BTU is very focused on Seismic Safety this summer. San Francisco passed a mandatory retrofit law that allows landlords to pass the costs of seismic upgrades to their tenants; it has been reported that the average rent increase there will be $900 a year! We won’t let this happen in Berkeley! Please join BTU by coming to our August 14 Potluck to learn how you can help.
The really good news at the first public hearing on retrofits, held July 25, was that the city has hired one staff member to deal with “Soft-Story Phase 2” – the retrofit law. Berkeley has not really enforced the 2005 rules (“Soft Story Phase 1”) in part because there has been no dedicated staff in the Housing department for this work.
Berkeley landlords had a huge turnout July 25, with their comments ranging from helpful suggestions to difficult demands. Several landlords pointed out that the city permit process makes it more expensive to retrofit by making their construction timeline uncertain and requiring additional safety work be done at the time the retrofit permit is issued. Many also claimed they can’t afford a retrofit and can’t get a loan to do one. The city has discussed creating a low-interest loan fund for owners who really can’t afford to make their buildings safer, but several landlords said they want to see a zero-interest loan from the city.
Most tenants who spoke talked about how they want their building to be safe, but believe any substantial rent increase would be a hardship. Some said they were willing to pay a little more rent if they could afford it. Tenants also spoke about fear of temporary relocation, but Rent Board speaker Matthew Siegel said few retrofits are expected to require relocation. Landlords said the law (Relocation Ordinance), which requires that owners pay a “rent differential” and other expenses for tenants who must temporarily move out, is unfair.
Currently, 109 buildings on the original unsafe list are now retrofit, while 18 have not even done the engineering report required under the 2005 law. There has been no city tracking of compliance with the required posting of warning signs, but BTU joined the Third Annual Day of Seismic Action and found many buildings lacked signage. No fines have been issued.
The Rent Board speaker said that agency would consider allowing costs to be passed through to tenants, so we intend to gather tenants to speak at upcoming hearings at the Rent Board (possibly AUGUST 26), Disaster and Fire Safety Commission (AUGUST 7), and the Planning Commission (SEPTEMBER 4).
Berkeley has been expediting building permits and cutting fees for developers, saying our town desperately needs housing. One policy that some see as quite promising would make it easier to add a legal in-law unit on an existing property. But when it comes to low-cost housing for students, policymakers appear to be swayed by pressures from existing homeowners, because students are known to be noisy and make a mess, they say.
In fact, the initial legislation on mini-dorms approved by the Council in January seems to point to the sort of problems that cannot be anticipated by neighbors or Zoning Commissioners unless they make assumptions about the future behavior of possible tenants, perhaps unfairly: “Such buildings tend to impair the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhoods by creating trash and litter, creating excess parking demand, and being the location of numerous loud and unruly parties.”
In July, the City Council began work on an ordinance that would curb proliferation of the so-called “mini-dorms” by requiring a public hearing for new construction with six or more bedrooms. The ordinance would only impact certain neighborhoods – the ones close to campus, according to the Daily Cal.
It seems to me that instead of regulating potential threats to civil society based on assumptions about young people, the Council might do better to look into why existing housing code is not enforced at existing properties. Several students said they would welcome more scrutiny of their housing, according to the Daily Cal: “We don’t feel safe, because we are in an attic that has no fire escape… We are a lot of people living on top of each other with no fire escape or anything — with no smoke detectors either — so in that sense, we feel really unsafe.”
I Urge Anyone In The Above Situation to Contact Code Enforcement! There are existing laws to protect you, and you may be entitled to a rent decrease too – ask at the Rent Board. Stand up for your own safety!
Students, please join BTU at our next Potluck, August 14.
As one commenter on Berkeleyside put it, “We have codes up the wazoo, often unenforced by the City and ignored by some property owner who make a living exploiting students.”
This 81-unit building should have 13 low-income units.
July 16, the Berkeley City Council received a report about how city staff are monitoring “inclusionary units” – the Affordable units developers have created to date as part of the requirement to mitigate the impact of fancy new condos and apartments. And get this – only three of the 58 properties have been inspected to date, even though the monitoring program costs the city $226,248 each year!
This is important not only for the safety of the low-income tenants who live in Berkeley’s 306 inclusionary units, but also because many landlords with new buildings under development are opting to provide inclusionary housing instead of paying into the Housing Trust Fund. The program, operated by the Housing Department, is supposed to make sure inclusionary units go to verifiably low-income folks, and check repair and maintenance of the properties.
The report says that in 2011 the department checked 58 units at three properties, but will check the remaining 248 units by this time next year. We shall see!
On the same day, the City Council’s final meeting before summer break, Council also reviewed a joint proposal from Council members Arreguin and Capitelli requesting that staff explore how the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee is implemented, particularly in relation to developers who claim paying the fee is not economically feasible.
Some of the requests would probably be supported by Berkeley housing activists, like the idea that the fee should increase with inflation each year. Activists may also support establishing a city-maintained wait list of eligible low income households, since right now developers choose their own tenants and the Housing Department doesn’t seem to be checking up on them like their staff are supposed to do.
Other aspects of the proposed changes may cause controversy, like the idea that developers should be encouraged to pay the $20,000 fee rather than providing units on-site, perhaps by allowing developers to pay the fee over time instead of all at once.
The most interesting part of the proposal is that the income levels of tenants allowed to live in affordable units could be changed, as could the number of units that must be provided in place of the mitigation fee. Currently, inclusionary units are rented to households that make less than 50% of the Area Median Income, which is about $31,000 for a one-person household and $44,000 for a family of four.
About two years ago, the City Council set the fee at $28,000 after a Nexus study showed the costs to mitigate a unit of expensive housing could be as much as $34,000. But last year, the Council voted to lower the fee to $20,000 for the next several years – at a time when Berkeley is seeing record development – with over 1,000 units expected to be built while the fee is lower.
On Tuesday July 16, representatives from Rising Sun Energy Center, Community Energy Services Corps, the City of Berkeley Recycling Program, Stopwaste.org, and the Ecology Center will present low-cost, high impact steps you can take as a renter to make cost-saving energy upgrades and green your living space.
The event takes place from 7 to 9 PM at 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Tuesday. If you live in a big building, ask about recent legal requirements to offer recycling to tenants.
On July 2, the Berkeley City Council voted to postpone discussion of controversial changes to the Zoning law known as the Demolition Ordinance. We now have time to really influence the final form of this regulation.
Public outcry led the Council to make the wise decision not to move forward with the July 2 draft of the ordinance, which would be very bad for tenants. The Berkeley Tenants Union presented a petition with over 130 signatures. It is not too late to sign our petition:
The Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, Sierra Club, East Bay Community Law Center and Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board also sent objections — their letters are linked under our July 2 post, below.
Council will now send the proposed changes to the law — which covers why and when residential buildings in Berkeley can be torn down — to the Housing Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission. The Council did not react to a request during public comment by Rent Board Chair Lisa Stephens that the Ordinance also be sent back to the 4×4 Committee. The 4×4 is where the changes have been discussed for the past three years – that committee is made up of four Rent Board Commissioners and four City Council members, including the Mayor.
The Housing Advisory Commission has already scheduled review of the Ordinance for their meeting on Thursday, July 11, at the North Berkeley Senior Center, MLK & Hearst, at 7 PM.
Councilmember Jesse Arreguin also requested that staff report back to the City Council on issues raised by the public regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Berkeley’s Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO).
Tenant attorney Bob Evans, a former Rent Board Commissioner, passed away recently. Marsha Feinland, a BTU member who was active in the Peace and Freedom Party with Bob, wrote this:
Bob Evans was born on Oct 9, 1945 in San Francisco, where he grew up. He attended U.C. Berkeley and received his law degree at Boalt Hall. He was an attorney in private practice specializing in criminal defense and tenant protections. He was often appointed by the court to represent indigent clients.
Bob was active in the fight to defend rent control in Berkeley and was an elected commissioner on the Berkeley Rent Board from 2002-2006.
Bob was devoted to the struggle for socialism in this country and worldwide. He was a frequent candidate for office as a Peace and Freedom Party nominee for State Senate and for State Attorney General.
Bob served on the State Central Committee of the Peace and Freedom Party. He was also an editor of the Party newspaper, The PARTISAN. He was passionate about promoting the socialist perspective of the party, both in his writing and presentations. Here is an excerpt from his writing:
“… An understanding of the vital importance of ownership and control of the means of production and natural resources, and the resulting (when ownership and control is capitalist in nature) production for profit rather than production for use is key to building an understanding that socialism is not reformed capitalism, but a fundamentally different system and that socialism is not merely a nice idea but is essential to the progress of human society.
… Socialism will come about only when workers recognize their class interests and organize as a class and take possession of the means of production. We should not promote the illusion that class-consciousness is not essential to socialist revolution.”
Please join us tonight, when controversial rules about tearing down rent controlled buildings will be before Berkeley’s City Council.
The Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Sierra Club joined with the East Bay Community Law Center, Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, and 136 members and friends of the Berkeley Tenants Union to inform the City Council that proposed changes to the part of the Zoning Code called the Demolition Ordinance will be bad for Berkeley.
Council will consider changes TUESDAY JULY 2 but are likely to continue the discussion in coming weeks. BTU will present a petition with over 135 signatures at the meeting.
One major reason everyone is objecting: the Council majority wants to ask for a fee of only $20k for each rent controlled unit destroyed – but it costs $400,000 to build a new unit of affordable housing! So under this July 2 draft of the Ordinance, for every 20 rent controlled units lost, one replacement unit might be built many years from now. And what will happen to the tenants?
Below are links to letters from the other organizations.
Please join us TONIGHT – JULY 2 – at 7 PM
Say you support the Berkeley Tenants Union position on Item 17, the Demolition Ordinance.
State that no occupied units should be eliminated for any reason.
Emphasize that units emptied via the Ellis Act cannot be eliminated.
Ask that demolished empty units be replaced with permanently affordable housing.
Argue that this new draft will violate the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance.
Point out that a mitigation fee will not meet our housing needs soon enough.
The Berkeley City Council is considering revisions to the Demolition Ordinance which would make it easy to tear down rent controlled apartments – if they are empty! This will lead to evictions and tenant harassment.
Suddenly on June 11, the Council voted to consider last-minute amendments to revisions of the Ordinance which are so substantial, they amount to a re-write of the draft. If these changes are approved on July 2, the resulting ordinance will undermine rent control.
The proposed changes come directly from requests by developer Equity Residential – Berkeley’s largest landlord – and other speculators. Council will consider them despite the strong support from tenants, the Rent Board and the Planning Commission for the June 4 draft, which provided permanently affordable housing to replace empty units.
The most important thing you can do right now is get friends to
