September 2008
Party police’ cite Oakland clubs for dancing without permit
Dancing in Oakland could get you in trouble. So can having a DJ without a permit under the city’s Prohibition-era rules.
More than two dozen bars and clubs got a surprise visit from the city’s so-called “party police” during a sweep to enforce Oakland’s cabaret permit requirements. No dancing, no DJs and no live music without the permit, which costs $2,210.36, not including the health and fire safety inspections.
The smoking bans that went into effect in 2007 were bad enough. But now dancing and DJs?
Two members of the Alcohol Beverage Action Team set out Aug. 30 with a list of all the venues that hold (41), are waiting for (16) or lost (23) their cabaret permits. I am guessing the team was not exactly welcome.
They hit 28 locations in 12 hours, giving notices to five venues, including the hip Easy lounge on Lakeshore, Lara’s Bar and the Bird Kage in East Oakland, records show. They also cited Eli’s Mile High Club in West Oakland as well as Mama Buzz Cafe that is part of the popular Uptown District art circle near West Grand Avenue.
San Francisco and even New York require similar permits (and people thought the movie “Footloose” was far-fetched).
But those cities have far more venues than Oakland, and the Big Apple’s entertainment industry has a voice through the New York Nightlife Association. In Oakland, there is no appeal, no nightlife lobbyist. On the other hand, the penalty in Oakland is mild. Violators either get a permit or else pay a $200 fine for each reinspection ABAT has to make until the place has complied.
“Usually one notice is enough,” said Jacob Graef, the civilian administrative analyst who was part of the ABAT crackdown duo.
The ABAT team happened upon Mama Buzz, a cafe and art gallery that was hosting an acoustic music session that night, because they were checking out the newly opened Vibe Lounge next door at 2272 Telegraph Avenue.
Four other venues were cited because they combined dancing and music without a cabaret permit.
Live music, however, is what got Mama Buzz in trouble because the cafe has a liquor license but not the cabaret permit that the state requires for real musicians playing on scene for alcohol-serving establishments.
Mama Buzz owner Jade Benetatos said the cafe lost about a third of its revenue because she had to cancel 90 shows booked up to three months in advance. And the necessary inspections and fees that can run into thousands of dollars is too expensive for the small arts collective.
Mama Buzz is a community space for artists and musicians, Benetatos said. Why, she asked, would the city want to get in the way of that?
It doesn’t make sense, she added, that a small space like Mama Buzz needs the same license as a large club.
To keep businesses in Oakland, the process, criteria and cost should be more equitable for small projects, particularly nonprofits, said Lori Zook, the temporary chairwoman of the Oakland Cultural Affairs Commission, who encountered ABAT when she was co-founder of the Oakland Metro cabaret in its original 201 Broadway location. She left in 2005 before the Metro moved to its current Third Street location.
On one hand, ABAT enforces the city’s smoking laws, checking bars to make sure no one is lighting up inside or too close to the entrance outside. Minors act as decoys to help ABAT fetter out liquor stores selling booze to underage customers.
The team of six, plus a part-time city attorney, plan sweeps like the Labor Day weekend action when there is enough staff available.
A portion of ABAT’s costs are paid out of the city’s general fund, Alameda County grants and the $1,500 fees paid to the city by liquor stores, bars and, beginning January 2009, tobacco retailers. Revenues for the 2006-07 fiscal year reached $503,220 compared to costs that totaled $907,636.
On the other hand, they gave what critics said was their unnecessary attention to venues like nonprofit artistic collectives such as Oaklandish and 21 Grand.
Is enforcing the entertainment ordinances worthy of OPD overtime when the homicide rate continues to climb and, at the time of the raids, the restaurant robbers were still on the loose?
Yes, said Barbara Killey, the city’s administrative hearing officer in charge of the cabaret permits. Downtown and the area around Jack London Square particularly are better for their efforts, which have reduced sideshow activity and closed several problem clubs, Killey said.
That’s not to say the ordinances couldn’t stand an upgrade, though, something that Killey and Graef agree with.
“Times have changed in Oakland,” Graef said.
In other words, the city’s entertainment laws, which prohibit showing bare breasts where booze is served and condemn pinball machines, might also need to change.
The most recent status report on the ABAT program is available at clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/attachments/18067.pdf
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2008/09/11/party-police-cite-oakland-clubs-for-dancing-without-permit/
Friday, January 6, 2017
113 City of Oakland - Reforming Oakland's Cabaret Laws (2010)
January 2010
Reforming Oakland's Cabaret Laws
Proposed updates of the regulations governing entertainment facilities are seen as befitting the newly lively city.
Oakland's cabaret laws have long been a sore point for club owners, and a sign of Oakland not being in step with the times. They are vague and archaic, providing no distinction between large venues with dance floors and coffee shops with a singer-songwriter in the corner. City councilmember Rebecca Kaplan said they lump a lot of small venues together in a "gray area" by requiring them to navigate the same permit process, and pay the same $2,200 fee, as their larger counterparts. They obviously don't suit a city with a burgeoning entertainment district, and a new self-image to go along with it.
Years of legal wrangling finally provoked Kaplan and fellow council member Nancy Nadel to sponsor a series of reforms. "Our entertainment ordinances have been needing to be updated for quite some time," Kaplan said. "They are from the Vaudeville era." Kaplan says her new proposal will clear up the abstruse language and change the current definition of a "cabaret" — which is currently any place that sells refreshments, plays music, screens films, or provides "radio broadcasts." It would also exempt small businesses from an arduous and costly permitting process, which includes background checks, fire inspections, and zoning clearances. Finally, it would include a new pilot program, allowing a handful of clubs to stay open after 2 a.m., albeit without serving alcohol. Clubs would have to apply for that privilege and pay a fee. The idea is to make Oakland more like a European city — or at least San Francisco.
For cafes that actually follow the letter of the law, it's been a long time coming. "We're the only cafe on Piedmont Avenue that has one," said Art Garnello, who manages Oakland's Caffe Trieste. "So I guess the real question is, when do we get our money back?"
Clearly, Oakland's downtown revitalization provides one impetus for such reforms. Formerly a home for hofbraus and sports bars, it's now a place where nightclubs double as galleries, and even small watering holes have jukeboxes or art on the walls. At the center of this newborn entertainment district are places like Luka's, Mua, Somar, the Uptown, the Fox Theater, the New Parish, the Layover, Mimosa Champagne Lounge, and the new Bench and Bar. "Oakland is finally full of booming and exciting new venues," said Kaplan. "We have the Layover, we have Mama Buzz — we didn't have these things going on ten years ago. It's a good sign. It means Oakland's entertainment sector is growing and thriving."
The proposed reforms are still a work in progress. The reformers originally proposed a graduated system that would allow small places — those with an occupancy of fifty people or less — to pay a $600 "small cabaret exemption" and $250 annual renewal fee. That idea ultimately got tabled. Now, the plan is to have all cabarets pay a uniform registration fee, but exempt the small venues altogether. There's still some debate as to what constitutes a "small" business versus a large one; "small" would probably account for any business that doesn't serve alcohol, doesn't stay open past midnight, or doesn't charge a cover. Xiaojing Wong, a policy analyst for Nadel, expects the proposed registration fee to cost a lot less than the current price of a cabaret permit, even though the city may raise its annual renewal fee, which she said hasn't been updated in thirty years.
Nadel says her staff is currently negotiating with the police department and trying to finalize the language, and hopes the proposal will go before the city council at the end of February. She and Kaplan think the overall premise isn't too controversial.
Another proposed reform, which is based on policies in San Francisco and San Jose, would allow some clubs to stay open past 2 a.m. and stagger their closing times. Nadel and Kaplan see that as another win-win. It would keep Oakland from losing business to after-hours clubs in San Francisco, prevent a wave of bar patrons from simultaneously descending on the streets of Oakland at 2 a.m., and give some people a chance to sober up before heading home. In so doing, Nadel believes, it would obviate the need for extra police enforcement and save the city more money. "The idea is to find a solution that would possibly cost us less," she explained. "We're looking for ways to cut back on police overtime."
But that's a tough sell for Officer Mike Morse of the Oakland Police Department, who has seen his fair share of bar fights and noisy after-hours loitering. "I think it lends itself to more activity," Morse said. "More cars driving around, more motorcycles driving around. A lot of the community that lives down there, you think they want to hear these motorcycles driving around at three in the morning?" Morse predicted that patrons would probably find ways to sneak alcohol into such after-hours establishments, even if the club owners complied with ABC laws. "I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any police officer who would think it was a good idea," he said.
Even before the ink has dried on the proposal, club owners are already weighing in. Few people dispute the idea of streamlining registration and exempting small businesses. "I don't know why we were ever put on the same level as a coffeehouse, anyway," said Uptown Nightclub owner Larry Trujillo. But the proposed later closing times are another matter. Some think it's a terrific idea. New Parish co-owner Namane Mohlabane says it would allow his club to host shows that start later — say, if Dave Chappelle wants to go on at 11 p.m. and do a three-hour set, or if a band wants to do an intimate set after it performs at the Fox or Paramount. Bench and Bar vice president Frank Moore says it would be good for his club, too, since he's competing with a lot of gay after-hours joints in San Francisco.
But other club owners say it's a nice idea that would be hard to implement. "I would like to have that option, but how often we'd take advantage of it, I don't know," said Trujillo, adding that it would cost him upward of $500 per hour to keep his club open after 2 a.m., and he probably wouldn't bring money in. Prozack Turner of the Layover agrees. "I'm not gonna hang out till five in the morning serving RC Cola," he said.
The good news is that, for all the back-and-forth, Oakland may be about to come to its senses about cabaret reform. In previous years, the city's relationship to its entertainment district was anything but symbiotic. Small clubs ignored the permit requirements and tried to slip under the radar. Larger clubs did more harm than good, creating nuisances and interfering with the new housing developments downtown. At 2 a.m., the level of crowd control was comparable to that of Beale Street in Memphis, Mohlabane said. "You would see twenty cop cars out on the streets at 1:15 preparing for 2 a.m.," he said. "It was just like, 'Oh my god, is this really what it takes?'"
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/reforming-oaklands-cabaret-laws/Content?oid=1553951
Reforming Oakland's Cabaret Laws
Proposed updates of the regulations governing entertainment facilities are seen as befitting the newly lively city.
Oakland's cabaret laws have long been a sore point for club owners, and a sign of Oakland not being in step with the times. They are vague and archaic, providing no distinction between large venues with dance floors and coffee shops with a singer-songwriter in the corner. City councilmember Rebecca Kaplan said they lump a lot of small venues together in a "gray area" by requiring them to navigate the same permit process, and pay the same $2,200 fee, as their larger counterparts. They obviously don't suit a city with a burgeoning entertainment district, and a new self-image to go along with it.
Years of legal wrangling finally provoked Kaplan and fellow council member Nancy Nadel to sponsor a series of reforms. "Our entertainment ordinances have been needing to be updated for quite some time," Kaplan said. "They are from the Vaudeville era." Kaplan says her new proposal will clear up the abstruse language and change the current definition of a "cabaret" — which is currently any place that sells refreshments, plays music, screens films, or provides "radio broadcasts." It would also exempt small businesses from an arduous and costly permitting process, which includes background checks, fire inspections, and zoning clearances. Finally, it would include a new pilot program, allowing a handful of clubs to stay open after 2 a.m., albeit without serving alcohol. Clubs would have to apply for that privilege and pay a fee. The idea is to make Oakland more like a European city — or at least San Francisco.
For cafes that actually follow the letter of the law, it's been a long time coming. "We're the only cafe on Piedmont Avenue that has one," said Art Garnello, who manages Oakland's Caffe Trieste. "So I guess the real question is, when do we get our money back?"
Clearly, Oakland's downtown revitalization provides one impetus for such reforms. Formerly a home for hofbraus and sports bars, it's now a place where nightclubs double as galleries, and even small watering holes have jukeboxes or art on the walls. At the center of this newborn entertainment district are places like Luka's, Mua, Somar, the Uptown, the Fox Theater, the New Parish, the Layover, Mimosa Champagne Lounge, and the new Bench and Bar. "Oakland is finally full of booming and exciting new venues," said Kaplan. "We have the Layover, we have Mama Buzz — we didn't have these things going on ten years ago. It's a good sign. It means Oakland's entertainment sector is growing and thriving."
The proposed reforms are still a work in progress. The reformers originally proposed a graduated system that would allow small places — those with an occupancy of fifty people or less — to pay a $600 "small cabaret exemption" and $250 annual renewal fee. That idea ultimately got tabled. Now, the plan is to have all cabarets pay a uniform registration fee, but exempt the small venues altogether. There's still some debate as to what constitutes a "small" business versus a large one; "small" would probably account for any business that doesn't serve alcohol, doesn't stay open past midnight, or doesn't charge a cover. Xiaojing Wong, a policy analyst for Nadel, expects the proposed registration fee to cost a lot less than the current price of a cabaret permit, even though the city may raise its annual renewal fee, which she said hasn't been updated in thirty years.
Nadel says her staff is currently negotiating with the police department and trying to finalize the language, and hopes the proposal will go before the city council at the end of February. She and Kaplan think the overall premise isn't too controversial.
Another proposed reform, which is based on policies in San Francisco and San Jose, would allow some clubs to stay open past 2 a.m. and stagger their closing times. Nadel and Kaplan see that as another win-win. It would keep Oakland from losing business to after-hours clubs in San Francisco, prevent a wave of bar patrons from simultaneously descending on the streets of Oakland at 2 a.m., and give some people a chance to sober up before heading home. In so doing, Nadel believes, it would obviate the need for extra police enforcement and save the city more money. "The idea is to find a solution that would possibly cost us less," she explained. "We're looking for ways to cut back on police overtime."
But that's a tough sell for Officer Mike Morse of the Oakland Police Department, who has seen his fair share of bar fights and noisy after-hours loitering. "I think it lends itself to more activity," Morse said. "More cars driving around, more motorcycles driving around. A lot of the community that lives down there, you think they want to hear these motorcycles driving around at three in the morning?" Morse predicted that patrons would probably find ways to sneak alcohol into such after-hours establishments, even if the club owners complied with ABC laws. "I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any police officer who would think it was a good idea," he said.
Even before the ink has dried on the proposal, club owners are already weighing in. Few people dispute the idea of streamlining registration and exempting small businesses. "I don't know why we were ever put on the same level as a coffeehouse, anyway," said Uptown Nightclub owner Larry Trujillo. But the proposed later closing times are another matter. Some think it's a terrific idea. New Parish co-owner Namane Mohlabane says it would allow his club to host shows that start later — say, if Dave Chappelle wants to go on at 11 p.m. and do a three-hour set, or if a band wants to do an intimate set after it performs at the Fox or Paramount. Bench and Bar vice president Frank Moore says it would be good for his club, too, since he's competing with a lot of gay after-hours joints in San Francisco.
But other club owners say it's a nice idea that would be hard to implement. "I would like to have that option, but how often we'd take advantage of it, I don't know," said Trujillo, adding that it would cost him upward of $500 per hour to keep his club open after 2 a.m., and he probably wouldn't bring money in. Prozack Turner of the Layover agrees. "I'm not gonna hang out till five in the morning serving RC Cola," he said.
The good news is that, for all the back-and-forth, Oakland may be about to come to its senses about cabaret reform. In previous years, the city's relationship to its entertainment district was anything but symbiotic. Small clubs ignored the permit requirements and tried to slip under the radar. Larger clubs did more harm than good, creating nuisances and interfering with the new housing developments downtown. At 2 a.m., the level of crowd control was comparable to that of Beale Street in Memphis, Mohlabane said. "You would see twenty cop cars out on the streets at 1:15 preparing for 2 a.m.," he said. "It was just like, 'Oh my god, is this really what it takes?'"
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/reforming-oaklands-cabaret-laws/Content?oid=1553951
112 City of Oakland - Cabaret permit changes and the resulting issues.. (2012)
May 2012
Oakland's Struggle for Live Entertainment
Two years ago, Oakland reformed its cabaret law to make it easier and safer to have live entertainment in the city. But the results have been mixed.
Oakland's new cabaret law didn't affect most businesses, such as The Uptown.
Two years ago, any Oakland business that wanted to host live entertainment had to pay for a cabaret license, a costly permit that didn't differentiate between tiny coffee shops and thumping nightclubs. So the city council passed a series of reforms meant to make it easier and safer for businesses to bring in musicians and DJs. But these reforms, spearheaded by councilwomen Rebecca Kaplan and Nancy Nadel, have returned mixed results since they passed in 2010. And now, the city council's Public Safety Committee is set to debate on May 8 whether to extend a temporary part of the reform that might have actually made the city less safe.
Most venues were barely affected by the changes, and the newly-created small cabaret permit, which creates a cheaper permit for venues with capacities under fifty people that stay open past 11 p.m., doesn't apply to many business models. Nonetheless, Kaplan is bringing a proposal forward to extend the trial permits until June 2015.
The after-hours permits were created for up to ten downtown nightclubs as part of a pilot program set to expire this June. The idea was to let some clubs stay open after they stopped serving alcohol. "This also allows people to take the time to sober up," Jason Herbers of Eli's Mile High Club said at a city council meeting in April 2010. It would also "probably boost food sales, which helps raise more tax money."
But keeping a club open longer can also attract late-night loiterers, which is what happens at Karibbean City. The downtown Oakland nightclub, which opened in 2010, is one of only three clubs that received the extended-hours permit, and owner Richard Ali says it has mostly been positive for his business. It allows him to sell more food after the bar closes, which helps him meet the city-mandated quota that requires his sales to be 40 percent alcohol and 60 percent food.
Ali said there has been one shooting in the past eighteen months, which involved people in two cars outside the club. He also says he and his team clean the street outside the club after they close every night. The Oakland Police Department did not respond to multiple requests to comment on whether there were public safety problems in front of Karibbean City. A representative from the nuisance abatement department said they haven't received any complaints about the business.
But Ali acknowledged a loitering problem, and said that he's recently contracted private security to work on the street corners outside his club, which has taken care of the problem.
He put some of the blame on other nearby nightclubs that host parties for people age eighteen and over. "Whenever that happens, it puts more people out on the street because those parties are bigger."
It's not clear whether police think the late-night permits are helping with public safety, either. Oakland police officers originally supported the program, according to testimony from Nadel's legislative aide at a city council meeting in 2010. But police spokeswoman Lea Rubio recently said that the police would review "how it will impact residents in the area as well as all our city services" before supporting the extended permits.
Dom Arotzarena, who was then president of the Oakland Police Officers Association, told The Wall Street Journal in 2010 that the plan would require an increased police presence. "What the council wants is going to cost money and it will have a negative impact on resources," he said.
Arturo Sanchez, who administers the cabaret licenses and after-hours permits, said the late-night clubs "haven't had any large issues." Kaplan wants to continue the program because it's too early to say whether or not it's working, Sanchez continued. "It is such a small sample pool to go with that it's difficult to say whether or not it would be something we'd want to continue going forward."
The rest of the reform involved permanent changes to the definition of a cabaret, and an exception that lets small venues pay a smaller fee. But venues that hold less than fifty people and stay open past 11 p.m. appear to be rare. Of Oakland's 43 cabaret licenses, 8 are for small cabarets. Jade Benetatos, former owner of the now-defunct Mama Buzz, could have applied for such a permit, but decided against it: "They do require a fee, and they do require a bunch of inspections." she said. "I knew that the building, Mama Buzz, was not going to pass inspections."
Despite never making her shows legitimate, Benetatos said, in theory, the small cabaret license makes sense. "It's so different when there's, like, one dude with an acoustic guitar versus an entire dance floor of drunk people," she said. "So it's good to make that kind of distinction
But it's hard to say what good that distinction has done. Actual Cafe doesn't need a cabaret license, even though it has live shows, because it closes at 10 p.m. But owner Sal Bednarz said, "If I ever push my hours later, I would have to do some negotiations with the city." And if his neighbors didn't block the change in hours, "Even the small cabaret requirement has lots of requirements, like security, doormen, and all sorts of crap."
The real benefit of the reform may be the fact that places like Actual Cafe, which would have needed a cabaret license before 2010, don't have to pay for the license. That's because Kaplan and Nadel proposed two, narrowed definitions of the kind of business that needs a cabaret permit, both of which excluded places that close before 11 pm and have a capacity under fifty people. "Those two definitions, they felt, got at the heart of what we would really consider a cabaret," Sanchez said.
However, the definitions don't exclude many businesses with live entertainment. The regular cabaret permit, which costs $600 to apply for and $750 a year to maintain, is just another in a series that venues typically need. That's in addition to state liquor licenses and conditional use permits from the city.
Even if Bednarz did want to keep his business open past 10 p.m., he said his neighbors would probably object. He thinks Oakland's cabaret law is still too strict, and that it stems from a fear of establishments that serve alcohol in Oakland's neighborhoods. "We repealed prohibition as a country," Bednarz said. "The fact that these restrictions exist in Oakland is frustrating."
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oaklands-struggle-for-live-entertainment/Content?oid=3192037
Oakland's Struggle for Live Entertainment
Two years ago, Oakland reformed its cabaret law to make it easier and safer to have live entertainment in the city. But the results have been mixed.
Oakland's new cabaret law didn't affect most businesses, such as The Uptown.
Two years ago, any Oakland business that wanted to host live entertainment had to pay for a cabaret license, a costly permit that didn't differentiate between tiny coffee shops and thumping nightclubs. So the city council passed a series of reforms meant to make it easier and safer for businesses to bring in musicians and DJs. But these reforms, spearheaded by councilwomen Rebecca Kaplan and Nancy Nadel, have returned mixed results since they passed in 2010. And now, the city council's Public Safety Committee is set to debate on May 8 whether to extend a temporary part of the reform that might have actually made the city less safe.
Most venues were barely affected by the changes, and the newly-created small cabaret permit, which creates a cheaper permit for venues with capacities under fifty people that stay open past 11 p.m., doesn't apply to many business models. Nonetheless, Kaplan is bringing a proposal forward to extend the trial permits until June 2015.
The after-hours permits were created for up to ten downtown nightclubs as part of a pilot program set to expire this June. The idea was to let some clubs stay open after they stopped serving alcohol. "This also allows people to take the time to sober up," Jason Herbers of Eli's Mile High Club said at a city council meeting in April 2010. It would also "probably boost food sales, which helps raise more tax money."
But keeping a club open longer can also attract late-night loiterers, which is what happens at Karibbean City. The downtown Oakland nightclub, which opened in 2010, is one of only three clubs that received the extended-hours permit, and owner Richard Ali says it has mostly been positive for his business. It allows him to sell more food after the bar closes, which helps him meet the city-mandated quota that requires his sales to be 40 percent alcohol and 60 percent food.
Ali said there has been one shooting in the past eighteen months, which involved people in two cars outside the club. He also says he and his team clean the street outside the club after they close every night. The Oakland Police Department did not respond to multiple requests to comment on whether there were public safety problems in front of Karibbean City. A representative from the nuisance abatement department said they haven't received any complaints about the business.
But Ali acknowledged a loitering problem, and said that he's recently contracted private security to work on the street corners outside his club, which has taken care of the problem.
He put some of the blame on other nearby nightclubs that host parties for people age eighteen and over. "Whenever that happens, it puts more people out on the street because those parties are bigger."
It's not clear whether police think the late-night permits are helping with public safety, either. Oakland police officers originally supported the program, according to testimony from Nadel's legislative aide at a city council meeting in 2010. But police spokeswoman Lea Rubio recently said that the police would review "how it will impact residents in the area as well as all our city services" before supporting the extended permits.
Dom Arotzarena, who was then president of the Oakland Police Officers Association, told The Wall Street Journal in 2010 that the plan would require an increased police presence. "What the council wants is going to cost money and it will have a negative impact on resources," he said.
Arturo Sanchez, who administers the cabaret licenses and after-hours permits, said the late-night clubs "haven't had any large issues." Kaplan wants to continue the program because it's too early to say whether or not it's working, Sanchez continued. "It is such a small sample pool to go with that it's difficult to say whether or not it would be something we'd want to continue going forward."
The rest of the reform involved permanent changes to the definition of a cabaret, and an exception that lets small venues pay a smaller fee. But venues that hold less than fifty people and stay open past 11 p.m. appear to be rare. Of Oakland's 43 cabaret licenses, 8 are for small cabarets. Jade Benetatos, former owner of the now-defunct Mama Buzz, could have applied for such a permit, but decided against it: "They do require a fee, and they do require a bunch of inspections." she said. "I knew that the building, Mama Buzz, was not going to pass inspections."
Despite never making her shows legitimate, Benetatos said, in theory, the small cabaret license makes sense. "It's so different when there's, like, one dude with an acoustic guitar versus an entire dance floor of drunk people," she said. "So it's good to make that kind of distinction
But it's hard to say what good that distinction has done. Actual Cafe doesn't need a cabaret license, even though it has live shows, because it closes at 10 p.m. But owner Sal Bednarz said, "If I ever push my hours later, I would have to do some negotiations with the city." And if his neighbors didn't block the change in hours, "Even the small cabaret requirement has lots of requirements, like security, doormen, and all sorts of crap."
The real benefit of the reform may be the fact that places like Actual Cafe, which would have needed a cabaret license before 2010, don't have to pay for the license. That's because Kaplan and Nadel proposed two, narrowed definitions of the kind of business that needs a cabaret permit, both of which excluded places that close before 11 pm and have a capacity under fifty people. "Those two definitions, they felt, got at the heart of what we would really consider a cabaret," Sanchez said.
However, the definitions don't exclude many businesses with live entertainment. The regular cabaret permit, which costs $600 to apply for and $750 a year to maintain, is just another in a series that venues typically need. That's in addition to state liquor licenses and conditional use permits from the city.
Even if Bednarz did want to keep his business open past 10 p.m., he said his neighbors would probably object. He thinks Oakland's cabaret law is still too strict, and that it stems from a fear of establishments that serve alcohol in Oakland's neighborhoods. "We repealed prohibition as a country," Bednarz said. "The fact that these restrictions exist in Oakland is frustrating."
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oaklands-struggle-for-live-entertainment/Content?oid=3192037
111 City of Oakland - proposes to revise the cabaret ordinance to make it easier for small venues to have life performances (2010)
City of Oakland proposes to revise the cabaret ordinance to make it easier for places like Mama Buzz to have live performances
April 20, 2010
The Mama Buzz Cafe in Oakland wouldn't seem to be the sort of place that would bring down the arm of the law, provoke activists and trigger reform from City Hall.
But the small Telegraph Avenue cafe dared to do what is commonplace in other cities: It had someone play live music.
That brought a citation from the Oakland Police Department, enforcing an arcane and archaic city law requiring a $2,200 cabaret permit process for live music - even in small venues, regardless of whether it was a folk musician on a guitar.
Tonight, the Oakland City Council is proposing to revise its cabaret ordinance to make it easier for places like Mama Buzz to have live performances.
"It's a big step forward in terms of how this city perceives fun," said Max Allstadt, a Mama Buzz patron who helped push for the changes. The city "used to think that fun was a problem. But in the last few years, nightlife has become a real asset to the city."
Under the proposed rules, the city would create a separate set of rules for small cabarets - those with a capacity of fewer than 50 people.
Cabarets would be defined as venues that charge a cover charge, provide entertainment and serve liquor. Places that don't have a cover charge, but allow dancing, serve alcohol and are open past 11 p.m. would also be included.
Venues that have a capacity of fewer than 50 people, would require a $250 annual permit. If they close by 9 p.m and don't charge a cover, they won't require a cabaret permit at all.
http://www.sfgate.com/restaurants/article/Oakland-reviews-live-music-at-small-venues-3191593.php
April 20, 2010
The Mama Buzz Cafe in Oakland wouldn't seem to be the sort of place that would bring down the arm of the law, provoke activists and trigger reform from City Hall.
But the small Telegraph Avenue cafe dared to do what is commonplace in other cities: It had someone play live music.
That brought a citation from the Oakland Police Department, enforcing an arcane and archaic city law requiring a $2,200 cabaret permit process for live music - even in small venues, regardless of whether it was a folk musician on a guitar.
Tonight, the Oakland City Council is proposing to revise its cabaret ordinance to make it easier for places like Mama Buzz to have live performances.
"It's a big step forward in terms of how this city perceives fun," said Max Allstadt, a Mama Buzz patron who helped push for the changes. The city "used to think that fun was a problem. But in the last few years, nightlife has become a real asset to the city."
Under the proposed rules, the city would create a separate set of rules for small cabarets - those with a capacity of fewer than 50 people.
Cabarets would be defined as venues that charge a cover charge, provide entertainment and serve liquor. Places that don't have a cover charge, but allow dancing, serve alcohol and are open past 11 p.m. would also be included.
Venues that have a capacity of fewer than 50 people, would require a $250 annual permit. If they close by 9 p.m and don't charge a cover, they won't require a cabaret permit at all.
http://www.sfgate.com/restaurants/article/Oakland-reviews-live-music-at-small-venues-3191593.php
110 City of Oakland - Threatens to shut down Everett and Jones for holding a fundraiser without a cabaret license (they've been doing this for 20 years)
January 2017
Everett & Jones BBQ Threatened to Be Shut Down by City Administrator After Unpermitted Fundraiser
“You really feel the racism here,” said Dorothy King, owner of E&J BBQ
The Oakland City Administrator’s office sent an official warning letter to Everett & Jones BBQ on Dec. 28 for hosting a fire safety fundraising event without a permit, threatening to close the cornerstone Black-owned restaurant if it fails to obtain a cabaret permit next time it holds events.
The letter from Administrative Assistant Nancy Marcus was brought to the public’s attention by Rev. Cheryl Ward from Cheryl Ward Ministries at Wednesday’s community forum on safe and affordable housing solutions at City Hall.
“(The city) sent this letter because (Everett & Jones) held a fundraiser for the artist community and particularly for the Salt Lick warehouse next door to her so that they could raise money to bring buildings up to code,” said Ward on Wednesday.
Since the Ghost Ship fire that claimed 36 lives in early December, community members have been fearful that the city would respond by cracking down on unpermitted living spaces, which would force massive evictions of people already struggling to stay in Oakland.
After the fire, Dorothy King, owner and founder of Everett & Jones, and members of the warehouse neighboring her restaurant came together to create a taskforce to address the eviction crisis of longtime Oakland residents and its artist community.
One solution they came up with was to hold monthly fundraisers at the restaurant to raise money for do-it-yourself spaces to make necessary safety improvements in order to avoid being red tagged by city inspectors.
To many in the community, the letter by the City Administrator’s office to Everett & Jones is indicative of the response they feared the aftermath of the tragedy would spur.
For Dorothy King, whose restaurant has served Oakland since 1973 and is one of the few Black-owned businesses in the city, the letter represents deeply-rooted issues in the city government’s leadership.
“It just resonated with, ‘Dorothy, you’re Black,’” King told the Post.
“You really feel the racism here. You think you broke through barriers but you haven’t. It really hurts,” she said.
King told the Post that her restaurant has been holding fundraisers for over 20 years, “for just about anything.”
For Rev. Ward, the city’s response also reflects a disconnect between the city’s administrative branch, which is led by Mayor Libby Schaaf and run by her appointed city officials, and the city’s residents.
Saying that the (administrative) department needs to be overhauled is an understatement,” said Ward.
“They are busy not doing their jobs. Just like they should be focusing on addressing building violations instead of evicting people–they are wasting our taxpayer dollars by writing letters like these.”
Meanwhile, here is an Oakland resident who is doing the work that the city should have been doing to help those who are marginalized and is being punished for it, Ward said.
King was planning to host another fundraiser later this month and says that despite the threat, she is going to go through with the event.
Assistant City Administrator Karen Boyd told the Post that the letter is a standard courtesy notice “advising the property owner of the violation and the appropriate departments to contact” to be in compliance in the future. Everett & Jones’s event was not shut down, and the restaurant was not fined, she said.
http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2017/01/05/everett-jones-bbq-threatened-shut-city-administrator-unpermitted-fundraiser/
She (Schaaf) has pledged to do all she can to preserve and promote the arts and spaces for artists in Oakland.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/04/vibrant-arts-scene-helped-re-energize-oakland-but-fire-spreads-fear-of-crackdown/
Although Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has vowed to meet with artists and avoid a “witch hunt,” advocates are worried that the result of new policies and procedures will be evictions and shutdowns. She was booed offstage at a vigil by people who say that she has been too focused on code violations and not on the tragedy and the reasons behind it.
http://48hills.org/2016/12/08/oakland-fire-spurs-crackdown-arts-spaces/
City of Oakland proposes to revise the cabaret ordinance to make it easier for places like Mama Buzz to have live performances
April 20, 2010
The Mama Buzz Cafe in Oakland wouldn't seem to be the sort of place that would bring down the arm of the law, provoke activists and trigger reform from City Hall.
But the small Telegraph Avenue cafe dared to do what is commonplace in other cities: It had someone play live music.
That brought a citation from the Oakland Police Department, enforcing an arcane and archaic city law requiring a $2,200 cabaret permit process for live music - even in small venues, regardless of whether it was a folk musician on a guitar.
Tonight, the Oakland City Council is proposing to revise its cabaret ordinance to make it easier for places like Mama Buzz to have live performances.
"It's a big step forward in terms of how this city perceives fun," said Max Allstadt, a Mama Buzz patron who helped push for the changes. The city "used to think that fun was a problem. But in the last few years, nightlife has become a real asset to the city."
Under the proposed rules, the city would create a separate set of rules for small cabarets - those with a capacity of fewer than 50 people.
Cabarets would be defined as venues that charge a cover charge, provide entertainment and serve liquor. Places that don't have a cover charge, but allow dancing, serve alcohol and are open past 11 p.m. would also be included.
Venues that have a capacity of fewer than 50 people, would require a $250 annual permit. If they close by 9 p.m and don't charge a cover, they won't require a cabaret permit at all.
http://www.sfgate.com/restaurants/article/Oakland-reviews-live-music-at-small-venues-3191593.php
Everett & Jones BBQ Threatened to Be Shut Down by City Administrator After Unpermitted Fundraiser
“You really feel the racism here,” said Dorothy King, owner of E&J BBQ
The Oakland City Administrator’s office sent an official warning letter to Everett & Jones BBQ on Dec. 28 for hosting a fire safety fundraising event without a permit, threatening to close the cornerstone Black-owned restaurant if it fails to obtain a cabaret permit next time it holds events.
The letter from Administrative Assistant Nancy Marcus was brought to the public’s attention by Rev. Cheryl Ward from Cheryl Ward Ministries at Wednesday’s community forum on safe and affordable housing solutions at City Hall.
“(The city) sent this letter because (Everett & Jones) held a fundraiser for the artist community and particularly for the Salt Lick warehouse next door to her so that they could raise money to bring buildings up to code,” said Ward on Wednesday.
Since the Ghost Ship fire that claimed 36 lives in early December, community members have been fearful that the city would respond by cracking down on unpermitted living spaces, which would force massive evictions of people already struggling to stay in Oakland.
After the fire, Dorothy King, owner and founder of Everett & Jones, and members of the warehouse neighboring her restaurant came together to create a taskforce to address the eviction crisis of longtime Oakland residents and its artist community.
One solution they came up with was to hold monthly fundraisers at the restaurant to raise money for do-it-yourself spaces to make necessary safety improvements in order to avoid being red tagged by city inspectors.
To many in the community, the letter by the City Administrator’s office to Everett & Jones is indicative of the response they feared the aftermath of the tragedy would spur.
For Dorothy King, whose restaurant has served Oakland since 1973 and is one of the few Black-owned businesses in the city, the letter represents deeply-rooted issues in the city government’s leadership.
“It just resonated with, ‘Dorothy, you’re Black,’” King told the Post.
“You really feel the racism here. You think you broke through barriers but you haven’t. It really hurts,” she said.
King told the Post that her restaurant has been holding fundraisers for over 20 years, “for just about anything.”
For Rev. Ward, the city’s response also reflects a disconnect between the city’s administrative branch, which is led by Mayor Libby Schaaf and run by her appointed city officials, and the city’s residents.
Saying that the (administrative) department needs to be overhauled is an understatement,” said Ward.
“They are busy not doing their jobs. Just like they should be focusing on addressing building violations instead of evicting people–they are wasting our taxpayer dollars by writing letters like these.”
Meanwhile, here is an Oakland resident who is doing the work that the city should have been doing to help those who are marginalized and is being punished for it, Ward said.
King was planning to host another fundraiser later this month and says that despite the threat, she is going to go through with the event.
Assistant City Administrator Karen Boyd told the Post that the letter is a standard courtesy notice “advising the property owner of the violation and the appropriate departments to contact” to be in compliance in the future. Everett & Jones’s event was not shut down, and the restaurant was not fined, she said.
http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2017/01/05/everett-jones-bbq-threatened-shut-city-administrator-unpermitted-fundraiser/
She (Schaaf) has pledged to do all she can to preserve and promote the arts and spaces for artists in Oakland.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/04/vibrant-arts-scene-helped-re-energize-oakland-but-fire-spreads-fear-of-crackdown/
Although Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has vowed to meet with artists and avoid a “witch hunt,” advocates are worried that the result of new policies and procedures will be evictions and shutdowns. She was booed offstage at a vigil by people who say that she has been too focused on code violations and not on the tragedy and the reasons behind it.
http://48hills.org/2016/12/08/oakland-fire-spurs-crackdown-arts-spaces/
City of Oakland proposes to revise the cabaret ordinance to make it easier for places like Mama Buzz to have live performances
April 20, 2010
The Mama Buzz Cafe in Oakland wouldn't seem to be the sort of place that would bring down the arm of the law, provoke activists and trigger reform from City Hall.
But the small Telegraph Avenue cafe dared to do what is commonplace in other cities: It had someone play live music.
That brought a citation from the Oakland Police Department, enforcing an arcane and archaic city law requiring a $2,200 cabaret permit process for live music - even in small venues, regardless of whether it was a folk musician on a guitar.
Tonight, the Oakland City Council is proposing to revise its cabaret ordinance to make it easier for places like Mama Buzz to have live performances.
"It's a big step forward in terms of how this city perceives fun," said Max Allstadt, a Mama Buzz patron who helped push for the changes. The city "used to think that fun was a problem. But in the last few years, nightlife has become a real asset to the city."
Under the proposed rules, the city would create a separate set of rules for small cabarets - those with a capacity of fewer than 50 people.
Cabarets would be defined as venues that charge a cover charge, provide entertainment and serve liquor. Places that don't have a cover charge, but allow dancing, serve alcohol and are open past 11 p.m. would also be included.
Venues that have a capacity of fewer than 50 people, would require a $250 annual permit. If they close by 9 p.m and don't charge a cover, they won't require a cabaret permit at all.
http://www.sfgate.com/restaurants/article/Oakland-reviews-live-music-at-small-venues-3191593.php
109 Oakland Bldg Dept (OBD) - OMNI Commons threatened with closure - but there were no concerns over safety or illegal conversion of the warehouse
December 2016
Ghost Ship fire: One group’s experience highlights Oakland’s heavy-handed approach for artist spaces
OAKLAND — Oakland’s top building official last week sent city employees to shut down the Omni Commons, home to a collection of artists, hackers, educators and activists — but not for any concerns over safety or the illegal conversion of a warehouse into housing.
Rather, the alleged violation hinged on two words written on an obscure insurance map dating to 1951, which Tim Low, a senior engineer and the city’s acting building official, used as evidence the structure had, at some point, undergone a change of use, which automatically necessitates the building come up to modern fire and building codes.
The space is saved for now, but Omni founding member David Keenan said the experience calls into question public statements from Mayor Libby Schaaf that city officials would not be conducting a “witch hunt” and would be using “compassion” in their handling of fire and code enforcement complaints. Those types of complaints spiked in the two weeks after the deadly Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland’s Fruitvale neighborhood earlier this month.
Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan called the city’s treatment of the Omni “outrageous” and “Trumpian.”
“Why is the administration directing senior level staff to go digging through old maps to find a technical detail that has nothing to do with life safety?” Kaplan said. “What we need to fix are the actual fire dangers.”
The space was used as a nightclub, called the Omni Club, from 1987 to 1993, when a videotape of a bottle-throwing melee prompted its closure. In 2013, a coalition of disparate groups came together as the Omni Commons to rent the space and host public performances and other functions. Earlier this month Keenan said the groups finally had pooled enough money over the years to collectively purchase the building.
Because the space has operated for several years as a public venue, Keenan said he had to familiarize himself with city and state regulations long ago. And because the space is collectively run, he keeps meticulous records of past inspections and reports.
So, last Wednesday, when a city employee told him fire officials were on their way to shut the Omni down, Keenan was shocked. Only five days earlier, on Dec. 16, building and fire officials walked through the building and found no violations. They had been following up on a complaint filed Dec. 8 with the city’s building department that the space was illegally being used as a residence. Aubrey Rose, a city planner who handles special events permits, said he notified Keenan of the outstanding complaint after Omni filed for a special event permit to host a memorial for three victims of the Ghost Ship fire.
Following the Dec. 16 inspection, fire inspector Terrence Spencer wrote in his report, “no sign of residential use,” and marked that line with an asterisk. At the bottom, Spencer wrote, “no violations noted/proper use in place.”
Erica Terry Derryck, a spokeswoman for Schaaf, said city officials were acting out of “an abundance of caution.”
“(The) visit on (the) 16th raised some issues that inspectors wanted to go back to look at, given that this is an assembly space and will likely be used for future gatherings,” Derryck said.
Despite multiple requests for comment, city officials have yet to identify what issues remained that allowed building and fire officials to clear the site of any violations but necessitated the building’s closure.
Emails exchanged between Low and Keenan, which were obtained by the Bay Area News Group, reveal the near shut-down on Dec. 21 relied on two words, “heat – stove,” that appeared below the bold-face “Ligure Club” label of the building on a Sanborn insurance company map from 1951. Low claimed the words indicated the space was being used as a store to sell stoves, rather than as an Italian social club, despite multiple public documents indicating otherwise.
“There’s no way Tim Low can tell me with a straight face he misread the simplest of city maps,” Keenan said. “And the impact is huge. It’s not like getting a traffic ticket; it’s the closure of our space.”
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/12/28/omni-commons-experience-highlights-oaklands-heavy-handed-approach-for-artist-spaces/
Ghost Ship fire: One group’s experience highlights Oakland’s heavy-handed approach for artist spaces
OAKLAND — Oakland’s top building official last week sent city employees to shut down the Omni Commons, home to a collection of artists, hackers, educators and activists — but not for any concerns over safety or the illegal conversion of a warehouse into housing.
Rather, the alleged violation hinged on two words written on an obscure insurance map dating to 1951, which Tim Low, a senior engineer and the city’s acting building official, used as evidence the structure had, at some point, undergone a change of use, which automatically necessitates the building come up to modern fire and building codes.
The space is saved for now, but Omni founding member David Keenan said the experience calls into question public statements from Mayor Libby Schaaf that city officials would not be conducting a “witch hunt” and would be using “compassion” in their handling of fire and code enforcement complaints. Those types of complaints spiked in the two weeks after the deadly Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland’s Fruitvale neighborhood earlier this month.
Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan called the city’s treatment of the Omni “outrageous” and “Trumpian.”
“Why is the administration directing senior level staff to go digging through old maps to find a technical detail that has nothing to do with life safety?” Kaplan said. “What we need to fix are the actual fire dangers.”
The space was used as a nightclub, called the Omni Club, from 1987 to 1993, when a videotape of a bottle-throwing melee prompted its closure. In 2013, a coalition of disparate groups came together as the Omni Commons to rent the space and host public performances and other functions. Earlier this month Keenan said the groups finally had pooled enough money over the years to collectively purchase the building.
Because the space has operated for several years as a public venue, Keenan said he had to familiarize himself with city and state regulations long ago. And because the space is collectively run, he keeps meticulous records of past inspections and reports.
So, last Wednesday, when a city employee told him fire officials were on their way to shut the Omni down, Keenan was shocked. Only five days earlier, on Dec. 16, building and fire officials walked through the building and found no violations. They had been following up on a complaint filed Dec. 8 with the city’s building department that the space was illegally being used as a residence. Aubrey Rose, a city planner who handles special events permits, said he notified Keenan of the outstanding complaint after Omni filed for a special event permit to host a memorial for three victims of the Ghost Ship fire.
Following the Dec. 16 inspection, fire inspector Terrence Spencer wrote in his report, “no sign of residential use,” and marked that line with an asterisk. At the bottom, Spencer wrote, “no violations noted/proper use in place.”
Erica Terry Derryck, a spokeswoman for Schaaf, said city officials were acting out of “an abundance of caution.”
“(The) visit on (the) 16th raised some issues that inspectors wanted to go back to look at, given that this is an assembly space and will likely be used for future gatherings,” Derryck said.
Despite multiple requests for comment, city officials have yet to identify what issues remained that allowed building and fire officials to clear the site of any violations but necessitated the building’s closure.
Emails exchanged between Low and Keenan, which were obtained by the Bay Area News Group, reveal the near shut-down on Dec. 21 relied on two words, “heat – stove,” that appeared below the bold-face “Ligure Club” label of the building on a Sanborn insurance company map from 1951. Low claimed the words indicated the space was being used as a store to sell stoves, rather than as an Italian social club, despite multiple public documents indicating otherwise.
“There’s no way Tim Low can tell me with a straight face he misread the simplest of city maps,” Keenan said. “And the impact is huge. It’s not like getting a traffic ticket; it’s the closure of our space.”
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/12/28/omni-commons-experience-highlights-oaklands-heavy-handed-approach-for-artist-spaces/
Monday, January 2, 2017
108 City of Oakland - Lead Contamination worse than Flint, Michigan
January 2017
Dangerous lead levels found in children living in Oakland
OAKLAND (KRON) — Dangerous levels of lead have been found in children living in Oakland.
But what is alarming is that the percentage of lead found in the Fruitvale District is higher than the lead levels in children living in Flint, Michigan.
Flint has had a well-documented problem with lead in its water.
However, as KRON4 has learned, the Fruitvale District has a different kind of lead problem.
A recent Reuters news report stated that lead levels in Oakland’s Fruitvale District are worse than the levels that were discovered in Flint.
The problem in Flint was in the water.
“People see the word Flint, Michigan, and then they see Oakland lead poisoning, and then they think water,” Alameda County Healthy Homes Department Director of Operations Larry Brooks said. “It’s not the water here. It’s the lead paint.”
“In the 25 years that we have been responding to elevated lead cases, we found that primarily it’s due to deteriorated lead-based paint,” Brooks said. “City of Oakland (found) more than 90 percent of the homes built in Oakland were built prior to 1980. And lead was not removed from residential paint until 1978. Also, soil has been one of the primary sources…”
So, what is the City of Oakland doing about buildings covered with lead-based paint.
“When their code enforcement officers find lead hazards, they report them to us,” Brooks said.
http://wiat.com/2017/01/01/dangerous-lead-levels-found-in-children-living-in-oakland/
Lead Contamination in Oakland
Lead contamination in Oakland represents a serious and persistent public health threat. Significant portions of the City of Oakland, California have soil lead levels far in excess of 400 ppm, the level that the US EPA suggests remedial action be taken at, and far higher than 80 ppm, the level that California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment suggests action should be taken at.
[1] Lead contamination in modern Oakland comes from three primary sources: remnants from previous industry, deposits from pre-ban leaded gasoline, and paint chips from pre-ban leaded paints.
[2][3] Not all areas of Oakland are affected equally: West Oakland's contamination is especially severe, particularly near the former Oakland Army Base, and many of Oakland's poorer neighborhoods also suffer disproportionately (since residents often lack the socioeconomic resources to remediate their lawns, or even to repaint their houses).
[4] High blood levels of lead have been linked to a wide variety of health problems, including severe gastrointestinal, neuromuscular, and neurological symptoms.
[5][6] These problems are especially significant in children, and childhood lead poisoning can lead to behavioral problems, developmental disorders, and permanent decreases in IQ.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_contamination_in_Oakland
Dangerous lead levels found in children living in Oakland
OAKLAND (KRON) — Dangerous levels of lead have been found in children living in Oakland.
But what is alarming is that the percentage of lead found in the Fruitvale District is higher than the lead levels in children living in Flint, Michigan.
Flint has had a well-documented problem with lead in its water.
However, as KRON4 has learned, the Fruitvale District has a different kind of lead problem.
A recent Reuters news report stated that lead levels in Oakland’s Fruitvale District are worse than the levels that were discovered in Flint.
The problem in Flint was in the water.
“People see the word Flint, Michigan, and then they see Oakland lead poisoning, and then they think water,” Alameda County Healthy Homes Department Director of Operations Larry Brooks said. “It’s not the water here. It’s the lead paint.”
“In the 25 years that we have been responding to elevated lead cases, we found that primarily it’s due to deteriorated lead-based paint,” Brooks said. “City of Oakland (found) more than 90 percent of the homes built in Oakland were built prior to 1980. And lead was not removed from residential paint until 1978. Also, soil has been one of the primary sources…”
So, what is the City of Oakland doing about buildings covered with lead-based paint.
“When their code enforcement officers find lead hazards, they report them to us,” Brooks said.
http://wiat.com/2017/01/01/dangerous-lead-levels-found-in-children-living-in-oakland/
Lead Contamination in Oakland
Lead contamination in Oakland represents a serious and persistent public health threat. Significant portions of the City of Oakland, California have soil lead levels far in excess of 400 ppm, the level that the US EPA suggests remedial action be taken at, and far higher than 80 ppm, the level that California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment suggests action should be taken at.
[1] Lead contamination in modern Oakland comes from three primary sources: remnants from previous industry, deposits from pre-ban leaded gasoline, and paint chips from pre-ban leaded paints.
[2][3] Not all areas of Oakland are affected equally: West Oakland's contamination is especially severe, particularly near the former Oakland Army Base, and many of Oakland's poorer neighborhoods also suffer disproportionately (since residents often lack the socioeconomic resources to remediate their lawns, or even to repaint their houses).
[4] High blood levels of lead have been linked to a wide variety of health problems, including severe gastrointestinal, neuromuscular, and neurological symptoms.
[5][6] These problems are especially significant in children, and childhood lead poisoning can lead to behavioral problems, developmental disorders, and permanent decreases in IQ.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_contamination_in_Oakland
107 Oakland Bldg Dept (OBD) - Failure to report contractors to the CSLB after failing to pull permits.
Building permits are required by law as a public safety measure.
Permits ensure that construction is performed in compliance with state and local codes, including safety standards.
On June 11, 2009, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) voted unanimously to place a high priority on enforcing building permit requirements, and an industry bulletin was subsequently issued on November 30, 2009, to alert licensees that CSLB would be accelerating building permit enforcement efforts, beginning January 2010.
Failure to obtain a building permit is a violation of Contractors License Law. Further, construction performed without a permit can expose a homeowner to additional liability and costs.
When a contractor performs improvement work without a local building permit, it is a violation of Business and Professions (B&P) Code sections 7110 and 7090.
Contractors who violate the law are subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including civil penalty assessments of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction that requires payment of permit fees and any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.
If you suspect a violation has occurred, please fill out a Building Permit Violation Referral form. CSLB will contact the contractor regarding the permit allegation and take the appropriate disciplinary action.
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Consumers/Filing_A_Complaint/Building_Permit_Complaint.aspx
Permits ensure that construction is performed in compliance with state and local codes, including safety standards.
On June 11, 2009, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) voted unanimously to place a high priority on enforcing building permit requirements, and an industry bulletin was subsequently issued on November 30, 2009, to alert licensees that CSLB would be accelerating building permit enforcement efforts, beginning January 2010.
Failure to obtain a building permit is a violation of Contractors License Law. Further, construction performed without a permit can expose a homeowner to additional liability and costs.
When a contractor performs improvement work without a local building permit, it is a violation of Business and Professions (B&P) Code sections 7110 and 7090.
Contractors who violate the law are subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including civil penalty assessments of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction that requires payment of permit fees and any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.
If you suspect a violation has occurred, please fill out a Building Permit Violation Referral form. CSLB will contact the contractor regarding the permit allegation and take the appropriate disciplinary action.
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Consumers/Filing_A_Complaint/Building_Permit_Complaint.aspx
106 Oakland Bldg Dept (OBD) - Red Tags apartments without providing relocation assistance information
How is a tenant to know that relocation assistance may be required, if they are not informed of this?
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak045391.pdf
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak045391.pdf
105 Oakland Bldg Dept (OBD) - State codes that regulate buildings
WHICH STATE CODES REGULATE BUILDINGS?
Several of California’s 29 codes regulate the design, construction, use and maintenance of buildings, including the Government Code and Public Resources Code.
The Health and Safety Code aggregates its building provisions from Divisions 12 and 13 into the Code of Regulations, which includes the following:
The Health and Safety Code aggregates its building provisions from Divisions 12 and 13 into the Code of Regulations, which includes the following:
- Title 8 regulates elevators, escalators, dumbwaiters, stairway chairlifts and other forms of conveyances and is enforced by the Department of Industrial Relations.
- Title 19 regulates fire and panic safety, fire alarms, extinguishers, tents, awnings and more and is enforced by the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
- Title 21 regulates handicapped access to public buildings, excess flow gas shut off valves, construction of public schools and hospitals, and more and is enforced by the Division of the State Architect.
- Title 25 codifies the State Housing Law, Employee Housing Act, Mobile Home Parts Act, Manufactured Housing Act, and more and is enforced by the Department of Housing and Community Development.
- Title 24 has twelve Parts that apply to all building occupancies, and related features and equipment, contains requirements for structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, energy conservation, green design, construction and maintenance, fire and life safety, and handicapped accessibility. The Parts are based on triennial editions of national model codes. The Building Standards Commission’s legislative process amends these codes and publishes the following California editions every three years:
- Part 1 – Building Stnds Administrative Code (International Code Council)
- Part 2 – Building Code (International Code Council)
- Part 2.5 – Residential Building Code (International Code Council)
- Part 3 – Electrical Code (National Fire Protection Association)
- Part 4 – Mechanical Code (Int’l Assoc of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials)
- Part 5 – Plumbing Code (Int’l Assoc of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials)
- Part 6 – Energy Code (International Code Council)
- Part 7 – see Title 8, CCR
- Part 8 – Historical Building Code (International Code Council)
- Part 9 – Fire Code (International Code Council)
- Part 10 – Existing Building Code (International Code Council)
- Part 11 – Green Building Standards Code (International Code Council)
- Part 12 – Reference Standards Code (International Code Council)
In addition to the Building Standards Commission, state agencies also amend the Building Standards Code, which are enforced both by them and Building Departments
HOW ARE BUILDING STANDARDS ENFORCED ?
The process which jurisdictions use for enforcing the Building Standards Code is Plan Check and Inspections.
Plan Check reviews construction documents, including the design drawings, before a permit is issued to assure that the building and its environment systems and equipment (plumbing, electrical, mechanical) will comply with regulations for structural safety, energy conservation, green technology, and handicapped accessibility.
Jobsite inspections are periodically performed by jurisdictions to monitor phases of construction.
The Health and Safety Code allows jurisdictions to adopt local technical amendments that are no less restrictive than regulations in the Building Standards Code. These amendments are based on local climatic, geological and topographical conditions and are filed with the Building Standards Commission in Sacramento.
The Health and Safety Code also has administrative requirements for Building Departments, including the following:
Plan Check reviews construction documents, including the design drawings, before a permit is issued to assure that the building and its environment systems and equipment (plumbing, electrical, mechanical) will comply with regulations for structural safety, energy conservation, green technology, and handicapped accessibility.
Jobsite inspections are periodically performed by jurisdictions to monitor phases of construction.
The Health and Safety Code allows jurisdictions to adopt local technical amendments that are no less restrictive than regulations in the Building Standards Code. These amendments are based on local climatic, geological and topographical conditions and are filed with the Building Standards Commission in Sacramento.
The Health and Safety Code also has administrative requirements for Building Departments, including the following:
- must employ certified personnel;
- must have continuing education;
- must have a neutral appeals process;must not have excessive plan review backlogs.
The California Civil Code requires that Building Departments have an inspector who is a Certified Access Specialist.
Links
BUILDING in CALIFORNIA
- Library
Building Standards Commission
State Contractors License Board
103 Oakland Bldg Dept (OBD)- Failures to verify contractor licenses when issuing permits.
Contractor License Verification
Are local jurisdictions required by state law to verify a contractor’s license prior to the issuance of a permit?
Yes. Any city or county that requires the issuance of a permit shall also require a written and signed statement from a licensed contractor stating that he or she is licensed, the number of the license, and that it is in full force and effect.
Contractors are required by law to provide this information.
(B&P 7031.5; Health and Safety Code 19825)
No information about these requirements (or other laws) on the City of Oakland Bldg Dept website
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PBN/OurServices/permits/index.htm
WHO CAN GET A BUILDING PERMIT?
Only licensed contractors and property owners (Owner/Builder) may be issued building permits.
Many jurisdictions assess an additional business tax for contractors.
Are local jurisdictions required by state law to verify a contractor’s license prior to the issuance of a permit?
Yes. Any city or county that requires the issuance of a permit shall also require a written and signed statement from a licensed contractor stating that he or she is licensed, the number of the license, and that it is in full force and effect.
Contractors are required by law to provide this information.
(B&P 7031.5; Health and Safety Code 19825)
No information about these requirements (or other laws) on the City of Oakland Bldg Dept website
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PBN/OurServices/permits/index.htm
WHO CAN GET A BUILDING PERMIT?
Only licensed contractors and property owners (Owner/Builder) may be issued building permits.
Many jurisdictions assess an additional business tax for contractors.
- Contractors must have the appropriate classification for the work, such as C36 for plumbing
- Contractors must have knowledge of their craft, be tested, fingerprinted, bonded, and have an FBI background check to be licensed by the Contractors State License Board .
- Owner/Builders assume full responsibility for the work and their workers’ safety and are assumed to have the same knowledge of codes and construction methods as licensed contractors.
- The work may only be done on an Owner/Builder’s principal place of residence that they have occupied for 12 months or more prior to completion of the work.
- Owner/Builders cannot sell more than two properties for which they were issued a building permit during any three-year period.
- Owner/Builders must do the work by themselves or with immediate family, employees, or licensed subcontractors.
- Employees are subject to income tax withholding, Social Security taxes, workers’ compensation insurance, disability insurance, and unemployment compensation
(Know the Risks of Owner/Builder – From the Contractor’s State Licensing Board).
http://buildingincalifornia.com/building-department/
102 Oakland Bldg Dept (OBD) - Failure to Enforce SB-1254 (Workers Compensation Requirements)
September 2010
SB-1254 Contractors: workers’ compensation insurance coverage
In California, anyone who contracts to perform work on a project that is valued at $500 or more for labor and materials must hold a current, valid license from the Contractor's State License Board
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Consumers/Building_Officials/
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Resources/GuidesAndPublications/BuildingOfficialsGuide.pdf
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/About_Us/Library/Laws/
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/About_Us/Library/Guides_And_Publications/#REF
Senate Bill No. 1254
CHAPTER 643
An act to add Section 7127 to the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Section 830.3 of the Penal Code, relating to contractors.
SB 1254, Leno. Contractors: workers’ compensation insurance coverage.
Existing law requires private employers to secure the payment of compensation by obtaining and maintaining workers’ compensation insurance or to self-insure as an individual employer or as one employer in a group of employers.
The Contractors’ State License Law requires every licensed contractor to have on file at all times with the Contractors’ State License Board a current and valid Certificate of Workers’ Compensation Insurance or Certification of Self-Insurance, or a statement certifying that he or she has no employees and is not required to obtain or maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage.
This bill would authorize the registrar of contractors to issue a stop order, effective immediately upon service, to any licensed or unlicensed contractor who as an employer has failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for his or her employees.
The bill would make a failure to comply with the stop order a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.
The bill would set forth specified procedures for the payment of employees during a work stoppage subject to a stop order, as specified, and for an employer to request a hearing to protest a stop order.
Upon that request, the bill would require the registrar of contractors to hold a hearing to affirm or dismiss the stop order and issue and serve on all parties to the hearing a written notice of findings and those findings. The bill would authorize a writ of mandate to be taken from the findings to the appropriate superior court, as specified.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100SB1254
Owner-Builder Exemption (B&P 7044)
SB-1254 Contractors: workers’ compensation insurance coverage
In California, anyone who contracts to perform work on a project that is valued at $500 or more for labor and materials must hold a current, valid license from the Contractor's State License Board
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Consumers/Building_Officials/
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Resources/GuidesAndPublications/BuildingOfficialsGuide.pdf
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/About_Us/Library/Laws/
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/About_Us/Library/Guides_And_Publications/#REF
Senate Bill No. 1254
CHAPTER 643
An act to add Section 7127 to the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Section 830.3 of the Penal Code, relating to contractors.
SB 1254, Leno. Contractors: workers’ compensation insurance coverage.
Existing law requires private employers to secure the payment of compensation by obtaining and maintaining workers’ compensation insurance or to self-insure as an individual employer or as one employer in a group of employers.
The Contractors’ State License Law requires every licensed contractor to have on file at all times with the Contractors’ State License Board a current and valid Certificate of Workers’ Compensation Insurance or Certification of Self-Insurance, or a statement certifying that he or she has no employees and is not required to obtain or maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage.
This bill would authorize the registrar of contractors to issue a stop order, effective immediately upon service, to any licensed or unlicensed contractor who as an employer has failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for his or her employees.
The bill would make a failure to comply with the stop order a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.
The bill would set forth specified procedures for the payment of employees during a work stoppage subject to a stop order, as specified, and for an employer to request a hearing to protest a stop order.
Upon that request, the bill would require the registrar of contractors to hold a hearing to affirm or dismiss the stop order and issue and serve on all parties to the hearing a written notice of findings and those findings. The bill would authorize a writ of mandate to be taken from the findings to the appropriate superior court, as specified.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100SB1254
Owner-Builder Exemption (B&P 7044)
- Who is considered to be an owner-builder?An owner-builder is any individual or group of individuals who own the property or building on which they plan to construct, alter, repair, improve, or remodel a building or structure.
Also, a tenant may be considered an owner-builder (case-by-case). - Is an owner-builder required to have a CSLB license?An owner-builder does not need to have a CSLB license, but there are limitations.
A license is not required ifThe owner-builder does the work himself or herself or through his or her own employees, with wages as their sole compensation and the structure(s) is/are not intended for sale;
or
The owner-builder contracts with properly licensed subcontractors. This exemption applies to the construction of a single-family residential structure and limits the number of structures intended or offered for sale to four or fewer in a calendar year.
The number of structures is unlimited if the owner-builder contracts with a General Building (B) contractor. - Is a homeowner required to get a CSLB license if he/she wants to improve his/her home
A homeowner improving his or her principal place of residence does not need to have a CSLB license if all of the following exist:The work is performed prior to sale;
The homeowner resides in the residence for the 12 months prior to completion of the work;
and - The homeowner has not taken advantage of this exemption on more than two structures during any three-year period.
- Does the owner-builder exemption apply to an individual whobuilds homes for resale (speculation homes), and are there any limitations?
Yes, the owner-builder exemption would apply to an individual who builds homes
for resale under any of the following conditions:- Are there any trades that property owners are prohibited from performing themselves?
Yes, property owners are prohibited from performing well-drilling work covered under the Well Drilling (C-57) contractor classification.
Licensed tradesmen are hired to perform all work on the project (provided no more than four structures per calendar year are intended for resale);
A licensed general contractor is hired to perform and/or subcontract the completion of all work on the project (In this case, there is no restriction on the number of structures completed per calendar year.)
orThe owner-builder performs the work, all or in part, and resides in the completed structure for one year prior to resale. (This applies to not more than two structures in a three-year period.)
104 Oakland Building Dept (OBD) Lead Laws - Federal, State, City and other Healthy Housing Information
Quick Guide to Lead Regulations
That May Affect You
Over the last decade a number of
federal and state laws and regulations have been enacted. If you are a property
owner, contractor, painter or maintenance worker, there are some particular
regulations, described below, that are important to become familiar with in
order to avoid fines and penalties. The rules were enacted to prevent lead
exposures to occupants, neighbors and workers. Some general rules of thumb to
help you comply with lead regulations are:
· Assume that
paint on a home built before 1978 is lead-based.
· Maintain
your property and keep the paint intact.
· If you are
painting or remodeling, use lead-safe work practices including proper
containment.
· Disclose
lead hazards and provide the pamphlet "Protect Your Family From Lead in
Your Home" to potential tenants and buyers.
· Review the
table below and learn more about the regulations that apply to your situation.
If you are a:
|
This regulation may apply to you:
|
Contractor
Painter
Maintenance
worker
|
|
Owner
Occupant Homeowner:
Conducting
home improvements:
|
|
Rental
Property Owner:
Conducting
repairs:
Section
8 participant:
|
Above
regulations plus HUD
Lead Safe Housing Rule
|
Tenant
|
See
above for rental property owner requirements
|
Concerned
about schools
|
|
Medical
Provider
|
|
Consumer
|
State codes and laws now make
existing lead hazards, or creating a lead hazard, a violation subject to fines
and/or imprisonment. This means that pre-1978 homes should be maintained so
that they are lead-safe, with the paint intact. It also means that if you are
conducting activities that disturb painted surfaces on a pre-1978 building, you
must take steps to contain the paint chips and dust. There are also some
prohibited renovation activities.
For more complete information on
California lead laws and regulations:http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CLPPB/Pages/AboutCLPPB.aspx#CAstatutes
Assembly Bill 2861 (passed in 2006) increased the penalty for failing to cease an activity that creates a lead hazard after receiving an order of violation by establishing a fine of as much as $5,000 or six months in jail or both for the second order of violation.
For more information see the complete text of AB 2861. (PDF - 46kB)
Cal-OSHA
The Lead-in-Construction Standard is in place to protect the health and safety of employees who engage in lead-related construction work, including construction, demolition, renovation and repair. Contractors disturbing more than 100 square feet or more than 100 linear feet of lead-containing materials must take steps to prevent worker exposures to lead and are required to notify the Department of Industrial Relations at least 24 hours prior to beginning work. For more information about Cal-OSHA Lead Regulations go to: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/olppp/Pages/Links.aspx
Title 17 requires that work on any
structure built before January 1, 1978 must use lead-safe work practices
including containment and clean the work area after the project is completed.
The revised state law went into effect on April 30, 2008 and applies to
everyone including contractors, painters, homeowners, renters, and maintenance
staff. The regulations also cover accreditation of training providers and
certification of individuals to perform lead abatement and sets work practice
standards for lead hazard evaluations and the abatement of lead hazards.
Title 17 implements the mandates of
the California Health and Safety Code regarding lead-based paint and lead
hazards. Title 17 references its authority in applicable sections of the Health
and Safety Code, Civil Code, Government Code, and Revenue and Taxation Code.
For the complete text of the Title 17 regulation go to: Complete text of the Title 17 regulation *
California EPA requires
that presumed (pre-1978) lead-based paint chips and dust be disposed of as
hazardous waste. Everyone who handles lead-based paint debris should follow
several common sense measures:
· Collect
paint chips, dust, dirt, and rubble in 6-mil plastic trash bags for disposal.
· Store larger
lead-based painted building parts in containers until ready for disposal.
· If possible,
use a covered, locked, mobile dumpster to store lead-based paint debris until
the job is done. Alternatively, plastic-wrapped lead-based painted debris can
be kept in a locked room or yard until the job is done and the waste is ready
to be disposed.
· Contact
the Alameda County Household Hazardous Waste Program for
sites where lead-based paint debris can be disposed.
FEDERAL LEAD LAWS AND REGULATIONS
For more complete information see:
EPA has issued a rule that
requires anyone who is conducting work for compensation that disturbs painted
surfaces in a pre-1978 building to first obtain training in lead-safe work practices,
to contain paint chips and dust, clean-up all work areas and become lead-safe
certified by the EPA. This rule went into effect on April 22, 2010. The
rule was most recently revised on July 15, 2011. For additional information,
visit: http://www.epa.gov/getleadsafe. Click here to watch a video about how to become
certified.
The Lead Disclosure Rule requires
owners of rental properties built before 1978, and those selling pre-1978
property, to provide a lead warning statement, results of any lead testing of
the property and the pamphlet "Protect Your Family From Lead in Your
Home" to the tenants and/or prospective buyer. For more information:http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/enforcement/disclosure.cfm
Hazard Education Before Renovation
- TSCA 406(a) and (b)
The final rule requires that
renovators and remodelers notify the owner and occupants and distribute the
pamphlet "Renovate Right" before beginning renovations. For more
information: Pre-Renovation Lead Education Rule 406(b) regulation*
If you participate in a local
housing authority Section 8 housing choice voucher program, (or other
Federally-Assisted property) especially if your tenant has a child under six
years old, the Title X Section 1012/1013 Lead Safe Housing Rule may apply to you.
Under this rule you are required to fix peeling paint using lead-safe work
practices in a pre-1978 building. For more information: http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/enforcement/lshr.cfm
Alameda County Agencies that may be able to help with lead regulation and compliance issueshttp://www.achhd.org/documents/resourcelist.pdf
Tenant Resouce
Laws and Regulations about Lead
California Laws
Federal Laws
Resource List
National Center for Healthy Housing
U.S Department of Labor, Occupational Safety, and Health
Administration
· Lead Exposure in Construction; 29 CFR,
Part 1926.62
· Lead Hazard Communication; 29 CFR 1926.59
California Department of Public Health
Learn about lead poisoning
Federal Healthy Housing Bills
Healthy
Housing "Vision" Bill: On October 2, 2008,
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) introduced Senate bill S. 3654 to improve the quality
of housing in the United States. The bill emphasizes cost-effective approaches
and market-based incentives to make homes healthier and safer without
detracting from their affordability. Entitled theResearch, Hazard Intervention, and
National Outreach for Healthier Housing Act, the multi-faceted
legislation aims to improve research, enhance the capacity of federal programs,
and expand national outreach efforts.
On October
21, 2009, Representative Robert Brady (D-PA) introduced H.R. 3891, The Safe and Healthy
Housing Act of 2009.
Key bill
provisions include:
· Funding
for existing federal housing programs, such as CDBG, HOME, and LIHEAP to add
healthy homes components to their programs.
· Leveraging
the private market interest in healthy homes by creating a voluntary “Healthy
Homes Seal of Approval” modeled after the successful Energy Star program.
· Authorizing
$7,000,000 for each of the next five years for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Science and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) to evaluate the health risks and human health effects of indoor exposure
to chemical pollutants including carbon monoxide, chemical asthma triggers, and
common household and garden pesticides.
· Authorizing
$6,000,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to study
methods for the assessment and control of housing-related health hazards.
· Providing
$10,000,000 for HUD and CDC to study the indoor environmental quality of
existing housing and to create a system for monitoring housing related hazards.
Resources
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)