Housing Element

 

Introduction

The Housing Element serves as the City's overall housing goals and policy framework. The Element is intended to guide decisions that will facilitate the development, rehabilitation, and availability of housing in Berkeley.

The Housing Element is informed by the following documents:

The Housing Element Appendix, 2001

Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2000, City of Berkeley, 1995.

The Mayor's HIV/AIDS Housing Task Force Report, City of Berkeley, 1996.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, City of Berkeley, 1996.

SHAKEN AWAKE! Estimates of Uninhabitable Dwelling Units and Peak Shelter Populations in Future Earthquakes Affecting the San Francisco Bay Region, Association of Bay Area Governments, 1996.

Homelessness in Berkeley: A Background Report for Preparation of the Berkeley Homeless Continuum of Care Plan, City of Berkeley, 1997.

The Berkeley Homeless Continuum of Care Plan, City of Berkeley, 1998.

Rent Control in the City of Berkeley, 1978 to 1994: A Background Report for Updating the City of Berkeley's General Plan Housing Element, City of Berkeley, 1998.

Berkeley Rent Control 1998: Occupant and Housing Profile (Public Review Draft), City of Berkeley, 1999.

Policy Background

The Housing Element Appendix provides extensive information about the city’s housing needs and existing programs to meet those needs. The appendix provides all of the supporting information required for a Housing Element pursuant to Government Code Sections 65580 et seq. The following policy background provides a brief summary of some of the information.

Housing Costs

The U.S. economy and its metropolitan housing markets in the 1960s and 1970s were very different from what exists today.1 Household incomes, gross rents, and home values were generally more similar in 1960 among metropolitan areas, including Berkeley and the Bay Area, than in more recent data in 1990 and 2000. Over the last 30 years, post-World War II home prices, rents, and incomes in California, the Bay Area, and Berkeley increased faster than the national medians.

Over the last forty years, the cost of housing in Berkeley increased dramatically. Single-family home values (that is, reported home values by Census respondents) for Berkeley were one-third higher than the national median in 1960, but by 1980 Berkeley and Bay Area home values were over twice the national median home value of $47,000. By 1990, Berkeley and Bay Area home values were over three times the national median, and they reached four times the national median by 2000.

As affordable home ownership options grew more scarce in the Bay Area, more pressure was placed on the rental housing market regionally, and in Berkeley, beginning in the 1970s. In 1980 and 1990, Berkeley’s experience with rent control kept its rents close to the national median gross rents for 1980. They fell somewhat below the national median in 1990. Meanwhile, Bay Area and California median gross rents were both about 50 percent higher than both Berkeley’s and the nation’s median gross rent in 1990.

To gain a sense of comparative changes in gross rents through 2000, staff adjusted the national 1990 median gross rent by changes in the CPI for rent of primary residence in all U.S. cities between 1990 and 2000. Staff estimates the national median gross rent last year at $594 per month. Rent increases in Berkeley during the 1990s closed the gap between Berkeley, the Bay Area, and California as a whole. The Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board reports a citywide median market rent in 2000 of $1,100 per month for newly rented units2, which was higher than staff’s estimate of the Bay Area median gross rent of $1,011 in 2000.

Staff collected the same data for Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, both West Coast cities with universities in them, as well as Boulder, Colorado, a western city that also hosts a major university. Berkeley’s median household income fluctuated above and below the median household incomes of Boulder, Seattle, and Portland between 1960 and 1990. By 1990, however, Berkeley’s median household income was similar to each of these cities, at about $29,700. Berkeley’s median gross rent closely paralleled those of Portland and Seattle, although Boulder’s median gross rent was about 20 percent higher. Berkeley’s rent control kept rents at or near national levels and those of other similar metropolitan areas like Seattle and Portland. Berkeley’s home values increased to about twice as high as Seattle’s and Boulder’s in 1990 and over four times as high as Portland’s.

Housing costs play a major role in inflation, especially in the Bay Area. Rents increased 31 percent in the Bay Area between 1996 and 2000 in contrast to just 13.5 percent across all U.S. cities (an indicator which includes the Bay Area). Inflation in all non-housing commodities was just 9.5 percent between 1996 and 2000 in the Bay Area, versus 8.4 percent in all U.S. cities over the same period.

Housing Supply

  Since 1980, Berkeley has experienced only very slow growth in its overall housing supply. Between 1980 and 2000, the city’s housing stock grew 1.2 percent, from 46,334 units to 46,875 in the most recent Census, a net gain of 541units. Between 1980 and 1990, the City actually experienced a net decline of 599 units (due in large part to a loss of illegal and second units as conditions changed under rent control). Between 1990 and 2000, however, the city’s housing stock increased by a net gain of 1,140 new housing units.

Almost half of these new units were constructed by the University of California at Berkeley to house college students. The remainder were procured by efforts of private sector individuals, developers, and non-profit housing organizations.

Developers seeking to build new housing in Berkeley face an array of obstacles both governmental and non-governmental. The City of Berkeley’s Zoning Ordinance allows second units in single-family residential zones under certain conditions. Other City regulations affecting parking and hillside development further constrain opportunities for new housing construction. At one time it could be argued that rent control in Berkeley was a disincentive to producing new housing, but in the wake of state deregulation of vacant rental units, market rents are higher than ever in Berkeley.

Berkeley also is nearly built out; there is little undeveloped land or property easily redeveloped in Berkeley to enable addition of new units. As a result, those properties suitable for development are the objects of intense competition, which bids up land values. Areas where zoning might otherwise allow new residential construction are precluded by slope and proximity to the Hayward earthquake fault. In addition, land values have increased significantly since 1990, and the recent regional economic boom in the Bay Area created a construction labor shortage that forced construction costs to rise.

Consequently, Berkeley’s plans for housing development inevitably rely less on new single-family forms of housing and more on multi-family housing construction in the Downtown or along several of Berkeley’s transit corridors.

Rental Housing

According to the 2000 Census, approximately 25,000 of the city’s 46,875 housing units are rental units. Approximately 19,169 of the rental units are rent controlled units, and approximately 1,500 are rent restricted "affordable" units. The rent restricted units include: senior housing (619 units), non-profit housing projects (496 units), public housing (75 units), limited equity cooperatives (130 units), the UC Hotel (74 rooms), and inclusionary units in for-profit projects (65 units).

Rent and Eviction Controls

Rent control is one of the City’s primary programs for maintaining good quality affordable housing, along with stability and security for the city’s tenants. The Berkeley voters passed the Rent Stabilization and Good Cause for Eviction Ordinance in 1980.3 In 1982, the voters passed a Charter Amendment establishing an elected Rent Stabilization Board (Berkeley Charter, Article XVII, section 121). The rent control program does not construct new housing. Rather, by regulating rents it is a key vehicle for preserving affordable housing stock for existing tenants in Berkeley. It also protects tenants from arbitrary evictions through a system of eviction controls and twelve defined just causes for eviction. Census data from 1990 indicate that Berkeley had approximately 43,500 occupied housing units (excluding dormitories and other group quarters housing). Almost 24,500 of these units were renter-occupied, housing 45,446 of Berkeley’s total 1990 population of 102,724. As of April 2001, over 19,300 units were listed as registered in the Rent Board’s official database. (Approximately 5,000 rental units have always been exempt from rent control or are temporarily exempt.) Since single-family houses rented after January 1, 1996 are permanently exempt from rent control under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, approximately 95 percent of all rent-controlled units are now apartments.

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 49 percent of renters in Berkeley had family incomes at or below 50 percent of the median for the Bay Area. Only 14 percent of owner households were at or below the 50 percent level. Thus, policies that affect renters tend to affect lower income families.

Two events significantly increased rent levels in Berkeley in the decade of the 1990s: the Searle decision and subsequent actions, and the Legislature’s passage of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995, which mandated vacancy decontrol in Berkeley. In addition, the Rent Stabilization Board and the Code Enforcement Division of the Housing Department coordinate their efforts at protecting tenants from inappropriate rent increases and substandard housing conditions.

Searle v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board

In 1990, in Searle v. Rent Stabilization Board (depublished by the California Supreme Court, October 25, 1990), the Court of Appeals ruled that the Board’s method of awarding annual general adjustments (AGA) did not guarantee landlords a fair return in most cases. Searle required the Board to modify its AGA formula to account for the effects of inflation on net operating income (NOI).4 The Court also ruled that the Board had failed to establish a rational basis in its formula for measuring fair return on investment as 40 percent of CPI increase, but suggested that the record might support an adjustment of 50 percent or more. The Board, following that decision, amended its regulations to adjust the base period net operating income by a percentage equal to 100 percent of the increase in the Consumer Price Index, all items less shelter, between 1979 and 1990.

The Board passed Regulation 1113 authorizing a 45 percent rent increase in all units over May 31, 1980 rents. This increased current rents by 28 percent. Although the regulations permitted some gradual implementation, the net result was a sharp increase in rents across the board. Subsequently, in 1996, the Rent Board determined that the increase had been excessive and reduced rent increases somewhat to compensate. By that time, however, the State had mandated vacancy decontrol.

According to a recent Rent Stabilization Board survey,5 30 percent of Berkeley tenants in 1988 reported paying more than 30 percent of their monthly incomes in rent. By 1998, this figure had risen to 48 percent, a 60 percent increase in the number of tenants paying over 30 percent of their incomes in rent 10 years before. The increase was caused in part by the Searle increases and in part by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act

From 1979 through the end of 1998, the City of Berkeley controlled rents on both vacant and occupied rental units. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, Civil Code sections 1954.50 to 1954.535, went into effect on January 1, 1996. The Act preempted to the State Legislature the power to regulate rents on vacant units, thereby instituting full vacancy decontrol in Berkeley (unlimited rent increases at the point of vacancy, and then recontrol of the rent) on all apartment units starting January 1, 1999. (Single-family units and condominiums are gradually exempt from all forms of rent control beginning January 1, 1999.) Between January 1, 1996 and January 1, 1999, the Act permitted a gradual decontrol, permitting the landlords to raise rents, upon vacancy, no more than twice in an amount equal to 15 percent over the previous rent in effect.

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which mandated full vacancy decontrol beginning in January 1999, erodes rent control’s main purpose of maintaining an affordable housing stock. Although approximately 50 percent of regulated housing units are still affordable to low- and moderate-income tenants, the number of those remaining units with affordable rents decreases steadily by today’s rent and income standards.

Subject to limitations on how units become vacant, residential property owners may seek market rent on units that turn over (where a tenant moves out and another moves in). When a unit gets rented anew, the owner informs the Rent Board of the new rent. The Rent Board calls this a "vacancy registration" and while the unit is occupied by tenants paying this rent, it is under rent control.6

Eviction controls were amended in November 2000 by Berkeley voters’ approval of Measure Y. This measure prohibits landlord and relative move-in evictions in the following instances:

• The landlord owns less than a 50 percent recorded interest in the property.
• A tenant in the unit has lived on the property for 5 or more years and the landlord has a 10 percent or greater ownership interest in 5 or more residential units in Berkeley (with limited exceptions).
• A tenant in the unit is at least 60 years old or disabled, and has lived on the property for five or more years, and the landlord has a 10 percent or greater ownership interest in 4 residential units in Berkeley (with limited exceptions).
• The landlord is otherwise entitled to evict the tenant but owns a vacant (currently or within the last 90 days) and available comparable unit in Berkeley.
  

Under Measure Y, landlords must offer the tenant any unit the landlord owns in Berkeley that becomes available before the tenant vacates his or her unit, and must provide a $4,500 relocation assistance payment to any low-income tenant who has resided in the unit for one year or more, provided the tenant notifies the landlord and Rent Board in writing of their low-income status. In addition, the landlord or relative must move into the unit within three months of the eviction and must live in the unit for three years. Measure Y also gives evicted tenants the right to reoccupy the unit when the landlord or relative moves out.

Homelessness

Homelessness continues to be a significant problem in Berkeley. No clear data exist to document that homelessness is either increasing or decreasing. However, anecdotal indications suggest that homelessness has not decreased and has probably increased in Berkeley with the implementation of Federal welfare reform legislation, vacancy decontrol, increased housing demand from the economic boom of 1999 and 2000, and household growth in the Bay Area.

There are approximately 1,000 homeless people in Berkeley at any given time and each year a total of over 3,000 people are homeless in Berkeley at least part of the year. Many homeless people struggle with serious mental illnesses, drug or alcohol addiction, or physical ailments (including HIV/AIDS), and have special housing needs as a result. Other Berkeley residents may be at risk of homelessness. Of the 7,700 non-student households in Berkeley who are eligible for government housing assistance, only about 2,800 households in 1990 received some form of government housing assistance (apart from the mortgage interest deduction). The City Council recognized in 1993-94 that homelessness is a regional problem demanding regional solutions. Today the City of Berkeley actively collaborates with homeless service providers, the City of Oakland, and Alameda County in addressing a variety of homeless issues, including development of standards of homeless service provision, and a standardized data collection and management system countywide to estimate the homeless population and monitor its service needs, while protecting client confidentiality.

City Efforts to Respond to Housing Challenges and Problems

The City of Berkeley and the City’s Housing Department have initiated and maintained many important efforts to combat the housing problems facing the Berkeley community.

Through the City's General Fund and Housing Trust Fund, the City has loaned for-profit and non-profit housing developers over $8 million since 1990 for properties now in operation. In turn, developers have obtained an additional $8 million in loans and grants from private-sector and other governmental (mainly Federal) sources. Another $4.6 million has been loaned more recently on nearly 200 more new and rehabilitated affordable units, which have not yet been completed. Since 1987, a total of 287 new apartment and condominium units have been constructed under the City's Inclusionary Housing zoning provisions. Of these, 66 units have been made available at reduced prices or restricted rents. Of these restricted units, 37 are rentals and 29 are condominium units.

The City began operating its Housing Trust Fund in 1992 to provide gap financing to affordable housing development projects. To date, nearly 600 new and rehabilitated units have been completed and rented or sold to low-income households at affordable prices.

The Berkeley Housing Authority administers the Section 8 housing assistance program. This program can assist about 1900 qualified households. The program's lease-up rate is presently 85 percent.

The City also participates in the County's Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC), which provides a Federal tax credit on mortgage interest to first-time homebuyers. The MCC Program is a Federal income tax credit that provides qualified low-income homebuyers a tax credit worth up to 15 percent of their annual mortgage interest paid on their home loan. MCC recipients adjust their Federal income tax withholding, which increases their take-home pay, making them better able to make their mortgage payment. Alameda County reports a cumulative total of 109 MCCs issued to Berkeley homebuyers since 1994, an average of about 24 MCCs per year. The average home price paid by MCC users was $152,806.

Disaster Preparedness and Housing

A major earthquake on the northern segment of the Hayward Fault is expected to make more than 13,000 Berkeley housing units uninhabitable. In such an emergency, over 8,500 Berkeley residents are predicted to be homeless and in need of shelter, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments.

Element Objectives

In the year 2000 Berkeley has undergone and continues to undergo historic changes. Drastic increases in home prices and rents, fueled by a runaway Bay Area housing market and State-mandated decontrol of rents upon vacancy, have created a situation where the majority of current Berkeley residents could not afford to live here if they were only now trying to find a home in Berkeley.

Unless the City takes extraordinary actions to create a large stock of permanently affordable housing that is rented or sold at below-market rates, the Berkeley of the future will have a different and much higher-income population. As a result, it will lose a significant part of its economic and cultural diversity. Artists who work in the growing arts district will live elsewhere, as will people who work at the University, attendants who assist people with severe disabilities, and people who staff Berkeley's many non-profit organizations that provide social services and generate social innovations.

The main alternative is to encourage efforts to increase the number of permanently affordable below-market housing units from the current 1,600 units to 8,000 units primarily by encouraging acquisition of existing rental units by non-profit housing developers and limited equity co-ops. In addition, the City can encourage construction of new affordable units by housing developers. Eight thousand affordable units would be sufficient to enable as much as 16 percent of Berkeley's population to afford to live here on a low income.

Achieving this goal will require a major increase in funds for the City’s Housing Trust Fund, which will require new sources of revenues. Such a program is achievable only with broad public support and willingness to sustain a genuinely transformative social program. Berkeley can choose to accept the current trend of rapid home price and rent escalation or take another path, but it will not be able to simply remain as it is today.

The policies and actions of the Housing Element are intended to ensure adequate housing opportunities for all citizens of Berkeley and guide the City toward achievement of the following objectives, which are carried over from the 1990 Housing Element:

1. Housing Affordability

Berkeley residents should have access to decent housing at a range of prices they can afford in pleasant neighborhoods that meet standards of quality. All current evidence indicates that the shortage of housing inventory increases as income declines. The shortage is particularly acute at the lowest levels of affordability in both the ownership and rental housing stock. Limited City resources must focus on these areas of need.

2. Maintenance of Existing Housing and Disaster Preparedness

Existing housing should be maintained, improved, and fully utilized. In addition, Berkeley anticipates substantial damage to housing units from a major earthquake on the northern segment of the Hayward Fault. Given housing market conditions here, it is critical that the community plan to avoid a net loss of housing units resulting from earthquakes or other major disasters.

3. Expansion of the Housing Supply

New housing should be developed to expand housing opportunities in Berkeley in accordance with density and environmental standards. Particular attention should be directed at development on transit corridors and at nodes.

4. Special Needs Housing

Berkeley should have an adequate supply of housing throughout the city for people with special needs. Consistent with this objective, Berkeley should maintain its efforts to reduce homelessness through regional coordination, and provision of appropriate service-enriched housing. Where feasible, Berkeley should fill gaps in housing and services and in its overall continuum of care. Additionally, the City should strive to increase available housing for those who have physical and/or mental disabilities.

5. Relationship with the University of California and Other Institutions

The University of California and other institutions should take responsibility for housing demand they generate which create additional pressure on the private housing market in Berkeley. By doing so, they would help avoid causing or increasing housing problems for other Berkeley residents. The City will work with the University and other State institutions to create new housing and jointly address housing issues of mutual concern.

6. Fair and Accessible Housing

Fair and accessible housing is the law. All residents should have equal access to housing opportunities, to necessary accommodations in their housing, to adequate financing and insurance, and to purchase, sell, rent, and lease property.

7. Regional Cooperation

Promote regional cooperation on housing and related issues to achieve planning goals.

8. Public Participation in Housing Decisions

Berkeley should improve the role of neighborhood residents and community organizations in the planning process. This includes thorough and timely notification to all interested parties.

9. Future Housing Element Revisions

Maintain an up-to-date Housing Element. Conduct a public review and update of the Housing Element every five years to examine whether major changes in policies may be necessary in order to achieve General Plan goals.

Policies and Actions

Affordability

Policy H-1 Low and Moderate Income Housing

Increase the number of housing units affordable to low- and moderate-income Berkeley residents. (Also see Land Use Policies LU-18 and LU-25.)

Actions:

A. Develop a specific ordinance to encourage below-market-rate housing that includes a variety of incentives for affordable housing development including but not limited to density bonuses, fee waivers, property tax waivers, subsidized loans, and other programs.

B. Allow increases in density in specific areas of the city solely to promote the production of below-market-rate housing.

C. Use existing City programs to provide housing to households at the lowest income levels, including deeply affordable housing for persons with disabilities, the elderly, and very low-income families.

D. Ensure that below-market-rate housing is distributed as evenly as possible throughout the community.

E. Maintain and enforce zoning provisions requiring inclusion of affordable units in new housing developments. Consider adjustments to the affordability levels to make units more affordable in response to the increasing cost of rental and ownership housing in the community.

F. Set a goal of providing an additional 6,400 permanently affordable housing units for low- and very- low-income households through acquisition of existing housing and new construction.

G. Encourage developers to separate the actual costs for renting parking from the costs of new rental housing for the tenants.

H. Emphasize providing entry-level home ownership for teachers, City employees, and others in Berkeley’s workforce, by continuing the City’s First Time Homebuyer participation in the County mortgage certificate program, providing subsidies for limited equity cooperatives and deed-restricted condominiums and other forms of ensuring continued affordability, providing first-time homebuyer opportunities for teachers, City employees, and others in Berkeley’s workforce, continuing efforts to establish homebuyers’ program for Section 8 certificate holders, and improving educational materials on how to take advantage of these programs.

Policy H-2 Funding Sources

Aggressively develop additional sources of funds for low-income housing, assistance to low-income residents, and implementation of the Berkeley Homelessness Continuum of Care Plan. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-28.)

Actions:

A. Consider local bond financing and local, State, and Federal tax sources, such as business license tax and/or real property transfer tax, to generate additional resources for the Housing Trust Fund and other housing programs. Require provisions to allow for pass-through of additional costs from any increased tax burden to tenants.

B. Consider a program that "links" City of Berkeley financial assets to lending institutions with lending practices that support low-income housing development.

C. Increase housing mitigation fees on new development to the maximum allowed under the existing nexus study; if necessary, prepare a new nexus study to adjust fees to changing housing market conditions. Apply impact fees to new hotel or conference center uses as well as to office, retail, and industrial uses.

D. Consider adopting a redevelopment project area for blighted commercial areas of the city, including blighted areas of south Shattuck Avenue, and directing tax increment revenues from those areas to fund infill affordable housing as part of mixed use development.

E. Maintain and improve the Berkeley Housing Authority’s ability to assist low-income Berkeley households to locate and secure suitable and affordable rental housing.

Policy H-3 Maintaining Affordability

Ensure that below-market-rate housing remains affordable for the longest period that is economically and legally feasible.

Action:

A. To keep existing housing affordable, prioritize the use of City resources to assist in the acquisition of existing privately-owned housing with expiring rent subsidies by nonprofits committed to ensuring that rents remain affordable for the current low-income tenants.

B. As part of the General Plan annual review, staff will provide an evaluation of existing subsidized housing properties that may be at risk of conversion and recommend measures for mitigating potential impacts.

Policy H-4 Rent Control

Take actions to protect tenants from large rent increases, arbitrary evictions, hardship from relocation, and the loss of their homes.

Actions:

A. Support the Rent Stabilization Program and enforcement of the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance in order to protect tenants from large rent increases and loss of their homes.

B. Support repeal of the vacancy decontrols of the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act or pursue other means to provide City autonomy to stabilize rents through vacancy controls.

Policy H-5 Acquisition

Use City resources in the broadest and most efficient way to enable acquisition of existing rental housing by tenants’ groups and nonprofit organizations under conditions that assure permanent affordability of such housing, such as use of the limited equity cooperative form of ownership.

Action:

A. Provide technical assistance and information to tenants on how to establish limited equity cooperatives.

Policy H-6 Economic Diversity

Encourage inclusion of households with a range of incomes in housing developments through both regulatory requirements and incentives.

Policy H-7 Rental Housing Conservation

Preserve existing rental housing by limiting through regulation the subdivision of land for the purpose of converting rental properties to condominiums.

Action:

A. Consider setting a final date for conversion of tenant-in-common units to condominiums.

Policy H-8 Single Room Occupancy Housing

Encourage the preservation and expansion of the supply of residential hotel rooms and other single room occupancy (SRO) accommodations that provide low-cost housing to Berkeley residents.

Maintenance of Existing Housing

Policy H-9 Maintain Housing

Maintain and preserve the existing supply of housing in the city.

Policy H-10 Code Requirements

Enforce code requirements to insure that existing housing meets health and safety standards.

Actions:

A. Develop an outreach program to property owners to keep them apprised of changes in regulations and laws such as lead-based paint disclosure requirements, security bar rules, etc.

B. Support efforts to develop a program for periodic inspection of rental units for health and safety code compliance.

Policy H-11 Deterioration, Blight, and Deferred Maintenance

Prevent blight and the deterioration of housing units resulting from deferred maintenance.

Actions:

A. Pursue all legal remedies to require owners of vacant, blighted residential structures to repair and return their properties to the housing market.

B. Work with lending institutions to increase financing options for housing rehabilitation.

Policy H-12 Assistance Programs

Establish and maintain programs to assist low-income property owners with maintaining rental housing without the need to raise rents.

Policy H-13 Energy Efficiency

Improve the safety and energy efficiency of new and existing homes and apartments. (Also see Environmental Management Policies EM-4, EM-5, EM-35, and EM-36, and Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-33.)

Actions:

A. Encourage use of green building materials and reuse of building materials.

B. Consider revisions to City building codes to encourage environmentally sound construction and rehabilitation.

Policy H-14 Berkeley Housing Authority

Encourage the Berkeley Housing Authority and other owners of publicly subsidized rental housing to cooperate with occupant organizations to maintain a high-quality living environment. Encourage the continuing improvement of the Housing Authority and, as with all departments, ensure that it meets the highest requirements and standards in its performance.

Actions:

A. Take appropriate actions that will result in the Berkeley Housing Authority remaining within the City structure, rather than transfer programs to the County or other housing agency.

B. Consider posting information regarding availability of affordable housing on the City’s website.

Policy H-15 Seismic Reinforcement

Maintain housing supply and reduce the loss of life and property caused by earthquakes by requiring structural strengthening and hazard mitigation in Berkeley housing. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policies S-15, S-17, S-18, S-20, and S-21.)

Actions:

A. Consider enacting additional incentive programs and requirements to encourage retrofitting of seismically unsafe buildings, such as unreinforced-masonry buildings and soft-story buildings.

B. To reduce the seismic threat to Berkeley’s housing stock without necessitating substantial rent increases that would displace many tenants, develop funding sources to minimize the financial impact of retrofits on low- and moderate-income residents.

C. Evaluate the seismic upgrade program funded by the City real property transfer tax to insure that such funds are used in an efficient and effective manner.

D. Establish specific findings and procedures that can be used to expeditiously and efficiently approve reconstruction of pre-existing, legal, non-conforming residential structures after a major natural disaster.

Expansion of the Housing Supply

Policy H-16 Transit-Oriented New Construction

Encourage construction of new medium and high density housing on major transit corridors and in the Downtown consistent with zoning and compatible with the scale and character of these areas. (Also see Land Use Policies LU-18, LU-23, and LU-25, and Transportation Policy T-16.)

Actions:

A. Ensure that new multi-family housing developments include a significant below-market-rate component.

B. Consider a variety of incentives such as waiver or partial waiver of parking requirements in areas heavily served by transit or expansion of lot coverage in addition to height bonuses.

C. Consider revisions to the zoning ordinance to establish a minimum height limit of two, and where feasible, three stories, and to require or encourage residential development above the ground floor on transit corridors.

Policy H-17 Second Units

Encourage and facilitate addition of secondary or small "in-law" units on properties with single-family homes in conformance with existing zoning regulations, but not in areas that are particularly vulnerable to natural disaster. (Also see Disaster Preparedness and Safety Policy S-16.)

Policy H-18 City-Owned Sites

When appropriate and feasible, use City-owned or -controlled sites for affordable housing and/or mixed-use residential projects with a substantial portion of affordable units. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-32.)

Action:

A. Require development on the City-owned Oxford Street parking lot Downtown and the Ashby BART air rights (west of Adeline Street) to be residential mixed-use developments. If feasible, 50 percent or more of the housing units on these sites should be affordable for households with low or very low incomes.

H-19 Regional Housing Needs

Encourage housing production adequate to meet the housing production goals established by ABAG’s Regional Housing Needs Determination for Berkeley. (See Tables 30 and 31, Housing Element Appendix for numerical goals.)

Actions:

A. Review housing production in Berkeley at the time of the annual General Plan review. As part of the process, evaluate the City’s progress toward meeting the City’s share of the regional housing need as determined by ABAG.

B. Regularly evaluate City regulations and ordinances to identify and reduce unnecessary impediments to housing development and affordable housing projects.

Policy H-20 High Density Zoning

Maintain sufficient land zoned for high and medium density residential development to allow sufficient new construction to meet Berkeley’s fair share of regional housing needs. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-23.)

Action:

A. Require that developers and City staff work with neighboring groups to ensure adequate notification of proposals and steps to address concerns.

Policy H-21 Demolition

Discourage demolition of housing units unless the structure is hazardous or repair is infeasible. Insure that the replacement project will result in the same or larger number of new housing units in conformance with existing zoning regulations.

Homelessness Reduction and Special Needs Housing

Policy H-22 Homeless Housing

Seek solutions to the problems of homeless individuals and families with the end goal of providing permanently affordable housing.

Policy H-23 Family Housing

Support housing program activities that enhance the ability of households with children and large families to find affordable and suitable housing.

Policy H-24 The Elderly and the Disabled

Support housing program activities that increase the ability of elderly and disabled households to remain in their homes or neighborhoods, and if necessary, to locate other suitable affordable housing to rent or purchase.

Policy H-25 Disabilities

Encourage provision of an adequate supply of suitable housing to meet the needs of people with serious physical, mental, and/or emotional disabilities.

Policy H-26 Supportive Services

Encourage and coordinate the provision of affordable housing with supportive services.

Policy H-27 Coordinated Programs

Coordinate special needs housing programs with job training and employment programs for low-income and unemployed Berkeley residents.

Action:

A. Ensure the availability of information regarding special housing in the community.

Policy H-28 HIV/AIDS

Help provide for the housing needs of homeless and low-income individuals and heads of households disabled with HIV/AIDS.

Policy H-29 Alcohol and Drugs

Include provision of housing for homeless and low-income individuals and heads of households disabled by or recovering from alcohol and other drug-related substance abuse.

Policy H-30 Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing

To the extent feasible, provide emergency shelter and transitional housing to homeless individuals and families and coordinate provision of additional housing with supportive services for people with special needs, including people with mental, physical, and developmental disabilities, victims of domestic violence, youth, and the elderly.

Policy H-31 Domestic Violence

Help provide for the housing needs of homeless and low-income victims of domestic violence and their children.

Policy H-32 Eviction Prevention

Encourage eviction prevention and fair housing programs to avoid evictions that could lead to homelessness.

Relationship with Other Institutions

Policy H-33 University of California

Urge the University of California to maximize the supply of appropriately located, affordable housing for its students, and also to expand housing opportunities for faculty and staff. (Also see Land Use Policies LU-37 and LU-38 Action A.)

Actions:

A. Encourage and promote construction of additional housing for students and faculty within walking distance of campus.

B. Encourage development of satellite housing near transit more distant from the campus (including such locations in other municipalities).

C. Encourage multi-generational housing projects.

D. Work with the University and private developers and operators of student housing, including nonprofits, to increase the supply of affordable housing for faculty and staff.

E. Encourage the University to continue to involve residents, community organizations, students, staff, City government and University administrators in long- and short-range plans for University housing.

F. Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for changes in State legislation that would: 1) require the University of California to provide adequate housing for students and minimize housing impacts in the area from the University; and 2) allow State higher education funds to be used to cover some of the costs of constructing new student housing.

G. Encourage the University to change its current requirement that new housing projects built on University surface parking lots pay a fee of $20,000 or more per lost parking space.

Policy H-34 Group Quarters

Support and encourage construction of group housing near the University for student housing. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-25.)

Policy H-35 University Housing and Taxes

Support development of new housing for University-related households and other institutions that will not take additional land off tax rolls. If that is not possible, seek compensation for loss of revenue; seek agreement from the State of California, the University, and other institutions to compensate the City of Berkeley for services provided; and encourage that developments provide community facilities for both students and other residents. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-38.)

Policy H-36 University Housing and Displacement

Support University-related housing that avoids displacement of existing residents or a loss of existing rental housing resources available to other city residents.

Policy H-37 Maintenance and Expansion of Housing

Encourage the University and other institutions to keep residential buildings for housing, convert back to residential use residential buildings that have been converted to non-residential use, and convert to residential use any unused buildings and underutilized sites where feasible.

Fair and Accessible Housing

Policy H-38 ADA

Use new construction and compliance procedures under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to increase the proportion of housing throughout Berkeley that is accessible or adaptable for use by Berkeley citizens with physical disabilities.

Policy H-39 Accessible Housing

Upgrade the existing housing stock by increasing the number of existing housing units that are universally accessible.

Actions:

A. Develop accessibility standards for multi-family housing projects.

B. Inform developers of all access requirements in a project’s early stages.

C. Require that all projects comply with existing State and local access regulations.

D. Require that all projects receiving City funding comply with Federal access regulations.

E. Encourage special housing types, including those which are environmentally and chemically safe.

Policy H-40 Equal Access

Ensure that all Berkeley residents have equal access to housing, financing, and insurance to purchase, sell, rent, and lease property.

Policy H-41 Family Housing

Enable families with children, single heads-of-household, and victims of domestic violence to find suitable housing.

Policy H-42 Discrimination

Implement Federal, State, and local fair housing laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic background, age, physical disability, marital status, presence of children in household, household composition, student status, or presence of HIV/AIDS, or discrimination against a group for any arbitrary reason.

Policy H-43 Housing Assistance

Allocate housing assistance based on relative need on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Policy H-44 Redlining

Seek to prevent "redlining," prohibit predatory home mortgage lending practices, and make reasonably priced financing and insurance available to purchasers of residential properties throughout Berkeley.

Policy H-45 Outreach and Education

Continue outreach activities to inform the community about fair housing laws and rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, in order to increase understanding and cooperation between both groups.

Policy H-46 Integration

Encourage better integration in the Berkeley community by encouraging a range of incomes in all new residential projects receiving government assistance.

Regional Cooperation

Policy H-47 Financial Assistance

Encourage all levels of government (city, county, regional, State, and Federal) to provide financial assistance to meet affordable housing needs in Berkeley and the Bay Area.

Actions:

A. Form alliances with other cities to lobby for State and Federal policies conducive to affordable housing and tenants’ rights, including changes in rules on taxation and spending so that sufficient funds for affordable housing become available.

B. Advocate for increases in and equitable distribution of State and Federal housing resources.

Policy H-48 Inter-Jurisdictional Approaches

Develop and coordinate multi-agency, regional, and cross-jurisdictional approaches to reducing homelessness, including both the homeless continuum of care and assertive community treatment models now in place in Alameda County and Berkeley.

Policy H-49 Suburban Sprawl

Advocate for controls on regional urban and suburban low-density land development to encourage more efficient use of land, reduce potential growth in traffic congestion, and increase supplies of affordable housing in job-rich communities in the Bay Area. (Also see Environmental Management Policy EM-2.)

Policy H-50 Housing and Environmental Protection Planning

Advocate regional integration of housing planning with planning for open space and environmental protection.

Public Participation in Housing Decisions

Policy H-51 Neighborhood Planning

Encourage housing developers and neighborhood organizations to collaborate on affordable housing projects that address neighborhood concerns. (Also see Land Use Policy LU-5, Urban Design and Preservation Policy UD-22, and Citizen Participation Policies CP-5 through CP-8.)

Action:

A. Strengthen opportunities for constructive participation by neighborhood organizations in planning and development decisions that affect their constituencies.

Policy H-52 Public Participation

Use public participation as a communication tool to seek attainment of common housing goals, and for sharing information about community needs in general.

Action:

A. Encourage community support of affordable housing and special needs housing by combating misconceptions regarding affordable and special needs housing through active community outreach and education.

Future Housing Element Revisions

Policy H-53 Housing Element Revisions

Review the Housing Element during the annual review of the General Plan to ensure consistency with all other legally required elements, and revise as necessary. The City should consider whether major changes in objectives and policies are necessary to achieve its goals.

Footnotes:

[1] This summary of comparative housing costs is adapted from a memorandum from Stephen Barton, Interim Housing Director, to the Housing Advisory Commission, “Information Report on Comparative Housing Costs,” 5 April 2001.

[2] This figure represents only newly rented Berkeley units in 2000, not all Berkeley rental units.

[3] Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 13.76.

[4] The Ordinance requires annual analysis and, if necessary, modification of the AGA to reflect changes in operating expenses but not necessarily to reflect the impact of inflation on NOI (which is a way of measuring profits).

[5] Bay Area Economics, “Berkeley Rent Control 1998: Tenant and Housing Profile” (April 13, 1999, Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board), page 64.

[6] Additional discussion of these changes to Berkeley’s rent stabilization and eviction control system is contained in the Housing Element Appendix.