Tag: Berkeley

By Posted on Posted in Actions, Issues

Berkeley City Council may finalize the law making it illegal to smoke in any multi-unit building in Berkeley on Tuesday December 3. Councilman Arreguin is making one more attempt to ensure the new law treats owners and renters equally. His suggestions also include more information to guide new renters, such as a registry of rental units and their smoking history, requiring owners to post signs, and that smokers receive warnings before they are fined.

Arreguin’s proposal – Council Item 28 – includes the radical suggestion that Berkeley actually allocate city staff to enforce the law!

You can see both smoking items on the Council agenda here (#28 and #30)
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2013/12Dec/City_Council__12-03-2013_-__Regular_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

Here is a summary of Arreguin’s item:

28.  Referral to City Manager: Amendments to Tobacco-Free Multi-Unit Housing Ordinance (Continued from November 19, 2013)
From: Councilmember Arreguin
Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager for incorporation in a draft Tobacco-Free Multi-Unit Housing Ordinance the following proposals: 1. Delay the effective date of the ordinance to May 1, 2014, rather than March 1, 2014 as previously directed by the City Council, so that staff has adequate time to draft amendments based on this referral and bring back a final ordinance for Council adoption. Also delay the requirement that landlords notify tenants effective January 1, 2014. A delayed implementation date would also provide enough time for the city to conduct outreach to owners and tenants of the new requirements and increase smoking cessation resources before the ordinance goes into effect. 2. All initial leases or rental agreements signed on or after May 1, 2014 shall include language expressly prohibiting smoking in the units or in any common areas of a multi-unit residence. 3. That all initial leases or rental agreements signed after May 1, 2014, also notify tenants which units in the building do not have leases which expressly prohibit smoking. 4. Failure to provide either of the lease provisions noted above will allow the new tenant to break the lease without penalty.  (the language proposed by the Manager on October 1st along with the modifications proposed by the Rent Board on October 1st suffices). 5. That the City or Rent Board actively encourage and try to get tenants to sign voluntary lease addendums which prohibit smoking. Any voluntary lease addendum should be on a City/Rent Board developed form. 6. That the Rent Board establish and maintain a registry of all rental units in multi-unit housing indicating which units have leases that expressly prohibit smoking & require owners to notify the Rent Stabilization Board of lease provisions prohibiting smoking, and that the city require that owners of units registered with the Rent Board and those that aren’t registered provide information on which units have no-smoking lease clauses. 7. That owners be required to post signs in common areas of all multi-unit housing indicating smoking is prohibited. 8. That the City allocate staff to enforce violations of this ordinance through an initial investigation, written warning and followed by progressively increasing fines of $250, $500, $1000 and $1,500 for each infraction. Consistent with the previous staff drafted ordinance, there should be a cap on the number of private right of actions that any individual resident may file in a year against another smoking resident. 9. Includes the private right of action but strengthen it by allowing each resident to collect no more than $1,000 in a calendar year through private right of action. Doing this allows us to show that we are not tolerating or condoning smoking but believe that real financial penalties (rather than an unequal risk of lost housing) should be an appropriate penalty that can be applied in a more uniform way. Also making a violation the ordinance an infraction does not give an owner automatic grounds to evict a tenant. Also include the mandatory mediation provisions included in the ordinance proposed by the Manager on October 1, 10. Warnings be required by landlords and by the City before any enforcement action can be taken. The City Council should authorize sufficient staff and a funding source for proper enforcement and outreach. Previously, the City Manager indicated such a program would cost in the neighborhood of $120,000 annually to implement. Councilmember Maio indicated that the inspectors associated with the Rental Housing Safety Program be charged with implementing the Ordinance. If the RHSP fee were increased by $5 per unit, there would be sufficient resources to fund the necessary staff to implement the provisions of the Tobacco-Free Multi-Family Housing Ordinance I am proposing. If there needs to be a specific nexus between a no smoking ordinance and the RHSP program, City staff should explore amending the housing code so that smoking is a violation that can be cited and enforced by RHSP Housing code inspectors.

Berkeley Patch:
http://berkeley.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/call-for-tougher-antismoking-law-in-berkeley-multiunit-housing

SF Gate Blog:
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Secondhand-smoke-gets-in-your-rights-4992161.php

San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-s-next-smoking-ban-may-hit-home-4984302.php

By Posted on Posted in Actions
This 18-unit OCCUPIED building on Durant has applied for a demolition permit.
This 18-unit OCCUPIED building on Durant has applied for a demolition permit.

Berkeley City Council is supposed to discuss three major policy changes concerning tenants THIS TUESDAY. There is a move to require owners of unsafe buildings to retrofit for earthquakes and another to allow tenants to be evicted for smoking cigarettes — but by far the most alarming issue is the Demolition Ordinance.

Last week, the Planning Commission was to consider changes to the law that have been in the works, and in the news, for months. But city staff said a California Supreme Court decision called Sterling Park, and a pending decision on a case involving the City of San Jose, mean that the city should do a “nexus study” before they change the existing law on demolition.

Since most of the changes weren’t very good for tenants, you might think that is good news — but it’s not! For one thing, a nexus study is about a fee, not about requiring one-for-one replacement of demolished rent controlled units with permanently affordable housing. For another, the City Attorney says the current law means any EMPTY rent controlled unit can be bulldozed with no mitigation whatsoever.

BTU needs you to stand with us during public comment on Tuesday at 7 PM!

We were told the demolition law would be on the Council agenda this week, but it isn’t, so we want folks to come during comment for off-agenda items, to restate the message in our petition – which now has over 270 signatures.

BTU member and Rent Board Commissioner Judy Shelton said it best at the Planning Commission:

“The various considerations of how to proceed with the Demolition Ordinance are confusing and difficult to parse, but for tenants this is a really simple issue: We want one-for-one replacement on demolitions of rent-controlled units, and we want these replacement units to be permanently affordable.

We don’t care what studies the City needs to conduct to make this happen. We don’t want a financial mitigation of $20,000, or even $34,000. We want the units.

We don’t care about the Sterling Park court decision. All we care about is that no affordable units be lost.

And if the City can’t do that, the City shouldn’t tear down rent-controlled housing.”

Demolition: Sterling Park Court decision – City Council Item 21
Seismic Safety: Item 24
Smoking in MultiFamily Housing: Item 27
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Clerk/City_Council/2013/11Nov/City_Council__11-19-2013_-__Regular_Meeting_Agenda.aspx

By Posted on Posted in Actions
DEMO_1106
Scenes like this will no longer be confined to Southside if revisions to the Demolition Ordinance allow destruction of small rental properties to build expensive commuter apartments.

DATE: November 5, 2013
TO: Planning Commissioners
RE: Demolition Ordinance

SUMMARY: Please preserve affordable housing by again recommending the June 4 compromise on the Demolition Ordinance. Please find attached our petition — with 270 signatures.

Respected Planning Commissioners:

The Berkeley Tenants Union is extremely concerned about proposed changes to the demolition ordinance. As you may recall, you already approved changes to this zoning code in the spring. We think it might be a bit confusing that this law is before you once again, so we have tried to provide a comprehensive summary with links to all relevant documents in this correspondence.

In December of 2011, the Berkeley City Council directed staff to draft amended language to Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23C.08, the “Demolition and Elimination of Dwelling Units Ordinance.” (Document: Council Direction 12-6-11) In June of 2013, staff presented a draft that met all the requests Council made in 2011, and was approved by the Rent Board and the Planning Commission. The same draft has also been presented one month before, at the 4×4 Committee, and neither Mayor Bates nor Councilman Capitelli voiced any concerns with the draft. On June 4, it looked like Council was going to pass this compromise draft (Document: June 4 draft), until time ran out on the meeting.

Then something changed. The Council began to question the June 4 compromise, and considered a new draft, perhaps hastily prepared, presented at the July 2 Council meeting. (Document: July 2 Draft). The new draft appeared to be based on requests made by developer Equity Residential (Document: ER Letter to Council), who are now Berkeley’s largest landlord. Since Council got letters of objection from many civic groups, including the Sierra Club, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Berkeley Tenants Union, they sent the Ordinance back to the Planning Commission and the Housing Advisory Commission.

What do these drafts say?

Currently BMC 23C says “controlled rental units” cannot be eliminated unless the owner “cannot make a fair return on investment by maintaining the dwelling unit as a part of the rental housing market” and that those apartments must also be “seriously deteriorated beyond the conditions which might reasonably be expected due to normal use.” It also says that demolished rent controlled units must be replaced with permanently affordable housing. (Document: DemoCURRENT)

Problems with the current law arose because the City Attorney decided that empty units which would otherwise be under rent control are not “controlled rental units” and therefore not subject to the rules above. This means any empty unit can be torn down with no mitigation for the loss of affordable older units which would be under rent control if they were rented. Such a policy encourages owners to leave buildings to rot, promotes evictions and harassment, and may violate not only the Demolition law, but also the voter-approved Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance. (Document: NPO)

To end the controversy about the interpretation of the law, the Rent Board and the City Council called for revisions, but Council also asked that new rules require “units are replaced with an equal or greater number of new units inclusive of the current number of existing affordable units.” (Document: Council Direction 12-6-11) Likewise, the June 4 draft required developers who tear down multiunit buildings built before 1980 (those covered by rent control) replace them with “designated below-market rate units equal in number and comparable in size to the demolished units.”

However, the July and August drafts do not call for one-for-one replacement of affordable rent controlled units with housing for low-income renters. The July 2 and August 30 drafts both require developers pay a fee into the Housing Trust Fund. However, the fee in the July 2 draft is about 10% of what it costs to build an affordable unit, and the fee in the August 30 draft is unspecified and thus could be changed by City Council at any time. (Document: Worse Aug 30 draft)

There are numerous other problems with the July and August drafts. For example, one scheme outlined by developer Equity Residential was included in the July draft. This calls for replacement units in the new building which would be “designated rent increase restricted” – however, the Rent Board (Document: Berkeley Rent Board letter) and East Bay Community Law Center (Document: EBCLC Letter) have both pointed out that this violates the state law called Costa-Hawkins, because that law banned any new rent control in California, even if you call it by another name.

In addition, later drafts contradict the voter-approved Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and may be challenged in court if they are made law. (Document: NPO)

Several community groups have sent communications on this issue that raise various additional concerns, such as the wisdom of tearing down perfectly fine small buildings at all, and the environmental impact of encouraging growth through demolition. You can find copies of public communications from The Sierra Club, Berkeley NAACP, Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, and Berkeley Architectural Heritage Assn. on our website along with all documents we have linked to in the text above.

The real question here is what kind of community benefits does Berkeley need in exchange for allowing speculators to tear down a useable rent controlled building in order to build a bigger one with market rate apartments? This is not just about what legal mitigations a nexus study might allow. We can actually choose, as Berkeley did in the 1970s, to ban demolition altogether. BTU hopes you might realize that rent control has been Berkeley’s most successful affordable housing program, and that rent controlled units should be preserved, even if they are not rented at this time.

You can choose not to allow demolition – and you should choose this if there is going to be a long wait for a Nexus study.

Please see the attached petition, with 270 signatures. Please note that, following pages with electronic signatures and comments, there are scans of the paper petitions.

Please again recommend the June 4 compromise draft.

Sincerely,
Berkeley Tenants Union Steering Committee, on behalf of the tenants of Berkeley

P.S. All documents mentioned in this correspondence can be found here:
https://www.berkeleytenants.org/?page_id=773

By Posted on Posted in Issues

Because of the appeal of the Zoning Board ruling, tenants who lost almost everything in the 2012 fire at 2227 Dwight Way will be given relocation benefits and the units, once rebuilt, will remain under rent control. City Council voted to uphold the ZAB ruling, but “clarified” that previous tenants have the right to reoccupy the apartments at the previous rent-controlled rates. The units will remain under rent control, but if the old tenants don’t move back in, new rents can be set at market.

The appeal challenged the ZAB decision that the owners, the infamous Lakireddy family, would not have to pay the affordable housing mitigation fee. At issue was the possibility that the owners were at fault for the extend of the fire damage because smoke detectors and fire alarms may not have sounded, and the fire may have been caused by a faulty water heater.

Because of the appeal, the City Council also plans to clarify what constitutes “fault” when properties destroyed by fire are exempt from city fees like the affordable housing mitigation fee. In the appeal, it was suggested that city staff only looks for arson and does not consider negligence when determining fault.

Several BTU members wrote to the City Council in support of the appeal, and many tenant advocates spoke at the meeting.

According to Inside Bay Area, Council also voted to make rental housing inspection safety reports from the Dwight property public documents.

Inside Bay Area
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_24420395/berkeley-council-upholds-affordable-housing-exemption-rebuilt-apartments

Daily Californian
http://www.dailycal.org/2013/10/30/fire-damaged-building-retain-rent-controlled-status/

Berkeleyside
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2013/10/31/fire-damaged-berkeley-apartments-to-stay-rent-controlled/comment-page-1/

Daily Planet
http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-10-26/article/41579?headline=Berkeley-City-Council-to-Decide-on-Appeal-Brought-by-Former-Tenants-of-Fire-Ravaged-Building-with-History-of-Landlord-Negligence–By-Marcia-Poole

By Posted on Posted in Issues

Tenants from the building on Dwight partly destroyed by fire are asking for support on October 29. Renters and friends from 2227 Dwight, owned by Lakireddy Bali Reddy, the famous Berkeley landlord who plead guilty to federal charges about immigration fraud, transporting a minor for sex and tax evasion, are appealing the Zoning Board ruling that allows the owner to rebuild without paying mitigation fees. At issue is whether the owner was at fault for the extent of the fire because the smoke alarms may have been disconnected.

This is from BTU member Luis Amezcua:

The tenants of 2227 Dwight Way, on March 8, 2013, lost most, if not all, their personal possessions due to the fire that happened that night. The Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) approved a use permit to reconstruct the building, but there are some uncertainties that need to be addressed before the reconstruction can begin. For clarification, the appeal does not object to the reconstruction to the building, since it would remove a blight from the neighborhood and provide needed housing.

The ZAB was not fully informed of 2227 Dwight, and were unsure as to whether the fee and other mitigations applied. Even with the testimony of one tenant about the fire and the owner’s negligence, Staff determined that, because the fire was not arson, it was accidental. Staff failed to fully analyze the issue of fault, and restricted themselves between two possibilities (either arson or accidental) when making their determination; however, there is evidence that suggests that the landlord is fault due to negligence. The fire report states that “the building’s fire alarm system was not sounding when fire units arrived at the scene and was not heard sounding by firefighters at any point during the incident”, and that “the full circumstances surrounding the failure of the fire alarm system are still under investigation”. Tenants testify that the landlord disabled the fire alarm system due to false alarms, and it is a factor that needs to be considered when determining fault. Furthermore, there is still pending litigation between some of the former tenants and the property owner, with the question of who’s at fault being key. A few of the former tenants received settlement payments from the property owners – something that wouldn’t happen if this was an open and shut case where the property owner clearly was not at fault.

The ZAB’s decision on 2227 Dwight Way encourages owners of older housing to not adequately maintain their properties by creating unsafe housing which result in fire incidents. When a building is burned down, the owner can put the new units at market rate, lowering the amount of affordable housing in Berkeley, and allowing owners to avoid the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee. All we ask is that the Council either require affordable housing to be built on site, an in-lieu payment be made to the Housing Trust Fund, or staff thoroughly investigate the issue of fault and remand this project back to the Zoning Adjustments Board with sufficient information so that they can make the proper findings (including the determination of fault).

City Council hears the appeal on October 29 and the tenants are asking for support at the meeting.

By Posted on Posted in Issues

Bulb_1025The City of Berkeley is working with the Ecology Center and other nonprofits to offer energy upgrades and sustainability tips to renters. They may even install a new shower head to cut down on water use!

Call 510-981-9818 or email “joanna at ebenergy.org” to schedule a one-on-one consultation.

By Posted on Posted in Issues

Couch_1017Date Change: Seismic Retrofits
The Berkeley City Council vote on mandatory Seismic Retrofits for “soft story” buildings is now scheduled for Tuesday, November 19.

Berkeley’s Demolition Law and Recent Zoning Changes
“…this new demolition ordinance draft which paves the way for developers to demolish all of the existing apartments in downtown Berkeley.”
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-10-04/article/41520?headline=New-Berkeley-Demolition-Ordinance-Proposal-Threatens-Rent-Controlled-Housing–By-Stephen-Stine

Brown Vetos Affordable Housing Bill
BTU will report back on how this veto may impact changes to the Demolition Ordinance
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Brown-vetoes-bill-requiring-affordable-rental-4901709.php

Ellis Evictions Skyrocket: Protests in San Francisco
It won’t be long before the eviction wave comes across the Bay.
http://evictionfreesummer.wordpress.com/ 

San Francisco Housing Crisis in the New Yorker
SF Mayor says, “We’ve got to…make sure we protect many of the rent-controlled apartments that we have.” With his campaign to relax rules about demolition of rent controlled buildings, we are not sure the Berkeley Mayor would agree!
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/09/at-the-rent-board-new-tales-of-the-city.html?mobify=0

Berkeley’s Progressive Days
At Berkeley History Center on Center Street
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Everybody-got-together-in-Berkeley-commune-days-4889254.php

By Posted on Posted in Actions

100913Thursday, October 10 at 5 PM
Final Public Hearing on Seismic Retrofits
City of Berkeley Hearing sponsored by ASUC
UC Berkeley Alumni Hall: 2537 Haste Street

Currently, the plan is to allow landlords to pass costs onto tenants if the landlord can claim paying for the retrofit is a hardship. Since Rent Board rules already allow owners to pass costs on to tenants if they are not making a fair return on their investment, these new hardship rules imply that owners who “need” to raise rents for seismic safety are already making a fair return, so where is the hardship??!

REVISED DATE! Tuesday, November 19 at 7 PM
Seismic Retrofits to City Council
Council Chambers: 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way

The Rent Board recommendations were posted in a recent BTU update: Rent Board Seismic
The Housing Advisory Commission recommendations: HAC Memo SWOF with HAC amendments

more info:
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Planning_and_Development/Building_and_Safety/Soft_Story_Program.aspx

By Posted on Posted in Issues

On October 1, City Council rejected the long process between the Rent Board and the Health Commission and decided to draft new antismoking legislation on the fly. Staff has to come back with actual language, but it is very likely that Berkeley will make it legal to evict tenants for smoking cigarettes, even if the lease has allowed smoking for years.

The new laws will also apply to owners who live in multiunit buildings, for example an owner-occupied unit in a building which also has rental units, or a condominium. However, owners can’t be evicted, and tenants can!!  The City Council keeps saying they want a law that can be enforced, but this latest plan puts the obligation to enforce the law onto landlords. Who will enforce the law against owners who smoke?

QUOTE_100813BTU hasn’t taken an official position, in part because the draft that was going to Council last week balanced concerns about protecting housing with the needs of those who are impacted by secondhand smoke. Now one big concern might be that the phase-in period for the law hardly gives long-term addicts the time to successfully quit. Also, landlords are far more likely to enforce the smoking ban against long-term tenants with controlled rents, while not acting to protect other residents from second-hand smoke if the smoker is paying a high price for his or her unit.

If you are concerned one way or the other, contacting Linda Maio would be a good place to start. It sounded like she is very in favor of the new rules to define smoking as a nuisance. Email her: lmaio@CityofBerkeley.info 

Councilman Arreguin’s Explanation of His Concerns for Tenants:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-10-04/article/41505?headline=Why-I-Voted-No-on-Second-Hand-Smoke-Ordinance–By-Councilmember-Jesse-Arreguin

Daily Californian Report on Council Meeting:
http://www.dailycal.org/2013/10/02/berkeley-city-council-votes-amend-proposed-smoking-ban/