Public Comment
2211 Harold Way and Community Benefits: An open letter to the Zoning Adjustments Board and the Berkeley City Council
I am writing to suggest significant community benefits that should be included as conditions of approval for the proposed development a 2211 Harold Way. Since the developers have not yet released a pro forma for the project, it is difficult to know precisely what the developer can be reasonably asked to pay. ZAB should request a pro forma. The consultants hired to do an economic analysis of proposed community benefits will obviously need financial information from the developers to do their job and ZAB, the City Council and the public should have that information as well.
When the City up-zoned Downtown and allowed three 180’ buildings to be built where the previous height limit was 7 stories/87’, it greatly increased the value of the 2211 Harold Way site and what could be developed on it. The community benefits requirement allows the City to capture the increased value in the form of additional community benefits beyond those otherwise required as mitigations for the project’s impacts. The up-zoning by the City, called for in the Downtown Area Plan, was not done to provide windfall profits for developers and land owners.
I am suggesting additional significant community benefits in three of the areas suggested in the Downtown Area Plan policy on additional community benefits (Policy LU-2.2): affordable housing, green building and open space.
Affordable Housing,
I would second the recommendation that you have already received from the Housing Advisory Commission that “new high rises Downtown must also provide additional affordable housing benefits (HAC memo on Proposed Community Benefits, December 5, 2014). Clearly there is a particular need for housing affordable for those who are classified as “low income”, “very low income” and “extremely low income” (80%, 50% and 30% or below of Area Median Income respectively). The private sector cannot meet this need, but a large project like 2211 Harold can help with a large contribution to the City’s Housing Trust Fund.
If this project were being built in San Francisco, the required affordable housing payment, resulting from the choice not to build any affordable units, would be $16,897,409. I calculated this using the affordable housing fee calculation template found here: http://www.sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=1113). It would be higher than that if the housing were built in one of the Eastern Neighborhoods, which were upzoned, and require higher housing fees to recapture the increase in land value resulting from the upzoning.
The developers, in their community benefits submission (“Documentation of Project Significant Community Benefits” October 20, 2014), state that they will be required to pay a fee of $24,000 per unit, totaling $7.25 million (Appendix A, page 4). This is incorrect. In their Revised Applicant’s Statement (also dated October 20, 2014), they correctly state that the fee is $20,000 per unit or a total of $6,040,000. (Page 8).
This fee is much too small for a project of this scale, especially given the enormous unmet need for below-market housing, and should be supplemented as part of their required significant community benefits. They should pay closer to what they would be required to pay in San Francisco.
Green Building
By 2020, as outlined in the Statewide Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, California will be requiring that all new housing be built to meet a Zero Net Energy Standard. Achieving Zero Net Energy requires both energy efficient design and use of onsite renewable energy generation, which will, in most cases, mean use of solar thermal and solar photovoltaic systems.
Zero Net Energy housing is already being built in California, and in other states, and, on a greater scale in Europe, particularly in Germany. Housing for students and staff at UC Davis’ West Village was built to meet a Zero Net Energy standard.
Information about the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan and the New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan can be found here: http://www.californiaznehomes.com
In their LEED Neighborhood Development Project Scorecard (2014-12-11 RESUB Green Building Memo), they are giving themselves zero points for “On-Site Renewable Energy Sources”. An earlier, 12/12/2012, LEED Building Design & Construction scorecard, prepared by MVE Institutional, suggests that they might have a very minimal amount of on-site renewable energy.
2211 Harold Way, if built as proposed, would be an obsolete building from the moment the first resident moves in. It is not innovative or cutting edge in any way with respect to energy efficiency and green building. It doesn’t come anywhere near meeting the Zero Net Energy standard.
The developers have proposed to allocate roof space as an open space amenity for residents rather than using that space for solar panels. It’s not clear whether the roofs on this building meet the “solar ready” standard adopted by the state last year. It would be difficult and expensive to retrofit this building in the future to achieve the soon to be adopted Zero Net Energy standard. While there are now windows being produced with built-in solar cells, and while solar walls and solar skins for buildings are being developed, the developers are not trying any of these innovative things either.
The City's 2008 Climate Action Plan notes that In Berkeley buildings are the source of about 53% of Berkeley's greenhouse gas emissions (p. 61). Residential buildings account for about half of the 53%.
The Climate Action Plan has this vision for 2050 (page 5): "New and existing buildings achieve net zero energy consumption through increased energy efficiency and a shift to renewable energy sources." Yet, if built as proposed, 2211 Harold might still be the largest single residential building in Berkeley as of 2050, and it wouldn't be zero net energy unless the owners were subsequently compelled to go back and do an expensive retrofit.
Does the City really want the largest private residential development in Berkeley of the last 50 or more years to be obsolete, falling far short of the Zero Net Energy standard? LEED Gold many sound impressive but it can be achieved, and would be achieved on this project, by doing relatively little with respect to energy efficiency and reduction of greenhouse gas generation.
Fortunately, because provision of significant community benefits are required beyond the baseline LEED Gold requirement, the ZAB and City Council can demand that the design of this project be changed so that it comes significantly closer to meeting a Zero Net Energy standard.
Open Space – Center Street Plaza
The developers should be asked to make a significant contribution toward the costs of constructing the pedestrian plaza planned for Center Street. This plaza, based on designs by renowned UC Berkeley landscape designer Walter Hood, would constitute a major addition to open space in the downtown. The City Council voted to support the Center Street Plaza in 2010 and it’s the most important project in the downtown Streets and Open Space Improvement Plan (SOSIP). The developer of the proposed downtown hotel at Center and Shattuck could pay for the balance of the cost of the plaza.
As the plaza would run alongside the hotel it would be particularly appropriate for the hotel’s developers to contribute as well. With community benefits contributions from these two developers it would be possible to have the plaza built at the same time as the hotel. It would be very appropriate for major new downtown developments to contribute toward the creation of a major addition to the supply of downtown open space.
Shattuck Cinemas
In addition to providing significant community benefits, it is vitally important that this project avoid creating significant detriment. Loss of half of the downtown’s 20 movie screens would be, without question, very detrimental.
The cinemas reportedly gross $3 million a year (footnote 11, page 22, “Documentation of Project Significant Community Benefits” October 20, 2014). Based on this figure, one can estimate that they sell about 250,000 tickets a year. Some proportion of these moviegoers also go out for a meal and/or drinks before or after their trip to the movies. They also patronize other downtown businesses. The Downtown businesses, particularly restaurants, stand to lose upwards of $1 million a year in business. It’s estimated, by the people who have been gathering signatures from moviegoers, that 60% of Shattuck Cinema moviegoers come from outside Berkeley. The Shattuck Cinemas show films that are not available anywhere else in the East Bay and that’s what brings many moviegoers to our downtown.
The City’s Downtown Area Plan recognizes the importance of these theaters in the following policies:
“Policy LU-1.2 Encourage unique cultural and entertainment uses that serve the city and region, including museums, live theater and cinemas.
...
b) Retain and support Downtown’s cinemas. Consider incentives for retaining existing movie theaters and upgrading their facilities.
c) Recruit uses that complement Downtown as an evening destination, including new cinemas, restaurants, and art and entertainment venues.”
(Pages LU-7, LU-10 in the Downtown Area Plan)
“Policy ED-1.7: Entertainment & Culture. Strengthen Downtown as a prime regional destination for alternative and mainstream cinema, and live theater and music. Evaluate and enhance the theater- and cinema-going experience in subareas where they are concentrated.
- Work to retain and expand cinemas, live theaters, and music venues.
- Work with cinema, theater, and music venues to upgrade to state of the art facilities.
(Page ED-5 in the Downtown Plan)
I don’t see how it would be possible to make the required finding of no detriment for this project if the approved plans do not include retention of the movie theaters which means that it is essential that the developers reach an agreement with Landmark Theaters on terms that ensure the long term survival of movie theaters at this site. While the January 8 Staff Report on 2211 Harold Way suggested that the parties were close to making a deal, the latest “2211 Harold Way Community Benefits” memo from the developer (dated February 17) makes it clear that no agreement has yet been reached.
Is the Project Labor Agreement a Community Benefit?
In their latest memo, dated February 17, the developers have doubled down on their refusal to offer real community benefits. They have simply reasserted what they offered before despite the poor reception it received at ZAB in January.
The project labor agreement with the building trades unions cannot be considered a community benefit unless you consider the entire East Bay as the “community”, which was clearly not the intent of the Downtown Plan. Berkeley makes up 7% of Alameda County’s population and its residents are disproportionately white collar workers and professionals. Some building trades’ union members live in Berkeley but the vast majority, probably in excess of 95%, live elsewhere in the county. Further, if contractors from outside Alameda County are used, which could happen, they are only required to hire 50% of their workers from Alameda County, so the percentage of workers on the site who live in Berkeley could end up being well under 5%. At any given time, there would only be a handful of Berkeley residents working on the site.
Further, in the documents from the developers posted so far on the City Web site, there is no mention of First Source hiring or anything that would provide access to union jobs for currently unemployed Berkeley residents. Even if there were, the number of jobs would be small and temporary, lasting at best only the projected 26-30 months of construction. Since different kinds of workers are needed at different phases of construction, it’s doubtful that even if there were some temporary construction jobs for unemployed Berkeley residents that most of them would even last the full 26-30 months.
It’s also not at all clear that use of a project labor agreement would add to the developer’s costs. Use of skilled union labor increases the likelihood that the project will be completed on time and on budget. With nonunion labor, there is a greater likelihood of cost overruns and delays.
The construction unions themselves, not surprisingly, argue that project labor agreements are cost effective and efficient. To quote from a document produced by the AFL-CIO’s Building Construction Trades Department:
“Simply put, project labor agreements help the end user (i.e. government or private sector) increase the efficiency and quality of its project by promoting a business model that employs a highly skilled workforce.
Such a workforce ensures construction projects are built correctly the first time, on time, and as a result, on budget for the end user. This prevents costly delays that usually result from an unskilled workforce’s lack of knowledge regarding the use of building materials or tools as well as job site safety measures. Future building maintenance costs should be less, too. Regarding job site safety, a highly skilled workforce is safety certified to work in a dangerous job environment. Businesses will pay less for workers compensation and project delays because job site accidents will be less likely to occur.”
A 2009 academic study of project labor agreements includes the following two conclusions:
“PLAs are a valuable construction management tool for project planning and labor cost reduction”
And
“A key point made here is that there is no evidence to support claims that project labor agreements either limit the pool of bidders or drive up actual construction costs. Such claims by PLA opponents are based on inadequate data and faulty methodology. PLAs – in New York City and State and elsewhere – have instead proven very successful at saving costs while respecting fair labor standards.
Source: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=reports
The fact that hourly wages for union construction workers are higher does not mean that the overall cost of a project that uses union labor will be higher than a nonunion project.
