was about .4 hours, on average.
When combining the two effects by considering average work hours including zeroes for non-work days, the FWO did not significantly affect hours worked within a job. Workers do not appear to have increased work in non-regulated firms in response to changes in their treatment jobs, given that average work hours across all jobs were also not significantly affected by the FWO.
Finally, Table 5 reports effects of the FWO on parent and child outcomes. Considering parental well-being, the FWO decreased sleep difficulty (defined by reverse-coding and then normalizing the sleep quality responses that had been gathered using a 1-10 scale), though not all estimates reach conventional levels of statistical significance. In wave 3, sleep difficulty decreased by nearly .28 SD for those in treatment jobs, relative to those in control jobs. As show in Figure 1, those in treatment jobs experienced more sleep difficulty than those in control jobs prior to the implementation of the FWO, with sleep difficulty decreasing substantially during the full enforcement phase. Effects on daily parental negative mood were also in the negative direction, but did not reach statistical significance. We did not find any effects of the FWO on either parenting behaviors or child behavior.
Robustness Checks
We conducted a variety of robustness checks (all results available on request). First, we ran all models on a balanced panel of participants who participated in all waves, rather than only in at least one post-implementation wave. Results were substantially similar to those reported here. Second, we ran all models using initial treatment status at the person-level only. Results were in the same direction and of similar magnitude to those described here but were less precisely estimated. Third, we ran all models using a continuous definition of treatment status defined by the share of total work hours worked at a treatment job at baseline; results were substantially similar. Fourth, we ran models of hours worked dropping observations for which hours information was incomplete and had to be imputed; results were
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 19
substantially similar. Fifth, we estimated all models for demographic subgroups defined by race, ethnicity, gender, and education; unfortunately, sample sizes became too small for interpretation.
DISCUSSION
Low-income families in the 21st century, especially those working in the service sector, faced high levels of unpredictability in work hours and pay, even prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its disruptions to the labor market. Anecdotally, there seems to be little possibility that the pandemic and its related economic dislocations have improved predictability. Local regulations aimed at reducing unpredictability in work schedules are a new innovation in labor policy that were gaining traction in many localities, and one state, in the United States prior to the pandemic, but little is known about such policies’ effects and, therefore, whether predictability for low-income families will be improved by encouraging more localities to adopt such policies going forward. Emeryville, CA is one of only a handful of localities that has passed such an ordinance. This paper, thus, addresses a gap in the literature by being the first to examine the effect of Emeryville’s Fair Workweek Ordinance on working parents and their families.
We find that the Fair Workweek Ordinance (FWO) succeeded in reducing schedule unpredictability for workers with young children, particularly changes in start and end times of shifts and surprise shifts. The FWO also decreased the number of workdays significantly for treated workers in our sample, while increasing the hours worked on workdays and leaving total work hours insignificantly affected. It is possible that these changes were concentrated among those, like our sample, with caregiving responsibilities, and represent a re-assignment by employers of short, unpredictable, or otherwise difficult shifts from such workers to workers without caregiving responsibilities, for whom such marginal shifts are less costly. Future work should examine effects of schedule predictability legislation on different populations of workers.
The regulatory success of the FWO translated into some health benefits for workers in regulated jobs, in particular, improved sleep quality. Thus, even with a relatively small sample size, this paper thus presents important initial evidence that this type of policy change can affect work schedule
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 20
unpredictability among working parents, and can do so by impacting individual workers rather than merely by shifting sector composition.
These findings are notable in the context of the remarkable changes in work in the last half century, with increasing instability and unpredictability in employment, hours, and pay, especially for workers with less access to formal higher education. Historically, regulations played a large role in shaping today’s workplaces, for example through minimum wages and anti-discrimination policy, and also created the current U.S. norms around scheduling, including the 8-hour workday and the weekend.
But in recent years, regulation of the labor market has focused little attention on scheduling, despite the fact that the nature of work schedules has been shifting dramatically. In particular, while the earlier generation of scheduling regulation concentrated on preventing employers from extracting too much labor from workers, many of today’s workers fear instead too much variability and unpredictability in work and pay. That is, recent concerns focus on employers shifting the risk of variable customer demand from themselves to their employees, by giving workers neither hours nor pay when demand is unexpectedly low. Indeed, the Emeryville ordinance studied in this paper was passed in response to such concerns.
Our results show that the Emeryville FWO decreased schedule changes and, in particular, last- minute schedule changes. These impacts are notable because these are the dimensions of schedule changes that our own prior research has shown to be particularly costly for working parents and their families, in terms of reduced parental well-being (Ananat and Gassman-Pines 2021). These findings are also consistent with those from an evaluation of Seattle’s secure scheduling law that examined all workers (rather than focusing on parents) and found that Seattle’s law also decreased last-minute schedule changes (Harknett, Schneider et al. 2021). This convergent evidence suggests that local schedule regulations can be a fruitful path for addressing unpredictability in work schedules for low-income families. Importantly, we observe these changes immediately after the law was passed, during the “soft roll-out” phase of enforcement. Although the City only began fining non-compliant businesses during full enforcement, our results suggest that simply having a law go into effect is a powerful change that leads at least some firms to comply, even if they are not at risk of being fined or penalized.
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 21
We also find that changing scheduling practices through this local ordinance leads employers in covered firms to reduce the number of shifts that employees work. However, the FWO leads to increased hours for parents on the days when they do work, leaving no significant changes in average hours worked.
Given the fixed costs of working on a given day, including making child care arrangements and commuting, it is plausible that on net these scheduling changes made workers better off. Consistent with this possibility, the net effect of the Emeryville FWO was to improve workers’ well-being as proxied by subjective sleep quality. Working parents, in particular, are likely to place a high value on the stability of work schedules, as stable work schedules make balancing the demands of work and family easier (Henly 2004, Henly and Lambert 2014).
The evidence related to the effects of scheduling regulation on worker sleep quality is notable for several reasons. First, these results are highly similar to those found in the Seattle evaluation; Seattle’s ordinance also improved subjective sleep quality (Harknett, Schneider et al. 2021). This converging evidence underscores the role for scheduling regulation in improving workers’ sleep quality. Second, service sector workers emphasize sleep disruptions and poor-quality sleep as consequences of schedule unpredictability (Human Impact Partners and Center for Popular Democracy 2016), and our own prior work in Emeryville showed these effects on a daily level (Ananat and Gassman-Pines 2021). Reductions in work schedule unpredictability may improve sleep quality for a number of reasons, including: by helping to stabilize daily routines; by facilitating circadian rhythms, which can be disrupted by unstable and unpredictable work schedules; and by reducing job strain, each of which has been linked to sleep quality (Eriksen, Bjorvatn et al. 2008, Moss, Carney et al. 2015, Kecklund and Axelsson 2016). Other aspects of work life, such as commute time, may also play a role in exacerbating links between unpredictable work schedules and worse sleep quality, as longer commutes themselves are associated with worse sleep (Petrov, Weng et al. 2018); the shift to longer work hours on fewer days may have thus contributed to better sleep by reducing total commute time.
Finally, subjective sleep quality is also a marker of well-being and an important input into both physical and mental health (Brewster, Billy et al. 1993, Bower, Bylsma et al. 2010). Worse sleep quality,
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 22
for example, is related to both heart disease in the adult population (Cappuccio, Cooper et al. 2011) and depression among parents (Park, Meltzer-Brody et al. 2013). Poor sleep quality is associated with more harsh parenting behavior (Kelly, Erath et al. 2021), and worse daily sleep quality has been found to exacerbate the effects of chronic and daily stressors on daily negative parental mood (da Estrela, Barker et al. 2018, Lillis, Hamilton et al. 2018, Mihaila and Hartley 2018). Thus, improvements in sleep quality may have the potential to lead to longer-term improvements in family functioning and child wellbeing, such as more positive parent-child interactions, reduced parental stress, and improved child behavior.
Future research should investigate the mechanisms connecting unpredictable work schedules to worse sleep quality, the family well-being consequences of improved sleep quality, and moderation by other aspects of work, such as commute time. While the small population of Emeryville means we were underpowered to detect downstream effects on children’s well-being even in a 1-in-6 probability sample, the implications are conceptually clear, as children are influenced and constrained by their parents’ lived experiences in the labor market (Ananat, Gassman-Pines et al. 2017). Links between parental well-being and child adjustment are well established (Cummings and Davies 1994, Cummings, Keller et al. 2005, Cummings, Davies et al. 2020). Parents who are experiencing psychological distress tend to have more difficulty acting as sensitive caregivers, which can lead to increased behavior problems and other difficulties for children (Dix, Gershoff et al. 2004).
We note that our sample included only working parents with young children, a group that is particularly strongly affected by work schedule unpredictability but is not representative of all workers in the treatment firms. It is possible, for example, that workers without young children (the majority of workers) may have experienced an increase in work shifts due to the Emeryville FWO, if they were willing to add shifts on short notice. Our results are not meant to generalize to all Emeryville retail and fast food employees, but only to employees with young children, a group of a priori concern due to both their vulnerability and their relevance to public policy.
Our methodological approach, pioneered in this study, has several strengths that enhance the contribution of this work. First, although small, our use of a venue-time sampling strategy resulted in a
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 23
sample that is representative of Emeryville workers in retail or food service with a child between the ages of two and seven. Given that such a population is unrostered and difficult to enumerate, implementing a representative sampling strategy was a major innovation. Second, we followed our sample longitudinally, which avoids bias from compositional changes in the workforces of firms after they become regulated.
Therefore, our results cannot be explained by, for example, covered businesses becoming more attractive to workers with better mental health after FWO implementation. Finally, work schedule disruptions were measured via daily surveys, which avoids recall bias, a problem we have shown in previous work to be sizeable in reporting the frequency of schedule changes (Ananat & Gassman-Pines, 2021).
We do note, however, that despite our ability to follow the same representative sample longitudinally, it is still possible that endogenous sector-switching in response to time-varying worker characteristics could be driving some of our results. For example, if employment in covered businesses became more attractive post-FWO implementation, and therefore workers who experienced changes (such as becoming newly partnered and therefore better able to manage child care) that made them more desirable employees became more likely to switch into the covered sector than they would have been in the absence of the FWO, that could threaten the validity of our findings if these same changes also had direct impacts on worker well-being. The waves, however, were fielded only a few months apart, so any changes in employee characteristics, subsequent changes in employee desirability, and resulting changes in employment would have had to unfold quite quickly.
Additionally, our small overall sample size prevented us from examining subgroup effects.
Understanding the heterogeneity in effects of schedule regulations for workers with different characteristics is important for future study, and will be facilitated by research with larger sample sizes.
Finally, examining effects on employers was outside the scope of this study. Emerging literature would suggest that employers likely faced some challenges in implementing the law’s provisions, but also that they may have benefited in terms of enhanced worker productivity and sales. Additional research should investigate effects on employers to understand the comprehensive impacts of scheduling regulations.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 24
To summarize, our results show that the Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance (FWO) reduced schedule unpredictability for working parents of young children, a group that has particular difficulty balancing work and family and is of policy concern. The FWO also decreased the number of work shifts, but increased shift length, leaving total work hours unchanged. The FWO also improved one measure of well-being: sleep quality. This is important initial evidence that secure scheduling policy changes can affect work schedule unpredictability among working parents, and, ultimately, these parents’ well-being.
Parents working in the service sector face a myriad of challenges in balancing their work and family demands, which have plausibly only worsened in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Work schedule unpredictability is a particularly salient and ongoing challenge that has been highlighted by workers, labor organizers, and social science scholars. Emeryville’s law improved schedule predictability and well-being for working parents, suggesting that such laws could provide a pathway towards increasing predictability for low-income families.
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 25
REFERENCES
Ananat, Elizabeth O., and Anna Gassman-Pines. 2021. "Work schedule unpredictability: daily occurrence and effects on working parents’ well-being.” Journal of Marriage and Family 81(1): 10-26.
Ananat, Elizabeth O., Anna Gassman-Pines, Dania V. Francis, and Christina M. Gibson-Davis. 2017. "Linking job loss, inequality, mental health, and education." Science 356(6343): 1127-1128.
Ananat, Elizabeth O., Anna Gassman-Pines, and Yulya Truskinovsky (forthcoming). “Increasing instability and uncertainty among low-wage workers: Implications for inequality and potential policy solutions.” The Politics of Distribution. F. Rosenbluth and M. Weir. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Angrist, Joshua D. and Jörn-Steffen Pischke (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2013. "The Geography of Trade and Technology Shocks in the United States." The American Economic Review 103(3): 220-225.
Bamberg, Eva, Jan Dettmers, Hannah Funck, Birgit Krähe, and Tim Vahle‐Hinz. 2012. "Effects of On‐ Call Work on Well‐Being: Results of a Daily Survey 1." Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being 4(3): 299-320.
Behar, Lenore, and Samuel Stringfield. 1974. "A behavior rating scale for the preschool child." Developmental Psychology 10: 601-610.
Bower, Bethanne, Lauren M. Bylsma, Bethany H. Morris, and Jonathan Rottenberg. 2010. "Poor reported sleep quality predicts low positive affect in daily life among healthy and mood‐disordered persons." Journal of Sleep Research 19(2): 323-332.
Cummings, E. Mark, and Patrick T. Davies. 1994. "Maternal depression and child development." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35(1): 73-122.
Cummings, E. Mark, Patrick T. Davies, and Susan B. Campbell. 2020. Developmental Psychopathology and Family Process: Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications. Guilford Publications.
Cummings, E. Mark, Peggy S. Keller, and Patrick T. Davies. 2005. "Towards a family process model of maternal and paternal depressive symptoms: Exploring multiple relations with child and family functioning." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46(5): 479-489. da Estrela, Chelsea, Erin T. Barker, Sarah Lantagne, and Jean-Phillippe Gouin. 2018. "Chronic parenting stress and mood reactivity: The role of sleep quality." Stress and Health 34(2): 296-305.
Dettmers, Jan, Tim Vahle-Hinz, Eva Bamberg, Niklas Friedrich, and Monika Keller. 2016. "Extended work availability and its relation with start-of-day mood and cortisol." Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 21(1): 105.
Dix, Theodore, Elizabeth T. Gershoff, Leah N. Meunier, and Pamela C. Miller. 2004. "The affective structure of supportive parenting: depressive symptoms, immediate emotions, and child-oriented motivation." Developmental Psychology 40(6): 1212.
Dynan, Karen, Douglas Elmendorf, and Daniel Sichel. 2012. "The evolution of household income volatility." The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 12(2).
Furlong, William J., David H. Feeny, George W. Torrance, and Ronald D. Barr. 2001. "The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies." Annals of Medicine 33(5): 375-384.
Gassman-Pines, Anna. 2011. "Low-income mothers’ nighttime and weekend work: Daily associations with child behavior, mother-child interactions and mood." Family Relations 60: 15-29.
Gassman-Pines, Anna. 2015. "Effects of Mexican immigrant parents’ daily workplace discrimination on child behavior and family functioning." Child Development 18: 1175-1190.
Gassman-Pines, Anna, Elizabeth O. Ananat, John Fitz-Henley II, and Jane Leer. 2021. "Effect of daily school and care disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic on child behavior problems." Gassman-Pines, Anna, Elizabeth O. Ananat and John Fitz-Henley. 2020. "COVID-19 and parent-child psychological well-being." Pediatrics 146(4).
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 26
Gassman‐Pines, Anna, and Anika Schenck‐Fontaine. 2019. "Daily Food Insufficiency and Worry among Economically Disadvantaged Families with Young Children." Journal of Marriage and Family.
George, Madeleine J., Joshua G. Rivenbark, Michael A. Russell, Leonard Ng'eno, Rick H. Hoyle, and Candice L. Odgers. 2019. "Evaluating the Use of Commercially Available Wearable Wristbands to Capture Adolescents’ Daily Sleep Duration." Journal of Research on Adolescence 29(3): 613-626.
Gottschalk, Peter, and Robert Moffitt. 2009. "The rising instability of US earnings." Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(4): 3-24.
Haley, Anna, and Susan Lambert. 2021. Implementing Work Scheduling Laws: Unpacking Frontline Policymaking by Retail & Food Service Managers. Work Family Research Network Conference. Virtual.
Harknett, Kristen, Daniel Schneider and Véronique Irwin (2019). Worker impact study. Evaluation of Seattle's Secure Scheduling Ordinance: Year 1 findings. West Coast Poverty Center. Seattle, WA, West Coast Poverty Center.
Harknett, Kristen, Daniel Schneider and Véronique Irwin (2021). Seattle's Secure Scheduling Ordinance Year 2 Worker Impact Report. Cambridge, MA, The Shift Project.
Härmä, Mikko, Kati Karhula, Annina Ropponen, Sampsa Puttonen, Aki Koskinen, Anneli Ojajärvi, Tarja Hakola, Jaana Pentti, Tuula Oksanen and Jussi Vahtera (2018). "Association of changes in work shifts and shift intensity with change in fatigue and disturbed sleep: a within-subject study." Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 44(4): 394-402.
Hashemian, Mahdi, Zeynep Ton and Hazhir Rahmandad (2020). "The Effect of Unstable Schedules on Unit and Employee Productivity." Social Science Research Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3839673 Henly, Julia R. (2004). “Non-standard Work and Family Life: Themes from a Qualitative Study of Low- income Mothers Employed in the Retail Sector.” Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Conference. Georgia (October 2004).
Henly, Julia R. and Susan J. Lambert (2014). "Unpredictable work timing in retail jobs: Implications for employee work–life conflict." ILR Review 67(3): 986-1016.
Henly, Julia. R., H. Luke Shaefer and Elaine Waxman (2006). "Nonstandard work schedules: Employer- and employee-driven flexibility in retail jobs." Social Service Review 80(4): 609-634.
Horsman, John, William Furlong, David Feeny and George Torrance (2003). "The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications." Health and quality of life outcomes 1(1): 54.
Human Impact Partners and Center for Popular Democracy (2016). Scheduling away our health: how unpredictable work hours affect health and well-being. The Center for Popular Democracy.
Kelly, Ryan J., Stephen A. Erath, Olivia Martin-Piñón and Mona El-Sheikh (2021). "Longitudinal relations between parents’ sleep problems and harsh parenting." Journal of Family Psychology.
Kesavan, S., S. Lambert, Joan Williams and Pradeep Pendem (2020). "Doing Well By Doing Good:
Improving Store Performance with Employee-friendly Scheduling Practices at the Gap, Inc." Social Science Research Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3731670 Lambert, Susan J., Peter J. Fugiel and Julia R. Henly (2014). "Precarious work schedules among early- career employees in the US: A national snapshot." Research brief. Chicago: University of Chicago, Employment Instability, Family Well-Being, and Social Policy Network (EINet).
Lee, Soomi, Kelly D. Davis, Susan M. McHale, Erin L. Kelly, Ellen E. Kossek and Ann C. Crouter (2017). "When mothers’ work matters for youths’ daily time use: Implications of evening and weekend shifts." Journal of child and family studies 26(8): 2077-2089.
Lillis, Teresa A., Nancy A. Hamilton, Sarah D. Pressman, Maisa S. Ziadni, Christina S. Khou, Lauren E.
Boddy and Linzy M. Wagner (2018). "Sleep quality buffers the effects of negative social interactions on maternal mood in the 3–6 month postpartum period: a daily diary study." Journal of behavioral medicine 41(5): 733-746.
Loney, Jan and Richard Milich (1982). “Hyperactivity, inattention, and aggression in clinical practice.” Advances in development and behavioral pediatrics. M. Wolraich and D. K. Rough. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press. 3: 113-147.
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 27
Loustaunau, Lola, Larissa Petrucci, Amelia Coffey, Eleanor Lauderback, H. Elizabeth Peters, Ellen Scott and Lina Stepick (2020). Combating Unstable Schedules for Low-wage Workers in Oregon. Urban Institue.
Sigrid Luhr, Daniel Schneider, and Kristen Harknett. "Parenting without Predictability: Precarious Schedules, Parental Strain, and Work-Life Conflict." RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. Volume number (Issue number): Page range. DOI:
Mihaila, Iulia and Sigan L. Hartley (2018). "Parental sleep quality and behavior problems of children with autism." Autism 22(3): 236-244.
Morduch, Jonathan and Rachel Schneider (2017). The financial diaries: How American families cope in a world of uncertainty. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Muhib, Farazana B., Lillian S. Lin, Ann Stueve, Robin L. Miller, Wesley L. Ford, Wayne D. Johnson, Philip J. Smith and Community Intervention Trial for Youth Study Team (2001). "A venue-based method for sampling hard-to-reach populations." Public health reports 116(1 suppl): 216-222.
Park, Eliza M., Samantha Meltzer-Brody and Robert Stickgold (2013). "Poor sleep maintenance and subjective sleep quality are associated with postpartum maternal depression symptom severity." Archives of women's mental health 16(6): 539-547.
Ryan, Richard M., Jessey H. Bernstein and Kirk W. Brown (2010). "Weekends, Work, and Well-Being:
Psychological Need Satisfactions and Day of the Week Effects on Mood, Vitality, and Physical Symptoms." Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 29(1): 95-122.
Schneider, Daniel and Kristen Harknett (2019). "Consequences of Routine Work-Schedule Instability for Worker Health and Well-Being." American Sociological Review 84(1): 82-114.
Schwartz, Ari, Michael Wasser, Merrit Gillard and Michael Paarlberg (2015). Unpredictable, unsustainable: The impact of employers' scheduling practices in D.C. D.C. Jobs with Justice.
Shrout, Patrick E., Niall Bolger, Masumi Iida, Christopher Burke, Marci E. J. Gleason and Sean P. Lane (2010). “Acute stress: results from a diary study of bar exam preparation.” Support Processes in Intimate Relationships. Kieran T. Sullivan and Joanne Davila. New York, Oxford University Press: 175-199.
Sprajcer, Madeline, Sarah M. Jay, Grace E. Vincent, Andrew Vakulin, Leon Lack and Sally A. Ferguson (2018). "Uncertain call likelihood negatively affects sleep and next-day cognitive performance while on- call in a laboratory environment." Chronobiology international 35(6): 838-848.
Williams, Joan C., Susan J. Lambert, Saravanan Kesavan, Peter J. Fugiel, Lori A. Ospina, Erin D.
Rapoport, Meghan Jarpe, Dylan Bellisle, Pradeep Pandem, Lisa McCorkell and Sarah Adler-Milstein (2018). Stable Scheduling Increases Productivity and Sales. The Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise.
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 28
Table 1. Sample characteristics at baseline
Respondent Characteristics Overall
No
treatment
job (C)
1+
treatment
job (T)
Significant
difference
between
T and C
Age (mean) 29.6 30.9 28.45 +
Female 86.2% 86.7% 85.4%
Education (mean years) 11.7 12.2 11.4
Has 12 or more years of education 73.4% 76.9% 71.8%
Age at First Birth (mean) 23.5 23.8 23.1
Ever married 28.2% 36.4% 20.0% +
Race/Ethnicity:
Hispanic (of any race) 30.6% 31.8% 30.0%
African-American (non-Hispanic) 44.7% 43.2% 45.0%
Caucasian (non-Hispanic) 8.2% 4.5% 12.5%
Asian (non-Hispanic) 8.2% 11.4% 5.0%
Native American (non-Hispanic) 1.2% 0.0% 2.5%
Multi-racial (non-Hispanic) 7.1% 9.1% 5.0%
Household Characteristics
Number of children (mean) 1.80 1.84 1.77
Respondent currently married or living w/ partner 58.3% 61.4% 56.4% Respondent lives with a parent 21.4% 23.3% 17.5%
Focal Child Characteristics
Age (mean) 3.6 4.0 3.2
Female 54.4% 61.4% 44.1%
Care arrangements:
enrolled in Head Start 35.4% 52.3% 11.8% **
enrolled in daycare 50.0% 62.8% 32.4% **
enrolled in afterschool 17.9% 20.9% 14.7%
receives care from non-respondent parent 46.8% 39.5% 55.9% receives care from other relative 40.0% 26.2% 59.4% ** Total hours of non-respondent care per week (mean) 38.2 30.0 47.8 ** Work situation
at least one treatment job covered by FWO 57.7% 0.0% 100.0% # of jobs held by respondent (mean) 1.13 1.10 1.19
Monthly household income (mean) $2,795 $2,945 $2,633
Respondent Mental Health
Often or always found it difficult to relax 26.3% 23.3% 31.3% Often or always felt down-hearted or blue 10.5% 7.0% 15.6% Focal Child Mental Health
Often somewhat or very worried 21.5% 15.9% 29.4%
Often somewhat or very unhappy, depressed, or tearful 10.1% 9.1% 11.8% N = 78; + p<.10
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 29
Table 2. Daily Outcomes Across Waves
Person-job-days Overall
Non-
Hispanic
Black
Non-
Hispanic
White
Non-
Hispanic
Asian-
American
Hispanic
(any race)
Share with any schedule change 0.106 0.105 0.078 0.173 0.100 (0.004) (0.006) (0.011) (0.015) (0.007)
Share with last minute change 0.700 0.073 0.047 0.086 0.076 (0.003) (0.005) (0.009) (0.011) (0.006)
Share with achange in work hours 0.055 0.051 0.054 0.103 0.051 (0.003) (0.004) (0.009) (0.012) (0.005)
Share with a cancelled shift 0.041 0.043 0.017 0.064 0.040 (0.002) (0.004) (0.005) (0.009) (0.005)
Share with a surprise shift 0.010 0.012 0.007 0.006 0.010 (0.001) (0.002) (0.003) (0.003) (0.002)
Share worked today 0.547 0.509 0.503 0.613 0.603
(0.006) (0.009) (0.021) (0.019) (0.011)
Mean hours worked on work days 7.12 7.15 7.39 6.73 7.17 standard deviation 2.01 2.02 1.62 2.00 1.99
(0.03) (0.05) (0.10) (0.10) (0.06)
Mean hours worked including non-work days 3.83 3.49 3.70 4.08 4.11 standard deviation 3.84 3.84 3.87 3.64 3.85
(0.05) (0.07) (0.16) (0.14) (0.09)
N 6,945 3,107 575 671 1,875
Person-days
Share parent had negative mood 0.422 0.423 0.598 0.447 0.361 (0.006) (0.010) (0.020) (0.020) (0.012)
Raw Sleep Difficulty (1-10 scale) (mean) 2.9 2.8 3.8 2.6 2.8 standard deviation 2.21 2.2 1.92 1.45 2.48
(0.03) (0.04) (0.08) (0.06) (0.06)
Share lost temper 0.092 0.097 0.078 0.113 0.093
(0.004) (0.006) (0.011) (0.013) (0.007)
Share punished child 0.084 0.071 0.134 0.108 0.077
(0.004) (0.005) (0.014) (0.013) (0.007)
Share child was uncooperative most/all of the 0.139 0.159 0.137 0.187 0.099 day (0.004) (0.007) (0.014) (0.016) (0.007)
Share child was worried most/all of the day 0.054 0.063 0.045 0.087 0.032 (0.003) (0.005) (0.009) (0.011) (0.004)
N 6,059 2,610 575 611 1,653
Standard errors in parentheses.
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 30
Table 3. Effect of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance on daily work schedule disruptions
Wave 3
only as
Post
Waves 2
and 3 as
Post
Waves 2
and 3
unique
effects
Outcome: Any schedule change
Policy impacta b -0.037 -.042+ -0.025
(0.029) (0.024) (0.028)
Wave 2 policy impact -.055*
(0.025)
Outcome: Last-minute schedule change
Policy impacta b -0.032 -.034+ -0.029
(0.022) (0.019) (0.021)
Wave 2 policy impact -.039+
(0.020)
Outcome: Change in work hours
Policy impacta b -0.031 -0.027 -0.021
(.022) (.021) (.024)
Wave 2 policy impact -0.031
(.022)
Outcome: Canceled shift
Policy impacta b 0.012 0.002 0.014
(.015) (.011) (.014)
Wave 2 policy impact -0.008
(.012)
Outcome: Surprise shift
Policy impacta b -.019* -.017* -.019*
(.007) (.007) (.007)
Wave 2 policy impact -.016*
(.008)
a Treatment x Wave 3 for Models 1 and 3
b Treatment x post (Wave 2 and 3) for Model 2
+ p < .10; * p < .05
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 31
Table 4. Effect of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance on daily work and work hours
Model 1:
Wave 3 only
as Post
Model 2:
Waves 2
and 3 as
Post
Model 3:
Waves 2 and 3
unique effects
Outcome: Worked today
Policy impacta b -.128* -.098* -.118+
(.064) (.048) (.058)
Wave 2 policy impact -0.082
(.052)
Outcome: Hours worked on work days
Policy impacta b .509* 0.185 .393+
(.250) (.254) (.233)
Wave 2 policy impact 0.009
(.316)
Outcome: Hours worked including non-workdays
Policy impacta b -0.474 -0.433 -0.381
(.515) (.401) (.479)
Wave 2 policy impact -0.475
(.437)
Outcome: Hours worked across all jobs (including
non-work days)
Policy impacta b -0.698 0.441 -0.623
(.743) (.666) (.734)
Wave 2 policy impact 1.372+
(.818)
a Treatment x Wave 3 for Models 1 and 3
b Treatment x post (Wave 2 and 3) for Model 2
+ p < .10; * p < .05
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 32
Table 5. Effect of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance on daily family well -being
Wave 3
only as
Post
Waves 2
and 3 as
Post
Waves 2
and 3
unique
effects
Wave 3
only as
Post
Waves 2
and 3 as
Post
Waves 2
and 3
unique
effects
Parental well-being Outcome: Parent negative mood Outcome: Parent sleep difficulty Policy impacta b -3.740 -0.869 -3.839 -.281* -0.196 -.282* (5.397) (4.172) (5.228) (0.137) (0.124) (0.136)
Wave 2 policy impact 1.738 -0.118
(3.991) (0.142)
Parenting behaviors Outcome: Lost temper Outcome: Punished child Policy impacta b -2.306 -1.693 -2.564 2.507 1.820 1.864 (1.976) (1.684) (1.886) (2.319) (1.846) (2.269)
Wave 2 policy impact -1.031 1.699
(2.216) (1.999)
Child well-being Outcome: Child uncooperative Outcome: Child worried Policy impacta b -1.328 -2.168 -2.014 0.893 0.087 0.211 (4.319) (3.242) (4.161) (2.383) (1.878) (2.355)
Wave 2 policy impact -2.539 -0.147
(3.166) (1.811)
a Treatment x Wave 3 for Models 1 and 3
b Treatment x post (Wave 2 and 3) for Model 2
+ p < .10; * p < .05
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 33
Table 6. Intent-to-Treat Analysis of Effect of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance on daily work schedule disruptions
Wave 3 only
as Post
Waves 2 and
3 as Post
Waves 2 and 3
unique effects
Outcome: Any schedule change
Policy impacta b -0.129* -.042+ -0.025
(0.064) (0.024) (0.028)
Wave 2 policy impact -.055*
(0.025)
Outcome: Last-minute schedule change
Policy impacta b -0.032 -.034+ -0.029
(0.022) (0.019) (0.021)
Wave 2 policy impact -.039+
(0.020)
Outcome: Change in work hours
Policy impacta b -0.031 -0.027 -0.021
(.022) (.021) (.024)
Wave 2 policy impact -0.031
(.022)
Outcome: Canceled shift
Policy impacta b 0.012 0.002 0.014
(.015) (.011) (.014)
Wave 2 policy impact -0.008
(.012)
Outcome: Surprise shift
Policy impacta b -.019* -.017* -.019*
(.007) (.007) (.007)
Wave 2 policy impact -.016*
(.008)
a Treatment x Wave 3 for Models 1 and 3
b Treatment x post (Wave 2 and 3) for Model
2 + p < .10; * p < .05
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 34
Table 7. Intent-to-Treat Analysis of Effect of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance on daily work and work hours
Model 1:
Wave 3 only
as Post
Model 2:
Waves 2
and 3 as
Post
Model 3:
Waves 2 and 3
unique effects
Outcome: Worked today
Policy impacta b -.129* -.098* -.118+
(.064) (.048) (.058)
Wave 2 policy impact -0.082
(.052)
Outcome: Hours worked on work days
Policy impacta b .509* 0.185 .393+
(.250) (.254) (.233)
Wave 2 policy impact 0.009
(.316)
Outcome: Hours worked including non-workdays
Policy impacta b -0.474 -0.433 -0.381
(.515) (.401) (.479)
Wave 2 policy impact -0.475
(.437)
Outcome: Hours worked across all jobs (including
non-work days)
Policy impacta b -0.698 0.441 -0.623
(.743) (.666) (.734)
Wave 2 policy impact 1.372+
(.818)
a Treatment x Wave 3 for Models 1 and 3
b Treatment x post (Wave 2 and 3) for Model 2
+ p < .10; * p < .05
Ananat, Gassman-Pines, & Fitz-Henley II – Effects of Emeryville Fair Workweek Ordinance – 35
Figure 1.
Kate Harrison
Vice Mayor, District 4
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7140 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-Mail: [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 1
Meeting Date: April 12, 2022
Item #: 40a.
Item Description: Fair Workweek Ordinance; Adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.110
Submitted by: Vice Mayor Harrison
Recommendation:
1. Delay Council consideration of the Fair Workweek Ordinance to a date certain: the May 24, 2022 Council meeting, to provide HHCS staff with additional time to consider staffing needs with regard to enforcement.
2. Submit to the June 2022 Budget Process of approximately $104,863 in General Funds with additional benefits to hire another Community Development Project Coordinator to assist with enforcement of this ordinance and other labor laws and regulations.
Background:
Vice Mayor Harrison originally submitted this ordinance to the Labor Commission in 2018. Due Council consideration and enactment of this ordinance continues to be a top priority for workers within across the city, including within the City Departments.
While the pandemic has been extremely challenging for businesses, workers have also suffered greatly. Indeed, the fight for worker rights has received renewed attention during the pandemic and following high profile unionization efforts at Starbucks and Amazon. It is in the public interest for the City of Berkeley to finish the work its started in 2018 and finally stand in solidarity with part-time workers whose schedules are precarious and uncertain. The proposed Fair Work Week Ordinance, modelled on ordinances in neighboring cities and those across the nation, would bring predictability and added compensation to part-time workers.
Vice Mayor Harrison’s office respectfully disagrees that this ordinance should be referred to a Council Policy Committee for up to another 120 days. This ordinance was already duly considered by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Paid Family Leave and Fair Work Week in 2018. In addition, the Labor Commission considered the ordinance
closely for nearly four years and submitted its updated version of the ordinance for Council action.
In consulting with the Deputy City Manager and the Director of the Health, Housing & Community Services Department, it is prudent to delay consideration of the ordinance for one month to the May 24, 2022 Council meeting to provide staff with additional time to consider enforcement and staffing needs to effectively implement the ordinance.
This compromise avoids further and unnecessary delays and provides workers and the community with timely consideration and possible action.
This supplemental also includes an initial budget referral to hire an additional Community Development Project Coordinator to assist with enforcement of this ordinance and other labor laws and regulations.
Commission on Labor
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
ACTION CALENDAR
October 11, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Commission on Labor
Submitted by: Michael Berne, Chairperson, Commission on Labor Subject: Fair Workweek Ordinance; Adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.110
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt first reading of the proposed Fair Workweek Ordinance, adding Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.110.
POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
On September 22, 2022, the Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee adopted the following action: M/S/C (Hahn/Taplin) to forward the Commission on Labor’s item to Council with a positive recommendation to adopt the version of the ordinance dated “7/7/22” that was presented to the Committee at the July 11, 2022 meeting. Vote: All Ayes.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
This ordinance provides for both private enforcement and enforcement by the City. Comparable jurisdictions report a small number of complaints annually, but additional staffing may be required to investigate complaints and hold enforcement hearings. Temporary staffing and one-time mailing costs will be required to conduct outreach to covered employers. The Commission anticipates that these cost projections will be quantified in a companion staff report.
SUMMARY
Key features of the proposed ordinance include:
Scheduling Notification and Requests
● Schedules must be given 14 days in advance
● Employees must be provided with an initial estimate of hours ● Employees have the right to decline hours they are given with less than 14 days notice
● Employees shall have the right to request flexible and predictable schedules to accommodate childcare, education, second jobs etc.
● Employees have the right to decline any shift that either occurs less than 11
Fair Workweek Ordinance
hours after the end of their previous shift; if accepting such a shift, will be compensated at 1½ times their regular rate of pay.
Predictability Pay
● Employees will receive predictability pay equal to a specified number of hours at their hourly rate of pay as compensation for schedule changes, ranging from 1 hour of pay for a shift scheduled less than 14 days in advance but at least 24 hours up to 4 hours of pay or hours equal to the amount of hours lost when a shift is canceled or reduced
Offer of Work to Existing Employees
● Before hiring new employees, employers must offer additional hours to existing part-time employees for any new hours available
● Employees shall have 24 hours to accept additional hours Applicability
● In general, employers in Berkeley with 50 or more employees globally engaged in the following industry sectors: building services, healthcare, hotel, manufacturing, retail, or warehouse services;
● Restaurant employers with at least 100 employees globally and 10 or more in Berkeley;
● Franchisees associated with a network of franchises employing 100 or more employees globally and 10 or more; and
● The City of Berkeley as an employer.
● Specifically excluded are nonprofit organizations with fewer than 100 employees globally (which includes most arts organizations).
BACKGROUND
The City Council referred to the Commission on Labor in 2018 to draft an Ordinance to establish regulations governing the scheduling and hiring practices of qualifying businesses in Berkeley.
The City Council’s referral observed that:
Even with sick pay and strong minimum wage laws, workers in Berkeley, particularly shift workers, still face unfair and exploitative work practices. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a frequent issue that has arisen is the practice of businesses keeping their employees below 30 hours a week to avoid having to provide them health care. Workers may be forced to take “clopening” shifts, where an employee covers the closing shift one day and the opening shift the next day, giving them little time for rest.
Shift workers frequently have shifts added or removed hours before they are set to begin, making scheduling impossible and creating financial difficulties for those with children who need child care.
Fair Workweek Ordinance
At the time of the City Council’s referral, multiple jurisdictions had introduced or enacted measures to address these inequitable conditions, including the Cities of Emeryville, San Jose, San Francisco, and New York, and the State of Oregon, with the strongest at the time being the City of Emeryville. The referral directed the ordinance to be based on the City of Emeryville, strengthened with the following principles:
● The right to refuse “clopening” shifts, the right to request a flexible work arrangement, and a prohibition on refusing hours to prevent the application of benefits should apply to all employers and employees
● The right to at least two weeks notice of work schedule, to decline additional hours, and to “predictability pay” if changes are made to the schedule after the 2 two week deadline should apply to all businesses of at least 25 employees ● The requirement that new shifts first be offered to all qualified existing employees until they have at least 35 hours of work per week on average should apply to all Retail, Hotel, and Restaurant firms with at least 25 employees ● All requirements of the ordinance apply to the City of Berkeley and the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board.
Since the referral, several of the above-mentioned jurisdictions passed the introduced ordinances, in addition to the City of Chicago. Sectoral coverage in the proposed ordinance is generally modeled after Chicago, while firm size is generally modeled after Emeryville.
After many deliberative meetings before the full Commission and a dedicated subcommittee, and considering input from stakeholders including affected employers and workers, the Commission developed a proposed ordinance taking into account the Council’s direction. At its November 17, 2021 meeting, the Commission on Labor voted to appoint Commissioners Katz and Botello to draft the Fair Workweek Council report recommending adoption of the draft ordinance and to send to Council without further action from the commission. (M/S/C: Katz/Osborne. Yes: Scantlebury, Harlow, Botello, Jones, Berne. Noes: None. Absent: Medak, Schriner.) By passing this ordinance, Berkeley has the opportunity to be at the forefront of worker protections and to support the essential workers that have gotten us through this pandemic.
The Commission found many of the workers employed in the retail, restaurant, and hospitality industries suffer from low wages and unpredictable schedules, while needing to work multiple jobs just to get by. Volatile scheduling leads to difficulty in managing multiple jobs, school work, and childcare. Following the model adopted by the City of Chicago, the proposed ordinance would cover building services (including janitorial and security), healthcare, manufacturing, and warehouse services.
In response to input received by stakeholders, the proposed ordinance applies only to employers employing fifty or more employees globally (similar to Emeryville), but for restaurants or franchises would apply if the employer employed at least ten employees
Fair Workweek Ordinance
in the City of Berkeley and at least one hundred globally. This attempts to balance an interest in achieving the broadest coverage of any ordinance or law in the United States, while avoiding coverage of locally owned businesses that do not have the human resources support of a franchisor.
The strengthening elements requested by the City Council are mostly incorporated, except for the applicability thresholds based on our deliberative process, compliance with federal laws as applicable, the requirement for new shift offers reflects a fourty-hour workweek, and the Rent Stabilization Board employees are presumed incorporated within City of Berkeley employees.
The City Council may wish to consider a delayed effectiveness date, such as until the beginning of the following calendar year, for private sector employers to allow for the time necessary for staff to provide outreach and education to affected businesses.
While private sector employers should be provided a reasonable amount of time to set up systems to ensure compliance with the ordinance, the subcommittee recommends that the City of Berkeley as an employer can and should implement the new procedures promptly.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
This action is not expected to have any impact on the environment and is exempt from CEQA.
RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Enactment of workplace protections. See background discussion.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The Commission recognizes the labor standards benefits of applying the right to refuse “clopening” shifts, and refusal of hours to prevent employees from attaining thirty hours per week to all employers, and applying the two week notice and predictability pay to all sectors of the economy. The right to request a flexible working arrangement remains applicable to all employers that employ ten or more employees under the Berkeley Family Friendly and Environment Friendly Workplace Ordinance, adopted in 2017. The proposed ordinance’s focus on uniform application to the seven sectors covered in Chicago’s model reflects (a) the expected education and outreach required for compliance, (b) the sectors where working conditions require intervention the most, and (c) that the employers covered by the proposed ordinance are in the best position to comply with its provisions in the near term, and does not preclude broadening coverage in the future.
Fair Workweek Ordinance
CITY MANAGER
See companion report.
CONTACT PERSON
Margot Ernst, Commission Secretary, 510-981-5427
Attachments:
1: Ordinance
Exhibit A: Fair Workweek Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.
FAIR WORKWEEK EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS; ADDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.110
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.110 is added to read as follows:
CHAPTER 13.110
FAIR WORKWEEK EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
Sections:
13.110.010 Purpose and Intent
13.110.020 Definitions.
13.110.030 Applicability.
13.110.040 Waiver through Collective Bargaining
13.110.050 Advance Notice of Work Schedules.
13.110.060 Notice, Right to Decline, and Compensation for Schedule Changes.
13.110.070 Offer of Work to Existing Employees.
13.110.080 Right to Rest.
13.110.090 Right to Request a Flexible Working Arrangement.
13.110.100 Notice and Posting.
13.110.110 Implementation.
13.110.120 Enforcement.
13.110.130 Retaliation Prohibited
13.110.140 Retention of Records.
13.110.150 City Access.
13.110.160 No Preemption of Higher Standards.
13.110.170 Severability.
13.110.010 Purpose and Intent
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Berkeley Fair Workweek Ordinance”. It is the purpose of this chapter and the policy of the City: (i) to enact and enforce fair and equitable employment scheduling practices in the City of Berkeley; (ii) to provide the working people of Berkeley with protections that ensure employer scheduling practices do not unreasonably prevent workers from attending to their families, health, education, and other obligations; and (iii) to require Employers needing additional hours, whether temporary or permanent, to first offer those hours to current part-time Employees.
13.110.020 Definitions
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) “Calendar week” shall mean a period of seven (7) consecutive days starting on Sunday.
(b) “City” shall mean the City of Berkeley.
(c) “Covered employer” shall mean an employer subject to the provisions of this chapter, as specified in Section 13.110.030.
(d) "Department" shall mean the Department of Finance or other City department or agency as the City shall by resolution designate.
(e) “Employee” shall mean any person who:
(1) In a calendar week performs at least two (2) hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City of Berkeley for an employer; (2) Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the California minimum wage law, as provided under Labor Code Section 1197 and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. Employees shall include learners, as defined by the California Industrial Welfare Commission; and
(3) Is (i) not exempt from payment of an overtime rate of compensation pursuant to Labor Code Section 510; and (ii) is not paid a monthly salary equivalent to at least forty hours per week at a rate of pay of twice the minimum wage required by Berkeley Municipal Code Section 13.99.040.
(f) “Employer” shall mean any person, including corporate officers or executives, as defined in Section
18 of the California Labor Code, who directly or indirectly through any other person, including through the services of a temporary employment agency, staffing agency, subcontractor or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any Employee, or any person receiving or holding a business license through Title 9 of the Berkeley Municipal Code. (g) “Firm” shall mean a business organization or entity consisting of one (1) or more establishments under common ownership or control. In the case of a franchise, the franchisor shall be considered the firm.
(h) “Franchise” shall have the meaning in California Business and Professions Code Section 20001.
(i) “Franchisee” shall have the meaning in California Business and Professions Code Section 20002.
(j) “Franchisor” shall have the meaning in California Business and Professions Code Section 20003.
(k) “Good faith” shall mean a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.
(l) “Predictability pay” shall mean wages paid to an employee, calculated on an hourly basis at the employee’s regular rate of pay as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. Section 207(e), as compensation for schedule changes made by a covered employer to an employee’s schedule pursuant to Section 13.110.060, in addition to any wages earned for work performed by that employee.
(m) “Shift” shall mean the consecutive hours an employer requires an employee to work including employer-approved meal periods and rest periods. (n) “Work schedule” shall mean all of an employee’s shifts, including specific start and end times for each shift, during a calendar week.
(o) “Building services” means the care and maintenance of property, including, but not limited to, janitorial services, building maintenance services, and security services. (p) “Healthcare” shall mean either a Hospital, Medical Practitioner Office, Nursing Home, or Supportive Housing as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10, or a facility that provides outpatient maintenance dialysis.
(q) “Hotel” shall mean Tourist Hotel as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10. (r) “Manufacturing” shall mean a Manufacturing Use as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10.
(s) “Restaurant” shall mean a Food Service Establishment as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10.
(t) “Retail” shall mean a Retail Products Store as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10. (u) “Warehouse services” shall mean Warehouse Based Non-Store Retail as defined in BMC Section 23F.04.10.
13.110.030 Applicability
(a) All sections of this chapter shall apply to: the City of Berkeley as an employer, and all employers in the City of Berkeley who are primarily engaged in any of the following industries:
(1) building services;
(2) healthcare;
(3) hotel;
(4) manufacturing;
(5) restaurant;
(6) retail; or
(7) warehouse services.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), this chapter shall apply only to an employer that (1) is not a restaurant and employs fifty (50) or more employees globally;
(2) is a restaurant operator employing ten (10) or more employees in the city of Berkeley and employs one hundred (100) or more globally; or (3) is a franchisee employing ten (10) or more employees in the city of Berkeley and is associated with a network of franchises employing one hundred (100) or more employees globally.
(c) This chapter does not apply to a not-for-profit corporation organized under Section 501 of the United States Internal Revenue Code unless it employs one hundred (100) or more employees globally.
(d) In determining the number of employees performing work for a covered employer during a given week, all employees performing work for the covered employer for compensation on a full-time, part-time, or temporary basis, at any location, shall be counted, including employees made available to work through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity. (e) For the purposes of determining whether a nonfranchisee entity is a covered employer as defined by this chapter, separate entities that form an integrated enterprise shall be considered a single employer under this chapter. Separate entities will be considered an integrated enterprise and a single employer under this chapter where a separate entity controls the operation of another entity. The factors to consider in making this assessment include, but are not limited to:
(1) Degree of interrelation between the operations of multiple entities; (2) Degree to which the entities share common management; (3) Centralized control of labor relations; and
(4) Degree of common ownership or financial control over the entities.
There shall be a presumption that separate legal entities, which may share some degree of interrelated operations and common management with one another, shall be considered separate employers for purposes of this chapter as long as (i) the separate legal entities operate substantially in separate physical locations from one another, and (ii) each separate legal entity has partially different ultimate ownership.
13.110.040 Waiver through Collective Bargaining
To the extent permitted by law, all or any portion of the applicable requirements of this chapter may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement; provided, that such waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms that the parties thereto intend to and do thereby waive all of or a specific portion(s) of this chapter.
13.110.050 Advance Notice of Work Schedules.
(a) Initial Estimate of Minimum Hours.
(1) Prior to or on commencement of employment, a covered employer shall provide each employee with a good faith estimate in writing of the employee’s work schedule.
(2) Prior to or on commencement of employment, the employee may request that the covered employer modify the estimated work schedule provided under subsection (a)(1) of this section. The covered employer shall consider any such request, and in its sole discretion may accept or reject the request; provided, that the covered employer shall notify the employee of covered employer’s determination in writing prior to or on commencement of employment. (b) Two (2) Weeks’ Advance Notice of Work Schedule. A covered employer shall provide its employees with at least two (2) weeks’ notice of their work schedules by doing one (1) of the following: (1) posting the work schedule in a conspicuous place at the workplace that is readily accessible and visible to all employees; or (2) transmitting the work schedule by electronic means, so long as all employees are given access to the electronic schedule at the workplace. For new employees, a covered employer shall provide the new employee prior to or on their first day of employment with an initial work schedule. Thereafter, the covered employer shall include the new employee in an existing schedule with other employees. If the covered employer changes an employee’s work schedule after it is posted and/or transmitted, such changes shall be subject to the notice and compensation requirements set forth in this chapter. (c) An Employee who is a victim of domestic violence or sexual violence may request that the Employee's Work Schedule not be posted or transmitted to other employees.
An oral or written request shall be sufficient and implemented immediately and is sufficient until the Employee gives written permission to post the Employee's schedule.
An Employer may request a written statement from the Employee that states that the Employee is a victim of domestic violence or sexual violence. The written statement shall constitute the documentation needed for the Employer to implement the request.
The Employer may not require a written statement more than once in a calendar year from any Covered Employee for this purpose.
13.110.060 Notice, Right to Decline, and Compensation for Schedule Changes. (a) A covered employer shall provide an employee notice of any change to the employee’s posted or transmitted work schedule. The covered employer shall provide such notice by in-person conversation, telephone call, email, text message, or other electronic communication. If the Employee accepts the additional shift via a verbal conversation, the Employer shall immediately follow up with written confirmation to document the agreement and when it was accepted. This notice requirement shall not
apply to any schedule changes the employee initiates, such as employee requested sick leave, time off, shift trades, or additional shifts. (b) Subject to the exceptions in subsection (d) of this section, an employee has the right to decline any previously unscheduled hours that the covered employer adds to the employee’s schedule, and for which the employee has been provided advance notice of less than fourteen (14) days.
(c) Subject to the exceptions in subsection (d) of this section, a covered employer shall provide an employee with the following compensation per shift for each previously scheduled shift that the covered employer adds or subtracts hours, moves to another date or time, cancels, or each previously unscheduled shift that the covered employer adds to the employee’s schedule: (1) with less than fourteen (14) days’ notice, but twenty-four (24) hours or more notice to the employee: one (1) hour of predictability pay; (2) with less than twenty-four (24) hours to the employee, (i) four (4) hours or the number of hours in the employee’s scheduled shift, whichever is less, when hours are canceled or reduced; (ii) one (1) hour of predictability pay for all other changes. The compensation required by this subsection shall be in addition to the employee’s regular pay for working that shift.
(d) Exceptions. The requirements of this section shall not apply under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Operations cannot begin or continue due to threats to covered employers, employees or property, or when civil authorities recommend that work not begin or continue;
(2) Operations cannot begin or continue because public utilities fail to supply electricity, water, or gas, or there is a failure in the public utilities or sewer system;
(3) Operations cannot begin or continue due to: acts of nature (including but not limited to flood, fire, explosion, earthquake, tidal wave, drought), war, civil unrest, strikes, or other cause not within the covered employer’s control; (4) Mutually agreed-upon work shift swaps or coverage arrangements among employees.
(5) Employee initiated voluntary shift modifications, such as voluntary requests to leave a scheduled shift prior to the end of the shift or to use sick leave, vacation leave, or other policies offered by the Employer. This paragraph shall apply only to the employee initiating the voluntary shift modification. (6) To accommodate the following transitions in shifts:
(i) If an employee works past the end of a scheduled shift to complete service to a customer, which service would entitle the employee to receive a commission, tip, or other incentive pay based on the completion of that service, provided the employee is compensated at their regular rate of pay for the additional work performed by the employee.
(ii) An employee begins or ends their scheduled shift no more than ten minutes prior to or after the scheduled shift, provided the employee is compensated at their regular rate of pay for the additional work performed by the employee.
(7) When, in manufacturing, events outside of the control of the manufacturer result in a reduction in the need for Covered Employees, including, but not limited to, when a customer requests the manufacturer to delay production or there is a delay in the receipt of raw materials or component parts needed for production. (8) With regard to healthcare employers, in (i) any declared national, State, or municipal disaster or other catastrophic event, or any implementation of an Employer's disaster plan, or incident causing a hospital to activate its Emergency Operations Plan, that will substantially affect or increase the need for healthcare services; (ii) any circumstance in which patient care needs require specialized skills through the completion of a procedure; or (iii) any unexpected substantial increase in demand for healthcare due to large public events, severe weather, violence, or other circumstances beyond the Employer's control. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a covered employer from providing greater advance notice of employee’s work schedules and/or changes in schedules than that required by this section.
13.110.070 Offer of Work to Existing Employees.
(a) Subject to the limitations herein, before hiring new employees or contract employees, including hiring through the use of temporary services or staffing agencies, a covered employer shall first offer additional hours of work to existing part-time employee(s) who have worked on behalf of the employer for more than two weeks, and if the part-time employee(s) are qualified to do the additional work, as reasonably and in good faith determined by the covered employer. This section requires covered employers to offer to part-time employees only up to the number of hours required to schedule a part-time employee forty (40) hours of work in a calendar week. In order to facilitate communication with current employees who may be interested in additional work, an Employer may specify how employees may in advance communicate their interest of additional work and which positions and hours of work employees would be interested in covering.
(b) A covered employer has discretion to divide the additional work hours among part- time employees consistent with this section; provided, that: (1) the employer’s system for distribution of hours must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, age, marital or familial status, nor on the basis of family caregiving responsibilities or status as a student; and (2) the employer may not distribute hours in a manner intended to avoid an increase in the number of employees working 30 or