Berkeley’s City Council on Monday signed off on two proposed high-rise housing developments after a dispute over whether state density bonus rules let developers bypass local labor standards aimed at requiring healthcare coverage and apprenticeship training for construction workers. The council faced the question after attorneys for the project backers argued that the state law gives them authority to take exemptions, while labor groups and several councilmembers said the exemptions would undercut the 2023 “HARD HATS” ordinance—Helping Achieve Responsible Development with Healthcare and Apprenticeship Training Standards—that Berkeley adopted with union support.
The debate centered on how the state density bonus law operates when a project includes affordable housing. The state law requires cities to offer exemptions from certain local regulations if a project includes affordable units, and it was the mechanism the developers cited to request waivers from the health care and apprenticeship requirements tied to Berkeley’s ordinance for large projects. City leaders said they were sympathetic to labor’s concerns but said the state law’s broad language constrained what Berkeley could legally require, and some members said they did not want to risk a costly court challenge—particularly as the city faces a budget deficit estimated at $30 million.
Union officials and members protested in the lead-up to the meeting, holding signs outside City Hall and at the downtown offices of a development consultant associated with the projects. Workers and union representatives told councilmembers that the HARD HATS rules would ensure construction workers receive training and coverage if they are injured. Carpenter Stephanie Lind said she could “afford to live in Berkeley” and that she has been given opportunities through “apprenticeships,” “through a living wage,” and “health care,” describing the kind of benefits she said union programs provide.
The council’s decisions involved three different projects, with a fourth matter removed from the vote. The meeting included a 169-unit development at 2425 Durant Ave. proposed by Berkeley-based Collab Home and a project at 2029 University Ave. proposed by Laconia Development, a Walnut Creek firm that put forward two versions of its plan. Mayor Adena Ishii said a separate third project at 2298 Durant Ave., also seeking exemptions, was withdrawn by Valiance Capital. The council later approved the Durant Avenue project, while the University Avenue project’s vote did not reach a majority and the zoning approvals remained in place.
For the 2425 Durant Ave. development, the plan calls for including 32 below-market-rate affordable units as part of the project, and for the 2029 University Ave. proposal the number of affordable units would be either 24 or 36 depending on which version is built. Each project sought exemptions connected to the HARD HATS ordinance, including the requirements for healthcare coverage and apprenticeship training, and both requested waivers beyond those categories. The Durant Avenue project also sought to disregard a prevailing wage requirement supported by construction unions for the Southside neighborhood, and the University Avenue proposal sought an exemption from a mandate that uses glass designed to prevent birds from flying into windows.
Union and city opponents contested the cost impacts described by the developers and their consultants. Laconia said the HARD HATS and related requirements would add more than $5 million to the University Avenue project, and a development consultant, Mark Rhoades, told the council Berkeley’s mandates would add $16.6 million in costs to the Durant Avenue project, including nearly $13 million from the prevailing wage requirement alone. Rhoades said the requirement represented “an extreme, up-front cost that is difficult — impossible — to commit to.” Union officials disputed those estimates, saying they inflated the true cost of the requirements.
The council votes also reflected an earlier approval and appeal process. Each project had been approved by Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board, and those decisions were appealed by the Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County and the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, with the groups arguing that Laconia and Collab Home were abusing the density bonus law by seeking labor-standard exemptions rather than limiting it to physical limitations on development. In response to the council’s constraints, some members said they could not in good conscience support housing built without the local workforce protections, while others emphasized that the state law limited the city’s legal leverage.
During the meeting, councilmembers framed their decisions around what they said they could or could not enforce. Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani said, “I don’t think the legal justification is there to deny the concessions,” adding that the city was not in a position to take on the cost of “expensive litigation” when it was likely to lose. Councilmember Igor Tregub said he had “red lines” and that he “cannot in good conscience support housing that will be built on the backs of the workforce,” calling for state lawmakers to close what he and others described as a loophole.
The outcomes of the two votes were different in a way that shaped what happens next. The Durant Avenue project passed with five votes in favor from Ishii, Kesarwani, Brent Blackaby, Mark Humbert and Cecilia Lunaparra; Tregub joined Terry Taplin, Ben Bartlett and Shoshana O’Keefe in abstaining. When the University Avenue project came up, five council members—Taplin, Bartlett, Tregub, O’Keefe and Blackaby—abstained, while Kesarwani, Lunaparra, Humbert and Ishii voted yes, so the vote failed and the council took no official action. Because the council vote failed, the zoning board’s approvals with concessions remained effective and the development could move forward.
Arreguín, the state senator who as mayor of Berkeley led the push for the HARD HATS ordinance and drew union support during his run for Sacramento, said he was disappointed by the council’s decision. In a statement provided by a spokesperson Tuesday, Arreguín wrote that he was “considering introducing legislation to amend the state density bonus law to close this loophole.” The council’s symbolic opposition did not stop the Durant and University projects from progressing as proposed under the density bonus exemptions, but several members indicated they intend to continue pressing the state for changes aimed at preventing future projects from using similar waivers.