I think work/live should have a relaxed building code, but more in terms of comfort than in safety. Fire safety is hard to negotiate a compromise on, but there are a few ways to ease compliance and help cut costs.

This whole thread and epic (which continues by the way, the city is rewriting the rules) is more about new conversions and new construction than illegal conversions. As it stands, a long-inhabited illegal conversion can drag out it’s existence for a long long time, even if it is caught.

Consider this: When someone dies in a building fire or other disastrous failure
and the facts come out that the building was not zoned for the actual use
such as it was not intended or equiped for resisdence or did not have
have proper fire safety nor protection equipment installed…

Everone will blame and sue the city for allowing, or turning a blind
eye to “improper” use of the building. Cries of lack of enforcement.
Meanwhile everyone here is crying
about they want to live and work in any old tin pot or concrete shed.

And by the way, I live in a “semi” converted warehouse that is not designed
approved nor intended for habitation. Just do what I do: Pay your rent early
and keep your mouth shut. Don’t blame anyone when it falls down around you.

As with all newsmedia, posts here are dated. I have blogged repeatedly about the work/live issue, including writing about the resolution the day after it was decided, something I believe no other media outlet covered.

To clarify what happened – the Community and Economic Development Committee, in response to the large number of artists who came to protest the proposed code, requested changes to the code that would allow conversion of existing buildings for work/live upon the granting of a conditional use permit. Nancy Nadel did not like this at all:

Eventually the Council compromised and adopted a policy that would allow already existing residents to remain and apply for conversions, but not permit any new work/live conversions until new work/live rules are drawn up, something that will allegedly happen in 6 to 8 months. I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re referring to when you speak of protecting land prices. Nobody, as far as I’m aware, has ever proposed land price caps.

Honestly, it has never ever occurred to me when I’m renting an apartment to take my lease down to City Hall to check the zoning. I find it so strange that you seem to expect people to do this.

I am certainly no expert on the number of permanently affordable live/work projects in Oakland, but I can tell you for certain that the Adeline Lofts is not the only one. The Noodle Factory, built by the Northern California Land Trust, offers permanently affordable work/live units to low-income artists. Being that the project is in West Oakland and has actually received quite a bit of media attention, I find it very curious that you were apparently unaware of its existence.

I suppose Max is technically a developer, since he owns a small piece of land in a non-industrial neighborhood which is frankly, desperate for private investment, and I believe he intends to build something there. But as I understand it, he is primarily a carpenter who considers work/live an affordability strategy.

As for the campaign contributions, I have listed the developer contributions for both you and Sean Sullivan as of the latest reporting period. Interestingly, you have received more money from developers than Sean.

Calling me something of a developer is a bit of a stretch. I bought a lot four months ago in a non-industrial area, with money from my family. I used up everything I was given on closing costs and am struggling to come up with tax money for it. I’m more of a carpenter for a living than anything.

My aim is to “develop” or rather “build with my own two hands” a house. I intend to use it to host a non-profit where top graduate students from creative fields can live together, incubate ideas, and teach and tutor people in West Oakland. I’m hoping to make teaching a mandatory requirement for residents. I am prepared to lose or give away equity in order to realize this dream.

The dream is to get energetic young artists, musicians, architects, teachers, dancers, writers, multimedia geeks and filmmakers living together and cross pollinating. The dream is to get young people in creative fields to contribute and engage in West Oakland. I feel I am a part of a generation that isn’t giving enough back. I feel that because I was born into fortunate circumstances, I have more of an obligation to give back than many other people.

So yes. I guess that makes me a developer. I am hell bent on developing something that is going to be goddamn wonderful and which will ideally contribute to this City in a positive, meaningful, joyful way long after everyone who reads this board has been cremated or composted.

Nancy, I really don’t want to fight with you. I also don’t want to put artists in harmful living space. Nor do I want to see wholesale yuppie condos all over West Oakland. I’ve been carefully trying to craft language that defines work/live clearly and unambiguously and closes loopholes which big developers might exploit. My motives are genuine.

I chose to support Sean because I find him to be kind, engaging, open minded and practical. I don’t discount much of the good work you’ve done. But I also believe that you’ve done some very impractical things, and I run into people very frequently who seem more than a little put off by encounters they’ve had with you. Not developers. Ordinary working people.

I also disagree with Sean on a number of things. I’m supporting him because I think he’s a better choice. Not because I think you’re the devil and he’s jesus. If he wins, he can expect me to come before him at council and speak my conscience and you can expect the same if you keep your seat.

As I said in my email to you earlier today, Nancy, I expect to be an engaged and positive force in this city whoever wins the district 3 seat. I also think representing Sean as supporting irresponsible development is inaccurate. If we went through your donor list we might be able to concoct an accusation or two ourselves. I’m not going there. Simply put, I’m voting my conscience.

It is true that the final decision on this matter isn’t from these tapes. This is an old post. Artists got the protection they needed and the vote was unanimous.

Alright. I’m tired of typing. Questions and rebuttals are welcome.

As a councilmember I have had artists who lived in lofts illegally, come to me very upset with the fact that there was a toxic sump below their living space, one woman had a miscarriage, etc. Yes, I think we have to take some responsibility when we dole out money to a landlord, to find out if indeed the document the landlord signed was legal for him/her to sign and living is indeed legal in the building.

Lastly, it has since been made clear to me that the fellow who was making all the noise about artists living in the industrial area is a bit of a developer himself and is supporting Sean who is financied by the developers who want all the industrial land to go to upscale housing. This will remove all the possibilty of reasonably priced land for artists or other businesses.

Look at the sources – look at his FPPC statement and you will see the contributions from Kathy Kuhner, Betsy Costello, Peter Sullivan, Bruce Beasely, etc.

The final decision was not the conversation on the tapes included here. The final decision on the actual zoning was in April.

Nancy

If you look at my proposal, you’ll see that I’m trying to avoid residential NIMBY gentrification.
If you look at my presentations to council and the planning commission, you’ll hear me repeat a little talking point:

Artists are often accused of being the shock troops of gentrification, but we don’t want to be that. We move to industrial areas so we can do things with a heavy impact, to make noise, to load trucks and such. We don’t want to be followed by NIMBY yuppies. As a matter of fact, I often point out the cruel irony that West End Commons was built across the street from an artist space that is called NIMBY.

The industrial policy adopted, and the zoning that will largely implement it as proposed and as coming before council on the 11th and 18th of this month have nothing to do with safety or building codes, as implied in one post. We all want safe, affordable space that we can’t get kicked out of. It is true, however, that buildings legalized to today’s code often become too expensive for most artists.

As Max has stated elsewhere, the passage of laws to outlaw true work/live in indsutrial areas will displace artists, they will harm Oakland, and they will create a black market in illegal work/live space. The likely end result: a tragedy somewhere–a collapse, a fire, a toxics incident.

There is a better way:

• Informally assess the safety of illegal builidings and give them an official path to legalization.
• Linked with this, make it possible for artists to buy their buildings from their landlords, in exchange for a pledge to keep them affordable for some time.
• Come up with further relaxed building codes for true work/live, combined with unit types that are unlikely to gentrify, such as six living/working space units with common kitchens and bathrooms. No yuppie would buy one of those!

I could go on…

I don’t think my presentation was disingenuous at all. Proponents of industrial preservation, such as Nancy Nadel, agree that our industrial properties are not being used, and claim that this is why we need the policy. They assert that the reason for underutilization is the uncertainty created by the possibility of market-rate housing development. These issues merit a blog post of their own, so I won’t get any more into it than that for now.

For the record, I do not see myself as on the side of either housing developers or the business community. I advocate results-oriented legislation, public access to information, and policies that provide the greatest benefit to the residents of Oakland.

And I’m afraid I don’t know what a BoBo is.

Here’s my proposed language, for everyone who’s interested.

_____________________________

To achieve the the goals of:

• Encouraging the retention of Oakland’s vital community of artists and small entrepreneurs–a tremendous economic and cultural asset which is addressed in the General Plan;
• Preventing displacement, wholesale evictions, or unnecessarily harsh code enforcement actions directed at this valuable and important constituency;
• Formulating definitions of the different types of flex space–including but not limited to work/live–that can be regulated, encouraged and located as appropriate throughout the city, including within industrial districts;
• Encouraging and facilitating the purchase by tenants from willing sellers of buildings that are presently legal or are undergoing legalization, with the goal of creating long-term affordable space for artists and small entrepreneurs in which to primarily work, and secondarily to live.

The following text (as well as the goals above) shall be added to the adopted industrial zones:

Both Zoning and Building Code enforcement policy towards existing illegal work/live and live/work occupants shall be one of accommodation, adjustment, and preservation, shall encourage feasible upgrades for physical safety, and shall provide a reasonable grace period for existing occupants of illegal residential conversions to bring their premises into compliance with enforcement policy. Relaxation of building codes shall be considered, but only for conversions that are designed so as to prevent reversion to residential-only status. All of these accommodations shall be incorporated into an orderly process.

In the development of future flex-space regulations, the city’s zoning staff will seek out existing flex-space users, owners and tenants, as well as designers specializing in this building type. Analysis of currently non-legal flex space shall aim to determine the utility, safety, and impact of such space, as well as its economic and community contributions. Within preserved industrial land, flex space possibilities with integral industrial and other high impact use shall be considered. When flex space within preserved industrial areas includes an accessory residential component, such a component shall explicitly designed and regulated to avoid creating any influx of any pure residential use.

_____________________