Berkeley Tenants Union 2022 Blake Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 berkeleytenants.org (510) 982-6696 Zoning Board Commissioners re: 2631 Durant June 25, 2015 Dear ZAB Commissioners, BTU has been copied on multiple letters from members raising important points about this project, the public process, and the confusing laws governing demolitions. We will try to keep our points in this letter to things which have not been addressed in other member correspondence. 1) POSSIBLE TENANT HARASSMENT BTU met tenant Nicole Yehegazian in 2013 and she asked us to keep her up-to-date on the project. Her letter to you, as well as conversations we had with other tenants when two BTU leaders visited the building in 2013, coupled with the letters from renters that the developer included in his original application, show that vacancies may not have been voluntary. All students were asked to "voluntarily" sign an agreement that they would move. Former student tenants may feel the same as Nicole, but it's summertime and they are away. As the ASUC said, maybe you should delay this hearing until students are back in town. What 18 unit building one block from campus becomes completely empty? Owners should not profit from harassment or evictions. 2) Section 23C.08.010 ZAB can only approve a demolition if "in addition to any other findings required by this Ordinance, it finds that the elimination of the dwelling units would not be materially detrimental to the housing needs and public interest of the affected neighborhood and the City." Staff argues that adding more units is for the public good. We hope ZAB Commissioners will look at this issue in greater depth. Please remember that being covered by the Rent Ordinance confers many protections on renters beyond just limiting rent increases. Losing rent controlled units is not just a loss of regulated rents - renters in new buildings cannot avail themselves of the Rent Board at all. For example, like renters at Library Gardens, tenants in a new building could only complain to Berkeley's over-extended code enforcement staff and could not petition at the Rent Board if they have habitability issues. Is it good for Berkeley to reward owners who damage their buildings? Is it good for the City to allow demolition when buildings were not maintained?
Berkeley Tenants Union 2022 Blake Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 berkeleytenants.org (510) 982-6696 Is it green to demolish an existing building? Is it better to have more tiny, expensive studio units instead of 18 affordable, rent controlled one and two bedrooms? 3) Section 23C.08.030.E "The Board may approve a Use Permit to eliminate a controlled rental unit if it makes all of the following findings: 3) The applicant cannot make a fair return on investment by maintaining the dwelling unit as a part of the rental housing market" You do not have to approve this project even if you made this finding. You certainly cannot approve it based on this finding TONIGHT. There is inconsistent information in the record. There is information you need to make a good decision missing from the record. Why are 2013 or 2015 rents used in the proformas? Where do cost estimates in the proforma come from? Current Property Investment: Is the owner justified in calculating his rate of return (Exhibit G) by calculating his full purchase amount as "Current Property Investment"? We have read that rates of return for real estate investments are usually calculated on the DOWNPAYMENT for the mortgage. Did the developer pay cash? Why is the amount for current investment higher than the purchase price? Rehab Costs: The developer has provided a number of estimates for repairs - but seldom presents more than one bid. You should note that there are no details about how the cost of rehab at $2,050818 has been calculated. We added costs and came up with a different total: Fisk Original Bid termites 240,000 Fisk more inspections 57000 Higher roof bid 42,200 Fisk termite additional 342000 Impact foundation 32000 Impact, Bolting and walls, seismic 28000 $741,200 We hope ZAB commissioners will disallow any costs for rehabilitation from damage allowed to be caused because the owners did not properly secure the building and allowed squatters. We hope ZAB Commissioners will disallow any costs for rehabilitation from damage allowed to be caused when the fire department was invited to tear out walls and chainsaw the roof.
Berkeley Tenants Union 2022 Blake Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 berkeleytenants.org (510) 982-6696 4) Section 23C.08.030.F Discussion on other demolitions would indicate the ZAB may favor allowing demolition if the rent controlled units were replaced with affordable housing in the new building. Section F says the Board shall only approve elimination of rent controlled units if The replacement dwelling unit shall be available for occupancy to Households for Lower Income or Very Low Income Households. Regarding the new City Attorney letter in this case: we caution that the City Attorney is not a judge. We suggest you ask why, if section F does not apply to demolitions but only to conversions, that section has been discussed in staff reports on demolitions for years. We suggest you consider why the City Attorney is applying a new interpretation which was suggested by the developer to a law Berkeley has been using for many years. March 2, 2010 To: Steve Buckley, Principal Planner From: Zach Cowan, City Attorney Re: Appeal of AUP for 2412 Stuart Street "we concluded that the rental removal provisions of former Chapter 19.56, which are now subdivisions E and F of Section 23C.08.030, were intended to overlay additional restrictions on the grant of any permit under former Section 15.1-1(c) (including section 23C.08.030.B) for elimination of a dwelling unit if that dwelling unit was a controlled rental unit." June 18, 2009 To: Debra Sanderson, Land Use Planning Manager From: Zach Cowan, Acting City Attorney This has raised the question whether the seven units to be demolished are considered controlled rental units for purposes of the BMC section 23C.08.030, subdivisions (E) and (F), which regulate demolition of controlled rental units. BMC section 23C.08.030, subdivisions (E) and (F), require that certain findings be made in order to demolish a controlled rental unit.2 footnote #2 Subdivisions (E) and (F) originate in the Rental Removal Ordinance (Ord. No. 5626 N.S.), formerly codified as BMC Chapter 19.56, and incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance in 1999 as part of section 23C.08.030. May 9 2013 Acheson Commons staff report H. Appeal Point #8: Removal of Rent Controlled dwellings. Per BMC Sections 23C.08.030.E & F, the Board may approve a Use Permit to allow the elimination of a controlled rental unit if it makes specific findings.
Berkeley Tenants Union 2022 Blake Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 berkeleytenants.org (510) 982-6696 Staff report to Council on changes to Demolition Laws 6/4/2013 FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION The proposed amendments will allow for clearer rules for demolition and clarify what number and type of replacement units are required for certain demolitions. We hope that you will postpone this hearing to get more information, to allow students to have input, and to send a clear message that scheduling two public meetings on issues related to Harold Way at virtually the same time does not serve the public interest. Should you decide to move forward, we hope you will find this demolition is materially detrimental to the public good. Sincerely, Berkeley Tenants Authorized by the BTU Steering Committee
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: 2631 Durant From: Giampaoli Law [mailto:info@giampaolilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 11:41 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: Re: 2631 Durant To Berkeley Zoning Board: I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of the 2631 Durant property because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I also stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. Owners should not be allowed to demolish a building just because the owner did not keep it up. Permitting an owner to benefit from his or her own negligence sends the message that Berkeley rewards negligent and even intentionally harmful conduct. The recent tragedy involving the collapsed balcony that resulted in numerous unnecessary deaths is a terrible reminder of why Berkeley must give more attention to the needs of the citizens and place less importance on the crocodile tears of developers who claim that they can't afford to abide by established laws. Particularly when the developer has contributed and/or created the very situation that they claim they cannot afford to fix. In a time when rent-controlled housing is needed more than ever in the Bay Area, allowing the landlord to get away with benefitting from his own misconduct would be an embarrassment and certain to garner negative media attention when Berkeley is already under intense scrutiny for its lackadaisical oversight of housing and building laws. What's more, it would open the city up to lawsuits brought on behalf of the citizens of Berkeley who have a right to ensure that local government does not circumvent laws meant to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public in favor of private interests. Laws are meant to be followed by everyone, not just those who can't afford to buy their way out of them. Sincerely, Lisa Giampaoli Attorney At Law 1
Giampaoli Law 415-890-6LAW (6529) info@giampaolilaw.com This electronic message transmission contains information from Giampaoli Law that may be proprietary, confidential and/or privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the address listed in the "From:" field. 2
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant From: Norma J F Harrison [mailto:normaha@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 11:21 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. THE BIGGEST DEMOLITION OF RENT CONTROLLED UNITS PROPOSED IN BERKELEY IN DECADES The proposed demolition at 2631 Durant includes 18 rent controlled units which have traditionally been 100% occupied by students. This is the building next door to the Art Museum and across from the dorms near College on Durant. Staff report says 4% is not a "fair return" on investment; not enough profit for the owner in the first year after rehabilitation. Seems like a lot to us, and rents will go up quickly because of student turnover, so why does Berkeley only need to look a the first year to determine return for the speculator? The law says he must get this "fair return" and he says he can only do that by getting rid of the rent controlled units and replacing them with a bunch of high priced, tiny studios. He did a lot of inspections before he bought the rundown building for a bargain price. He was banking on being able to tear down units our laws are designed to protect. Why did he think he could get away with that? Let's not let him! It seems to us that he can get a fair return, because the numbers used to calculate the rents to figure out the return are rents right now, not rents 2 or 3 or 6 years from now when the first year after rehab will likely occur. Market rents southside are going up about 13% a year. The return will actually be much more than 4% because the rents will be much higher than what is in staff report. The owner can afford to fix the building instead of doing a demolition. Owners should not be allowed to demolish a building just because they did not keep it up. This owner invited fire department training crews to cut holes in the roof during record rains this past December, and now Mr Orloff claims it will cost too much to fix. We are not kidding! 1
PLESE HELP DEFFEND OUR HOUSING STOCK Norma J F Harrison 1312 Cornell Berkeley, Ca. 94702 1-510-526-3968 2
Jacob, Melinda From: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: FW: re 2631 Durant for Commissioners June 25 From: Josh Pfeffer [mailto:joshpfeffer@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 11:00 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: re 2631 Durant for Commissioners June 25 Dear Commissioners, I find it outrageous that City Staff thinks that a 4% return is unfairly low. In this market? With rents going up 10% or more every year? What can a middle class person do to earn 4% on an investment these days? The interest on my savings account is less than a tenth of 1%! Whatever happened to investing for the long-run? Owners should not get a privilege like demolition of rent controlled units as a reward for operating apartments with habitability problems. The owner paid a bargain price for this building because they knew it was run down. They did extensive inspections before purchase which are part of the record. They knew how much it would cost to repair, and Berkeley s strict laws about preservation or replacement of rent controlled units have not changed since that time. They knew what they were buying and what laws might apply to the project. See the owner's own description of the condition of the property in original application from 2013 they called it dangerously distressed, yet signed new leases for 2013-2014 after they filed records of all the dangerous conditions. Is it moral to rent out a place you think is dangerous? Also, one of the reasons it will cost so much to fix is because the owner left it open to squatters and invited the Berkeley Fire Department to do stuff like chainsaw holes in the roof. Crazy! Please be sure to look at the report about how all the walls inside are gone now, and think about what having holes in the roof during the one or two big rains we have had might do to construction costs. Why should we grant a privilege to demolish based on the fact that the owner allowed the building to be trashed? Following this email is an article in which another landlord used similar tactics to make their building inhabitable. This landlord is a bad guy. Here's a quote from the attached article: "Complex owner Clifford Orloff had hired a crew to do roof repair but they had to stop work because the crew was missing required permits. That crew left holes in the roof exposed to the elements. Heavy rains were able to pour through those holes and caused the collapse. While others returned to their apartments after a long stint in a hotel and extensive repairs, Chaplin took Orloff up on his offer to opt out of her lease. But now that she has, Orloff s threatening to make her pay her way out unless she signs a release waiving his liability for her damaged personal property." You should not be allowing speculators to come in and buy up old buildings for the purpose of knocking them down and throwing up fancy, 1
expensive buildings with the smallest studio units possible. Where are the students who can t afford to live in new apartments which also won't be rent controlled supposed to live if all the affordable housing gets demolished to allow speculators to build new apartments that cost three times as much? You should JUST SAY NO to this demolition, unless you can replace all 18 units with permanently affordable housing that will be overseen under the inclusionary housing program. Thank you, Josh Pfeffer Berkeley CA The article below is from Fox40.com, http://fox40.com/2013/06/05/attorney-analyzes-landlord-tenant-dispute-over-collapsed-roof/ Attorney Analyzes Landlord, Tenant Dispute over Collapsed Ceiling 11:39 PM, June 5, 2013, by Ian McDonald What could be worse than the ceiling literally caving in on you? What about being forced to pay for breaking your lease because of it all? That s just what two former tenants at Sacramento s Riverfront Apartment tenants say is happening to them. Heather, without the lease being signed you are legally obligated to your entire lease. You are financially responsible for your lease break fee, said tenant Heather Chaplin as she read from an email sent by her landlord. That email to Chaplin followed a May 6 roof collapse that affected 21 units. Complex owner Clifford Orloff had hired a crew to do roof repair but they had to stop work because the crew was missing required permits. That crew left holes in the roof exposed to the elements. Heavy rains were able to pour through those holes and caused the collapse. While others returned to their apartments after a long stint in a hotel and extensive repairs, Chaplin took Orloff up on his offer to opt out of her lease. But now that she has, Orloff s threatening to make her pay her way out unless she signs a release waiving his liability for her damaged personal property. It does seem a little sneaky. I d call it a bait and switch at the last minute, said attorney Deborah Barron. 2
Barron admits all this is anything, but black and white. [Tenants] would have affirmative defenses should they get sued for the full price of the lease by the landlord and they could potentially have a cross complaint for the landlord as well, she said. A big snag in all this for tenants like Chaplin could be wording in their original lease. The wording requires them to have their own insurance to cover losses due to fire and other causes, saying the landlord is not responsible. Chaplin cancelled her renter s policy a month before the collapse. Still she says the severity of what s happened should supersede the lease. 3
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: Please Continue hearing of Durant demolition From: Julia Cato [mailto:otacja@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 10:14 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: Please Continue hearing of Durant demolition Zoning Board: I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. In fact it impedes the public good. ZAB currently has two community-altering issues before it scheduled for the same meeting tonight. In addition, half the people who want to speak also want to be at the special council meeting and will be unable to get to the ZAB meeting on time. I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. Furthermore, I deplore what appears to be a current practice of allowing landlords of rent controlled buildings to let their properties deteriorate to the point that it is "not feasible to repair them." Such practices cannot continue to be rewarded by giving landlords new uncontrolled buildings. Julia Cato, Berkeley Tenants Union, Gray Panthers, concerned citizen "An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." Plutarch "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma Gandhi 1
Dear ZAB Commissioners, It seems my email from 5:02 PM on Tuesday didn't make the deadline for the supplemental communications packet. I was hoping to get you this information earlier. Please find attached: 1) A Copy of this 6/25 letter as a PDF (including email from Tuesday) 2) A spreadsheet showing actual 2013 rents, 2015 market rents per the staff report, and projected rents. 3) RSB market median report I got off the website showing rent increases in market rents for rent controlled properties. 23C.08.010.B I hope you will find this project is materially detrimental under 23C.080.010 B. Contrary to the developer s offer, and as the City Atty has stated, Berkeley can't regulate rents in new construction. Thus losing rent controlled units would not be in the public interest. Additionally, the Housing Element shows that not only are rents for new buildings much higher than rents for older buildings - they also increase at a much faster pace. The charts on pages 34 and 35 of the draft HE show market rents for new tenancies in rent controlled units and the rents in new buildings which are exempt from controls. Market rents in older controlled buildings went up by 14% while rents in new buildings went up 31%. Thus preserving older housing stock is important to maintaining the possibility of lower rents even post-vacancy decontrol. Another reason to find demolition is materially detrimental. 23C08.030E Remember the rules say you MAY approve, not you MUST approve, the project if applicant cannot make a fair return on investment by maintaining the dwelling unit as a part of the rental housing market. If you have concern that 4% is not a fair rate of return, then I suggest it would be wise to request a revised proforma. I tried to make one but I decided there was too much potential for error since I have never done one. As mentioned, the total corrected rents on page 12 of the staff report don't seem to add up correctly. Additionally, shouldn't you use rents as they would be when the rehabilitated units come back on the market? If you agree with your staff that rate of return must be compared to similar investments, please ask for details on the investments your staff compared. Sincerely, Katherine Harr Berkeley ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Katherine <katherine@berkeleytenants.org>
Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:02 PM Subject: re: Durant for June 25 To: ZAB@cityofberkeley.info, zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us When your staff report corrects the developer's proforma by pointing out that the applicant used rents from 2013, they make a similar mistake by using current market rents on rent controlled units in the area. By the time the year arrives when a rehabilitated Durant would go back on the market, rents will be much higher. Please find attached a document from the Rent Board website showing how much rents increased from 2013 to 2014. Additionally, I don't see how your staff got the annual revenue estimate they did. See Page 12 of the staff report: To update the applicant s expected rents, Staff contacted the Rent Stabilization Board to obtain current rent rates for comparable residential units near the project area between Telegraph Avenue to the west, Prospect Street to the east, Durant Avenue to the south, and Bancroft to the north. To ensure that the rents would be most comparable with this site, this survey excluded mixed-use buildings along Telegraph Avenue and focused on buildings with residential uses only. Table 6 below summarizes the average and median rent for each bedroom category, for this area: Table 6: Market Rent Ceilings One bedroom = $1692; 2 bedroom = $2495 When staff recalculates the applicant s pro forma using the above figures, the estimated annual revenue from rent would increase from $274,392 to $344,760. The project has 8 2 bedrooms and ten one-bedrooms, it says throughout the record. (8 x $2495) + (10 x $1692) = $442,592, not $344,760. By my calculation, if you assume only a 7% increase in rents, by the time the units come on the market the rents will be over $535,000 a year. Maybe more since they will be rehabilitated units. I'm still working on the math and will send along a spreadsheet. At the least, there is something wrong with the calculations. At best, the 4% rate of return was good enough already! I don't see anywhere where it defines fair rate, expect in comparison to the market - so you should get more details about the comparisons used by staff about "these type of projects" and their "typical rate of return" (page 13). I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. Katherine Harr Allston Way
Unit # 2013 rents per developer proforma 2015 rents per chart in staff report (8 two beds and 10 one beds) 2631Durant Rate of return calculation should be based on rents when the rehabilitated building comes back on the market.. This chart does not account for even higher rents because the building will be rehabilitated. 2015 plus 7%** 2016 plus 7% 2017 plus 7% ANNUAL INCOME 101 $1,627 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 2015 rents projected 2018 rent 102 $1,033 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 Scheduled Rent Revenues $442,592 $542,195 103 $1,000 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 Other Revenues $1,800 $1,872 104 $1,550 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 Less vacancy loss -$17,704 -$21,688 assumes 4% vacancy rate 105 $1,000 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 106 $1,600 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 TOTAL REVENUES $426,689 $522,379 107 $1,000 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 108 $1,600 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 Please also note: $28,108 CURRENT PROPERTY TAX 109 $900 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 Will the reassessed value nearly double? 201 $1,600 $1,692 $1,811 $1,937 $2,073 Or is most the value in the land itself? 202 $1,000 $2,495 $2,670 $2,857 $3,056 Developer proforma includes tax of over $50,000 203 $1,000 $2,495 $2,670 $2,857 $3,056 204 $1,500 $2,495 $2,670 $2,857 $3,056 205 $1,118 $2,495 $2,670 $2,857 $3,056 206 $1,500 $2,495 $2,670 $2,857 $3,056 207 $1,118 $2,495 $2,670 $2,857 $3,056 208 $1,627 $2,495 $2,670 $2,857 $3,056 209 $1,093 $2,495 $2,670 $2,857 $3,056 Totals $22,866 $36,883 $39,464 $42,227 $45,183 annual $274,392 $442,592 $473,574 $506,724 $542,195 **Rent Board market median report shows rent for studios went up 13.64% from 2013 to 2014 and one bedrooms went up 9.65% last year too- 7% is a conservative estimate
Rent Stabilization Board DATE: March 16, 2015 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Members of the Rent Stabilization Board Jay Kelekian, Executive Director Preliminary Market Medians Report Updated with data through the 4 th Quarter of 2014 The attached market medians reports have been updated with data for the 2 nd, 3 rd, and 4 th quarter of 2014. These reports update the numbers from the 1 st quarter of 2014 report submitted to the Board on September 15, 2014. The data shows that residential rents in Berkeley (for units subject to rent stabilization) have once again reached new all time highs. The following table compares median rents for new tenancies reported during 2014 with median rents for new tenancies during the 2013 calendar year. 2013-14 Annual Market Rent Comparison Unit Size 2013 Median 2014 Median Market Rent Market Rent % increase Studio $1,100 $1,250 13.64% 1 BR $1,460 $1,595 9.25% 2 BR $2,046 $2,250 9.97% 3 BR $2,895 $3,000 3.63% Please note that the data we usually provide for units that have no (or zero) vacancy registration forms filed are not included in the attached reports because they are not yet available. The Board will be provided with updated reports with this information when it is ready. Attachment: 1. Market Medians: January 1999 through December 2014 (Preliminary Report) 2. Market Medians: January 1999 through September 2014 (Preliminary Report) 3. Market Medians: January 1999 through June 2014 (Preliminary Report)
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: Demolition of 2631 Durant Avenue From: mdonalds [mailto:mdonalds@lmi.net] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:55 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Cc: Berkeley Tenants Union Subject: Demolition of 2631 Durant Avenue Dear ZAB, Please read my comments below the DETAILS section. I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. DETAILS: THE BIGGEST DEMOLITION OF RENT CONTROLLED UNITS PROPOSED IN BERKELEY IN DECADES The proposed demolition at 2631 Durant includes 18 rent controlled units which have traditionally been 100% occupied by students. This is the building next door to the Art Museum and across from the dorms near College on Durant. Staff report says 4% is not a "fair return" on investment; not enough profit for the owner in the first year after rehabilitation. Seems like a lot to us, and rents will go up quickly because of student turnover, so why does Berkeley only need to look a the first year to determine return for the speculator? The law says he must get this "fair return" and he says he can only do that by getting rid of the rent controlled units and replacing them with a bunch of high priced, tiny studios. He did a lot of inspections before he bought the run-down building for a bargain price. He was banking on being able to tear down units our laws are designed to protect. Why did he think he could get away with that? Let's not let him! It seems to us that he can get a fair return, because the numbers used to calculate the rents to figure out the return are rents right now, not rents 2 or 3 or 6 years from now when the first year after rehab will likely occur. Market rents Southside are going up about 13% a year. The return will actually be much more than 4% because the rents will be much higher than what is in staff report. The owner can afford to fix the building instead of doing a demolition. Owners should not be allowed to demolish a building just because they did not keep it up. This owner invited fire department training crews to cut holes in the roof during record rains this past December, and now Mr Orloff claims it will cost too much to fix. We are not kidding! 1
PLESE HELP DEFFEND OUR HOUSING STOCK I live in South Berkeley, a few blocks below the proposed building to be demolished. I have been familiar with the property at 2631 Durant Avenue for nearly fifty years. It is an integral part of the fabric of that neighborhood. Almost everyone who visited the Art Museum or Film Archive or walked to the campus passed the property. Many who drive to or from Southside and the university pass it. I have been a property owner in South Berkeley for more than 25 years. Demolition of this building puts my neighborhood at risk. Berkeley has an affordable housing crisis that is fueled by speculation and outrageous increases in housing prices, both for purchase and rental. In addition, more and more people are being crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. This problem would be exacerbated by the demolition of 2631 Durant Avenue. The property at 2631 Durant Avenue has been allowed to deteriorate, or even had the deterioration deliberately accelerated, over the years. A building, that in many ways displays the architectural character that long-time residents of Berkeley cherish and recognize as one of the desirable characteristics of Berkeley, has been grievously neglected. This deliberate neglect should not be sanctioned by the ZAB. Furthermore, speculative demolition of rent-controlled housing for students should not be facilitated by the ZAB. The main reason that this building is being demolished is the desire for large or super profits. Another is that property speculation has driven the cost of property purchase so high that speculators and those who want only to rent or sell to extremely high income people can buy properties in areas near UC Berkeley. Another group of speculators buys properties that they can turn into ant colonies into which they cram students, young people, and those who cannot afford reasonable living spaces. Do not encourage the demolition of an architecturally desirable, rent-controlled building. Do not facilitate the degradation of the living space and lives of prospective tenants at 2631 Durant Avenue. Do not further destroy the character of South Berkeley. Instead, stand up for the protection of tenants and those who want Berkeley to be a humane city for all residents. Thank you, Mike Donaldson 2638 Russell Street #4 Berkeley, CA 94705 2
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: Certify the EIR for Berkeley Plaza From: Anna Bellomo [mailto:abellomo@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:42 AM To: Johnson, Carol; Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: Certify the EIR for Berkeley Plaza Dear Zoning and Adjustments Board: I urge you to certify the EIR for Berkeley Plaza! The project has been exhaustively reviewed from an environmental perspective. The needs of surrounding sensitive uses such as the library and the high school, have been accounted for relevant to the potential for construction impacts. The most environmentally sensitive development possible is embodied by this project, a LEED Gold (or equivalent) structure with high density on top of a BART station. The project is ready to move forward and we should not let perfect be the enemy of good. Thank you, Anna Bellomo -- Anna Bellomo Realtor, Thornwall Properties CalBRE #01822897 Mobile: (510) 417-9390 1656 Shattuck Ave, Berkeley CA 94709 abellomo@gmail.com www.annabellomo.com 1
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: Durant and demolition From: sharon maldonado [mailto:maldonadosharon@att.net] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:21 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: Durant and demolition Dear Commissioners, "I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city." The majority of residents in Berkeley are tenants. Market rents are escalating here and have become unaffordable to a large percentage of our majority population. The citizens of Berkeley passed its Rent Stabilization Ordinance so that everyday people would not be forced out of the city by skyrocketing housing costs. We must preserve the affordable housing we have. Sincerely, Sharon Maldonado, Former Rent Board Commissioner 1
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: Public comment for Thursday meeting From: Pei Wu [mailto:phwu@cryptio.net] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 1:40 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: Public comment for Thursday meeting To the ZAB: I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. I urge the ZAB to stand with the existing and housing-insecure residents of Berkeley, to protect them from the social and economic forces (the profit motive connected to the current real estate market) that seem to serve to push out certain vulnerable communities and invite in the more "desirables" into the area-- is this not class cleansing, with the market as its justifying logic? Please support rent controlled housing, affordable housing, and housing security for all-- I urge that any demolitions of affordable housing units to be immediately replaced or increased in the housing stock. I refer specifically to the possible demolition of 2631 Durant, which has 18 rentcontrolled units. Please refuse its demolition until the affordable units can be immediately replaced, or urge the owner to repair the units. The Zoning Board can aid in softening the divisiveness of the current housing crisis by structuring more equitable relations between those at the margins and those who are not-- we are lucky in having a progressive political culture!-- it would be great to (continue to) be an example of a community that comes up with creative ways to increase housing security and refuse the displacement of our diverse and marginal neighbors (people of color, queer, poor, disabled, immigrants). I don't believe in choosing my neighbors, and I don't want the housing market to choose for me, either. Thank you for your time, Pei Wu, 94703 1
Jacob, Melinda From: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: FW: for Commissioners re: Durant demolition, June 25 From: David Pruess [mailto:pruess@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 12:08 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: for Commissioners re: Durant demolition, June 25 This project is greenwashing at its worst. Everything is pretending to be a green building to rationalize the incredible waste and carbon footprint that comes from demolishing a building, throwing all that waste into a landfill, expending fossil fuels to fabricate new green construction materials, and then expending even more fossil fuels assembling the green building itself. What happens next, when the green materials wear out or fall out of fashion, replaced by greener materials that have marginally better energy ratings (never mind the energy expended to produce the materials!) the green building materials get thrown away too, and the cycle of wasted energy chasing the dream of energy efficiency continues once again. Everyone knows it is sustainable to reuse, recycle and repair. Please apply that standard here and say no to demolitions of rent controlled units. I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed. If you must vote for the project, then see that they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. If we are asked to give up older, affordable, rent controlled housing in exchange for slightly more new, expensive housing, we must gain something valuable for the community in exchange. 18 permanently affordable units would be the the minimum exchange. Sincerely, David Pruess 1
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: proposed demolition of 2631 Durant From: oaktownhottie@gmail.com [mailto:oaktownhottie@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Karin Wertheim Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 4:01 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: proposed demolition of 2631 Durant To the Zoning Board of the City of Berkeley: I stand with the Berkeley Tenants Union in asking that the Zoning Board hold over consideration of 2631 Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I stand with the Berkeley Tenants Union in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be *closely monitored for compliance by the city*. I have lived in rental properties in Berkeley for 6+ years, and my landlord has repeatedly attempted to avoid making necessary repairs and to overcharge me on rent. I have depended on this city's strong tenants rights laws to keep my apartment safe, habitable and affordable for my family. Berkeley is still a great place to live, and there is no way I could afford to live here without rent control (and I don't need to tell you how much rents have risen in the last two years, driving out so many people who cannot afford to live here any more). I love Berkeley's diversity and its public school system, and my daughter and I have both benefitted greatly from living here. I strongly urge you to keep Berkeley economically diverse and affordable for people like us. FIX THE LAW that says "IF the building is in really bad shape, THEN you can tear it down but only if you replace rent controlled units with permanently affordable housing unless it's a demolition." This law should apply to demolitions as well - landlord would actually have to keep their buildings in good repair if they knew they couldn't just demolish them, rebuild and then charge way higher rent. That's unfair and wrong. Deny the permit for the landlord 2631 Durant to demolish that building and fix this law now. 1
For the public good, Karin E. Wertheim 1624 Woolsey, Apt. 1 Berkeley, CA 94703 2
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: 6/25 Re: 2631 Durant From: Tree Fitzpatrick [mailto:tree.fitzpatrick@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 3:36 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB); info@bekeleytenants.org Subject: 6/25 Re: 2631 Durant I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. The owners of 2631 Durant includes 18 rent controlled units have not limited themselves to grossly neglecting the maintenance at 2631 Durant. The owners have actually allowed the Berkeley Fire Department to use 2631 Durant to conduct fire traiing, knocking holes into the roof in the FD training and then failing to repair the holes. It is immoral, injust and probably illegal to deliberately damage a property and deliberately neglect it so the owner can petition ZAB for a demoltion permit of 18 rent controlled units. It is indecent to see the wicked lengths the owners have gone to for money. Please deny any permit to demolish rent controlled units that will either be replaced as rent control units or as affordable housing. I don't fully understand the legal issues that control whether replacement housing should be rent controlled or affordable but I am pretty sure it is illegal for the landlord to buy a property and then enable its deterioration to the point where the landlord thinks he can pursue a demolition permit and then seek a build permit to build new, uncontrolled, unaffordable, likely luxury, maximum rent housing. At this time of severe housing crises, ZAB's first duty should be to protecting those whose housing is at risk. Granting the 2631 Durant demolition permit would be a travesty of justice and of human decency. Please do not reward these evil, profit-driven landlords from taking 18 rent controlled units out of Berkeley in the midst of this severe housing crises. Sincerely, Tree Fitzpatrick JD MS 1
Jacob, Melinda Subject: FW: 2631 Durant project From: Rhiannon [mailto:pwrbus@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:06 PM To: Jacob, Melinda; Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Cc: City Clerk Subject: 2631 Durant project City staff, as usual, has rubber-stamped this as "categorically exempt from CEQA as an infill project", but in order to qualify as exempt, an infill project has to comply with an adopted plan that has undergone Environmental Review. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/section_15183.3_feb2013.pdf The Environmental Impact Report for the Southside Plan assumes, for R-SMU zone, 3 stories of residential (4 story buildings are allowed with one floor of non residential use), this project has 5 residential floors which was not considered in the EIR. Also the maximum lot coverage in the EIR is.45 (the Zoning code says.40), this project is.60. The Final EIR assumes parking at.165 which would result in 9 spaces for this project where none are supplied (and not supplying parking does not mean there won't be cars, it just means residents will be parking in the neighborhood, which should be considered and mitigated). With 10% inclusionary units, this project should provide 5 affordable units, not 1. The EIR also limits the number of residences per acre to a maximum of 100 in the Residential High Density Subarea. This lot is less than a quarter acre which would limit it to 24 units, not the planned 56. The R-SMU designation was to be a transition zone between the higher density areas and traditional neighborhoods. This project contains enough variation from the adopted Southside EIR to warrant a full CEQA review. http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedfiles/planning_(new_site_map_walk-through)/level_3_-_general/southside%20plan%20rtc%20final%20eir(1).pdf I know that the ZAB will be very busy tomorrow, but there are enough questions around this project to continue it to a future date to answer and mitigate some of these variations from the adopted EIR. Thanks again, rhiannon 1
Jacob, Melinda From: Subject: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) FW: No demolition of 2631 Durant From: Rob Wrenn [mailto:robwrenn@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 8:27 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Cc: info@berkeleytenants.org Subject: No demolition of 2631 Durant Dear Zoning Adjustments Board, I stand with The Berkeley Tenants Union (BTU) in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. It is totally unacceptable to allow any reduction of the current rental housing stock by demolition unless the units are replaced by permanently affordable units. The proposed demolition of 18 rent-controlled units at 2361 Durant is simply unacceptable and clearly contrary to the obvious intent of existing City law, despite what the City Attorney might tell you. It is unacceptable to allow demolition by neglect; to let irresponsible property owners who fail to properly maintain their properties get away with demolishing them without full replacement of the units with permanently affordable ones. Rob Wrenn, former chair Berkeley Planning Commission. 1
Jacob, Melinda From: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: FW: Durant for June 25 Attachments: Final_Cover_rpt_MedianRents_Q2 to Q4_2014-2.pdf From: Katherine [mailto:katherine@berkeleytenants.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 5:03 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB); Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: re: Durant for June 25 When your staff report corrects the developer's proforma by pointing out that the applicant used rents from 2013, they make a similar mistake by using current market rents on rent controlled units in the area. By the time the year arrives when a rehabilitated Durant would go back on the market, rents will be much higher. Please find attached a document from the Rent Board website showing how much rents increased from 2013 to 2014. Additionally, I don't see how your staff got the annual revenue estimate they did. See Page 12 of the staff report: To update the applicant s expected rents, Staff contacted the Rent Stabilization Board to obtain current rent rates for comparable residential units near the project area between Telegraph Avenue to the west, Prospect Street to the east, Durant Avenue to the south, and Bancroft to the north. To ensure that the rents would be most comparable with this site, this survey excluded mixed-use buildings along Telegraph Avenue and focused on buildings with residential uses only. Table 6 below summarizes the average and median rent for each bedroom category, for this area: Table 6: Market Rent Ceilings One bedroom = $1692; 2 bedroom = $2495 When staff recalculates the applicant s pro forma using the above figures, the estimated annual revenue from rent would increase from $274,392 to $344,760. The project has 8 2 bedrooms and ten one-bedrooms, it says throughout the record. (8 x $2495) + (10 x $1692) = $442,592, not $344,760. By my calculation, if you assume only a 7% increase in rents, by the time the units come on the market the rents will be over $535,000 a year. Maybe more since they will be rehabilitated units. I'm still working on the math and will send along a spreadsheet. At the least, there is something wrong with the calculations. At best, the 4% rate of return was good enough already! I don't see anywhere where it defines fair rate, expect in comparison to the market - so you should get more details about the comparisons used by staff about "these type of projects" and their "typical rate of return" (page 13). I stand with BTU in asking that ZAB hold over consideration of Durant because the scheduling of conflicting community meetings does not serve the public good. 1
I stand with BTU in asking that the Zoning Board not allow rent controlled units to be destroyed unless they are replaced with homes that will permanently rent to people making less than 50% of area median and be closely monitored for compliance by the city. Katherine Harr Allston Way 2
Rent Stabilization Board DATE: March 16, 2015 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Members of the Rent Stabilization Board Jay Kelekian, Executive Director Preliminary Market Medians Report Updated with data through the 4 th Quarter of 2014 The attached market medians reports have been updated with data for the 2 nd, 3 rd, and 4 th quarter of 2014. These reports update the numbers from the 1 st quarter of 2014 report submitted to the Board on September 15, 2014. The data shows that residential rents in Berkeley (for units subject to rent stabilization) have once again reached new all time highs. The following table compares median rents for new tenancies reported during 2014 with median rents for new tenancies during the 2013 calendar year. 2013-14 Annual Market Rent Comparison Unit Size 2013 Median 2014 Median Market Rent Market Rent % increase Studio $1,100 $1,250 13.64% 1 BR $1,460 $1,595 9.25% 2 BR $2,046 $2,250 9.97% 3 BR $2,895 $3,000 3.63% Please note that the data we usually provide for units that have no (or zero) vacancy registration forms filed are not included in the attached reports because they are not yet available. The Board will be provided with updated reports with this information when it is ready. Attachment: 1. Market Medians: January 1999 through December 2014 (Preliminary Report) 2. Market Medians: January 1999 through September 2014 (Preliminary Report) 3. Market Medians: January 1999 through June 2014 (Preliminary Report)