In a special meeting Monday night, the Berkeley City Council allowed two development projects on Durant and University avenues to move forward, despite concerns from public commenters that developers could be bypassing labor rights.
A majority of council members expressed concern that denying the project would draw the council into expensive litigation, which would be especially harmful considering the city’s current budget deficit. However, some council members voiced apprehension about accepting the concessions, claiming they could set precedent for the future of labor standards in Berkeley.
“The message this sends to the community is that the state law subserviates the health, safety and financial security of the families and workers providing physical labor and applying skilled craft to build the housing we so value, to the economic interests of private developers and their lenders,” said District 2 Councilmember Terry Taplin, who abstained from both votes. “I take serious issue with this idea that you do not have to reach across the aisle to consider critical stakeholders because you can just strongarm this council or the city. Organized labor is not the enemy of housing.”
During their presentations, the applicants emphasized the millions of dollars in cost savings for their developments as a result of the concessions and the importance of interpreting the Density Bonus Law liberally in favor of increased housing.
The concessions requested by the developers refer to a key aspect of California’s Density Bonus Law, which is meant to reduce the cost of providing affordable housing. The city may only deny the concessions if it finds they would have specific adverse impacts on public health and safety.
“When companies try to undercut workers by lowering wages or reducing benefits, they are not just cutting costs; they are cutting people’s futures,” said one public commenter. “They are making it harder for apprentices like me to stay in the trade and build a life here.”
Yes Duffy Architects, the applicant for 2425 Durant Ave., requested concessions from the Apprenticeship, Health Care Expenditures and Prevailing Wage requirements.
The applicant for 2029 University Ave., Rhoades Planning Group, also requested concessions from the Apprenticeship Requirements and Health Care Expenditures.
“The city should not grant concessions under the Density Bonus Law that waive local labor standards,” claimed Jolene Kramer, representative for the appellants. “This is a novel and unorthodox strategy to use the Density Bonus Law to undermine local ordinances that promote worker retention and worker well-being. The original legislative intent of the Density Bonus Law was to allow developers to build more affordable units as a social good. Allowing a developer to avoid a labor standards requirement will do the opposite.”
District 7 Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra emphasized the council had an obligation to adhere to the law and interpret the Density Bonus Law liberally in favor of producing more affordable housing. Taplin also spotlighted that a state law would need to be changed in order to close this “concessions loophole.”
Some public commenters claimed that if the appeal was denied, the Density Bonus Law “loophole” could be a permanent concession, overriding the Helping Achieve Responsible Development with Healthcare and Apprenticeship Training Standards, or HARD HATS, Ordinance. The ordinance was passed to address the shortage of qualified construction workers and rising labor costs, and to refine labor standards in the local construction industry.
“Whatever we might feel is right policy-wise, we are obligated to follow the law to the best of our ability to understand that law,” said District 8 Councilmember Mark Humbert.