Tag: Rent Board

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 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/

By Posted on Posted in Issues

city-to-suburb_stamenreprisedforwired-660x5891Oakland fights to close rent control loophole:
Berkeley tenants enjoy protections against bad business decisions by owners. Here, landlords can only passthrough “capital” costs if they were not foreseeable when they set the initial rent or they can’t make a fair return on their investment. In Oakland, their weaker rent control law is further undermined by broad rules which allow landlords who paid too much for a building to then raise the rents to pay their mortgage. Oakland is fighting to close this loophole even as Berkeley tenants could see passthrough rules relaxed so that landlords can charge for seismic retrofits:

“Of the ten major jurisdictions in California that have rent control laws, only four allow landlords to pass on the costs of debt service. Of those four, Oakland is the only municipality that allows landlords to force tenants to pay up to 95 percent of their debt.”

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oakland-rent-laws-to-be-debated/Content?oid=3719780#fromMobile

In San Francisco, the rents are too damn high:
The SF Department of Public Health made an interactive map which shows how many full-time minimum wage jobs it takes to pay rent on the average market rate apartment in each SF neighborhood. For example, in the Mission District, it would take 5.5 minimum wage jobs to pay rent on a new 2-bedroom apartment, because market rent is $2,920. The actual median income of the neighborhood is about half of what it takes to pay that rent.
http://www.sfphes.org/news/211-rent-affordability-in-san-francisco

Thoughtful tech industry comments on gentrification, development, and the “Google Bus” phenomena:
“Whichever side of this issue you’re on, it’s clear that we’re looking at a reversal of the historical norm: The workers that used to live in residential suburbs while commuting to work in the city are now living in the city, while the largest technology companies are based in the suburbs and increasingly draw their labor supply from dense urban neighborhoods…That they’re young and educated and lots of them are millionaires is kind of beside the point. It’s about more than gentrification as we’ve experienced it thus far: It’s about an entirely reconfigured relationship between density and sprawl…”

This article contains a really cool map but it doesn’t show that these tech industry shuttles now pick up at MacArthur, Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations as well.
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/mapping-silicon-valleys-corporate-shuttle-problem/

Nob Hill building with 33 units would be largest Tenancy in Common:
Over in San Francisco, investors would like to use the state Ellis Act to evict rent controlled tenants and turn buildings in condominiums. Only they can’t, because like Berkeley, San Francisco has tight restrictions on how many precious affordable rent controlled units can be turned into condos each year. So speculators turn them into Tenancies-in-Common, which are like condos, only not. Pretty soon investors in Berkeley will be exploiting similar loopholes, so let’s get ready!
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Park-Lane-tenants-protest-conversion-plans-4853226.php

Meanwhile back in Berkeley, BNC issues strong statement on Demolition Ordinance:
The Berkeley Neighborhoods Council newsletter discusses how revisions to the Demo Ordinance are not only bad for tenants, but also for neighborhood stability:

“This provision puts multiple unit buildings that are well-integrated parts of neighborhoods throughout the city at risk of being demolished for no other reason than a developer sees an opportunity to replace it with a new and bigger building.”

In their September newsletter, BNC reminds everyone that the Ordinance will be discussed November 6 at the Planning Commission.
http://www.berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com/Newsletters/2013/Issue2/BNC_eNEWS_2_NNRaA2.htm

Speculators Driving Up Rents in East and West Oakland:
Big national companies are outbidding regular folk and buying up foreclosures all over Oakland’s flatlands, breaking up long-standing African American communities. Some firms just slap a new coat of paint on the “distressed property” and resell them right away, at prices working people can’t afford. Others are offering these homes at San Francisco-type rents, but plan to sell them in five to seven years. Several nonprofits – including Oakland Community Land Trust and Restoring Ownership Opportunities Together –are working to keep owners in their homes, or buy foreclosures and keep them affordable to working people. If you think this is going on in Berkeley, let us know!
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/whos-jacking-up-housing-prices-in-west-oakland/Content?oid=3726518