December 2016
Tenants Flocked to Oakland Warehouse, Scene of Fire, for Low Rents
Skyrocketing Bay Area rents have forced artists to look for nontraditional forms of housing
“It’s extremely hard for artists,” said Mr. Avalos, who paid $565 a month for space on the warehouse floor that was big enough for an RV, a workspace and a loft with a bed and desk. “Even if you’re not an artist, it’s impossible to find housing.”
Before the fire, the city of Oakland was aware of problems with the space. City officials had recently opened an investigation into the warehouse after complaints were made about blight and unpermitted construction, said Darin Ranelletti, who heads the city’s planning department.
According to city documents, an inspector visited the property on Nov. 17, “and verified the blight complaint, but could not gain access to the building.”
Marc Branco, a Bay Area attorney who represents landlords and tenants, including Mr. Almena’s co-tenant in that case, said that the city of Oakland often “turns a blind eye” to the living conditions in warehouses “because they’re overwhelmed.”
“A lot of times, they’ll go look at a property, and they’ll turn a blind eye because they don’t want to deal with it,” he said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tenants-flocked-to-oakland-warehouse-scene-of-fire-for-low-rents-1480979863
Showing posts with label #PlanningDept. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #PlanningDept. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
31 City of Oakland Planning and Bldg Dept (DBI) - Code Violations are ignored until investors show up (no smoke detectors, raw sewage) - James Kilpatrick
June 2016
Landlord being sued for allegedly pushing out SRO Tenants
Green Group, LP, an investment company, bought the building at 524 8th Street last year. In October 2015, James Kilpatrick, who helped Green Group purchase the building, and who owns a five percent stake in Green Group, told the San Francisco Business Times that he and his co-investors plan to upgrade the 38-unit SRO and rent it out to students and tech workers.
But Robert Salinas of the Sundeen Salinas & Pyle law firm told the Express Kilpatrick and his co-investors are trying to push out the building’s tenants. Salinas said that his law firm, along with Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker and the Asian Law Caucus will ask the court to enjoin Kilpatrick’s company from engaging further in activities that appear designed to pressure the building’s current tenants to leave.
“Almost all the residents are monolingual Cantonese speakers,” said Salinas. “They live and do their business in Chinatown. They’re low income. Some of them are elderly, and it’s a vulnerable population.”
Salinas alleged that Kilpatrick’s company recently tore out a communal kitchen in the building and removed bathrooms, making the building close to uninhabitable for the twenty-five families living there. He characterized the landlord’s actions as a form of constructive eviction.
"When we took over this building, despite having 39 residential units, it had zero smoke detectors, there was raw sewage in the basement
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2016/06/17/landlord-being-sued-for-allegedly-pushing-out-sro-tenants
August 2016
James Kilpatrick is sued by China Town tenants and Oakland City Attorney
Oakland — James Kilpatrick, Jaevon Marshall, NAI Northern California/Highview Property Management, and Green Group LP, the owners of 524 8th St in Oakland, have been sued for damages and equitable relief by around 14 residents of an Oakland China Town residential building. The low-income renters are receiving legal help from the Oakland City Attorney, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, and attorney Robert Salinas of the law firm Sundeen Salinas & Pyle.
James Kilpatrick and the group he is operating with has also been ordered by a judge to repair a number of shared bathrooms and shared kitchen areas that have been demolished in the cockroach infested building at 524 8th St., according to reports. Presently around 34 residents share one kitchen, according to reports, and they are allegedly terrified, angry, and pissed off about the current slum like conditions existing at the building. The tenants pay around $400 a month in the SRO, but some new tenants who allegedly have rented some rooms recently there through Airbnb are paying as much as $70 a night to live in a building that is more like a construction area, with slum like conditions.
According to public records, James Kilpatrick of 475 14th Street, Suite 700, in Oakland, has had problems in the past, and has a brokers license that was suspended in 2009, and in 2012.
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2016/08/21/18790312.php
Landlord being sued for allegedly pushing out SRO Tenants
Green Group, LP, an investment company, bought the building at 524 8th Street last year. In October 2015, James Kilpatrick, who helped Green Group purchase the building, and who owns a five percent stake in Green Group, told the San Francisco Business Times that he and his co-investors plan to upgrade the 38-unit SRO and rent it out to students and tech workers.
But Robert Salinas of the Sundeen Salinas & Pyle law firm told the Express Kilpatrick and his co-investors are trying to push out the building’s tenants. Salinas said that his law firm, along with Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker and the Asian Law Caucus will ask the court to enjoin Kilpatrick’s company from engaging further in activities that appear designed to pressure the building’s current tenants to leave.
“Almost all the residents are monolingual Cantonese speakers,” said Salinas. “They live and do their business in Chinatown. They’re low income. Some of them are elderly, and it’s a vulnerable population.”
Salinas alleged that Kilpatrick’s company recently tore out a communal kitchen in the building and removed bathrooms, making the building close to uninhabitable for the twenty-five families living there. He characterized the landlord’s actions as a form of constructive eviction.
"When we took over this building, despite having 39 residential units, it had zero smoke detectors, there was raw sewage in the basement
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2016/06/17/landlord-being-sued-for-allegedly-pushing-out-sro-tenants
August 2016
James Kilpatrick is sued by China Town tenants and Oakland City Attorney
Oakland — James Kilpatrick, Jaevon Marshall, NAI Northern California/Highview Property Management, and Green Group LP, the owners of 524 8th St in Oakland, have been sued for damages and equitable relief by around 14 residents of an Oakland China Town residential building. The low-income renters are receiving legal help from the Oakland City Attorney, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, and attorney Robert Salinas of the law firm Sundeen Salinas & Pyle.
James Kilpatrick and the group he is operating with has also been ordered by a judge to repair a number of shared bathrooms and shared kitchen areas that have been demolished in the cockroach infested building at 524 8th St., according to reports. Presently around 34 residents share one kitchen, according to reports, and they are allegedly terrified, angry, and pissed off about the current slum like conditions existing at the building. The tenants pay around $400 a month in the SRO, but some new tenants who allegedly have rented some rooms recently there through Airbnb are paying as much as $70 a night to live in a building that is more like a construction area, with slum like conditions.
According to public records, James Kilpatrick of 475 14th Street, Suite 700, in Oakland, has had problems in the past, and has a brokers license that was suspended in 2009, and in 2012.
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2016/08/21/18790312.php
30 City of Oakland Planning and Bldg Dept (DBI) - Ignores serious code violations until pointed out by reporters (raw sewage running down walls)
August and September 2015
2 Investigates: Tenants of Oakland hotel threatened with eviction, more problems exposed
OAKLAND - OAKLAND, Calif. (KTVU) - More than a dozen tenants of the troubled Empyrean Towers in downtown Oakland say they've received letters from hotel management, demanding back-rent, now that city inspectors have signed off on repairs of several outstanding code violations.
A tenant on the second floor, who asked not to be identified, allowed KTVU cameras inside his room on Wednesday where a pipe was leaking black fluid into his closet and onto a wall.
Literally, the water is running down the wall," said attorney Amy Sekany, whose non-profit Eviction Defense Center represents several tenants at the Empyrean Towers, including the man with the leaky pipe.
"It's difficult to believe that... could have passed any kind of inspection," said Sekany.
Yet, that tenant was one of those who received a letter from the hotel stating the city had "signed off that all repairs were completed." The letter demanded he pay $1,170 in rent or get out. E-mail records show hotel managers were first made aware of the leak in the man's unit in January.
KTVU's Eric Rasmussen showed video of the leak to City of Oakland Inspector Gene Martinelli and his boss, Director of Planning and Building, Rachel Flynn.
"We're dismayed to hear that we missed this one," said Flynn. "We'll get right back on it, immediately."
In fact, Martinelli returned to the hotel after speaking with 2 Investigates. He insists his view of the leaky pipe was blocked during previous inspections.
"It wasn't intentional. Believe me," said Martinelli.
While the city is reopening its case involving the one unit in question, tenants say other problems in many other rooms remain unresolved.
"The piping, the electricity goes out," said tenant Maria Anast.
A worker at the hotel declined to comment. The attorney representing the hotel's owner, Alice Tse, has not returned repeated requests to speak about conditions at the Empyrean Towers.
Those representing tenants say it's now up to the city to demand more accountability. So far, the city has not provided any evidence that it has ever fined the Empyrean Towers for any of the code violations found by inspectors.
"I have seen landlords cited for far less of a violation than what's happening here," said Sekany. "It's unbelievable that my client can have raw sewage running down his walls and city code enforcement isn't paying any attention to that."
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2-investigates/10491504-story
2 Investigates: Tenants of Oakland hotel threatened with eviction, more problems exposed
OAKLAND - OAKLAND, Calif. (KTVU) - More than a dozen tenants of the troubled Empyrean Towers in downtown Oakland say they've received letters from hotel management, demanding back-rent, now that city inspectors have signed off on repairs of several outstanding code violations.
A tenant on the second floor, who asked not to be identified, allowed KTVU cameras inside his room on Wednesday where a pipe was leaking black fluid into his closet and onto a wall.
Literally, the water is running down the wall," said attorney Amy Sekany, whose non-profit Eviction Defense Center represents several tenants at the Empyrean Towers, including the man with the leaky pipe.
"It's difficult to believe that... could have passed any kind of inspection," said Sekany.
Yet, that tenant was one of those who received a letter from the hotel stating the city had "signed off that all repairs were completed." The letter demanded he pay $1,170 in rent or get out. E-mail records show hotel managers were first made aware of the leak in the man's unit in January.
KTVU's Eric Rasmussen showed video of the leak to City of Oakland Inspector Gene Martinelli and his boss, Director of Planning and Building, Rachel Flynn.
"We're dismayed to hear that we missed this one," said Flynn. "We'll get right back on it, immediately."
In fact, Martinelli returned to the hotel after speaking with 2 Investigates. He insists his view of the leaky pipe was blocked during previous inspections.
"It wasn't intentional. Believe me," said Martinelli.
While the city is reopening its case involving the one unit in question, tenants say other problems in many other rooms remain unresolved.
"The piping, the electricity goes out," said tenant Maria Anast.
A worker at the hotel declined to comment. The attorney representing the hotel's owner, Alice Tse, has not returned repeated requests to speak about conditions at the Empyrean Towers.
Those representing tenants say it's now up to the city to demand more accountability. So far, the city has not provided any evidence that it has ever fined the Empyrean Towers for any of the code violations found by inspectors.
"I have seen landlords cited for far less of a violation than what's happening here," said Sekany. "It's unbelievable that my client can have raw sewage running down his walls and city code enforcement isn't paying any attention to that."
http://www.ktvu.com/news/2-investigates/10491504-story
24 City of Oakland Planning and Bldg Dept (DBI) - 2011 Grand Jury Report - the logical next step must be a criminal investigation
2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
http://www.acgov.org/grandjury/final2010-2011.pdf
June 2011
Grand jury appalled at Oakland building inspectors
If the annual report of the Alameda County grand jury is an accurate account of the operations inside the city of Oakland's Building Services Division, the logical next step must be a criminal investigation
The city's appeals process, if you could actually call it that, operated more like a scam than a legitimate administrative function where property owners' claims were heard by objective parties. Property owners reported being denied on first appeal, often with the code enforcement officer who issued the citation acting as the hearing officer.
Even when residents didn't appeal and did agree to sign a compliance plan to correct the problems, the agency added a 14.75 percent fee for records management and technology enhancement. Yet, when the grand jury issued a subpoena for records, the city could not locate all of them, the report said.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Grand-jury-appalled-at-Oakland-building-inspectors-2366475.php
June 2011
Bldg Services Mgr Receives a 10 year interest only loan made by a debris removal contractor
One of the more troubling findings was confirmation of a 10-year interest-only loan made by a debris removal contractor to a Building Services manager. The same contractor was awarded "a disproportionately large number of contracts" for debris removal and abatement work, the report said.
The loan was reported to the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is required by law, two years later. The city's Building Services manager "at one time listed her address at a property owned by the contractor," the report said.
Inside the city's Building Services offices, the contractor had free rein, and on more than one occasion submitted the low bid for a contract and then issued a change-order to increase its value. "These change orders inflated the price of the contracts, increasing the cost of the lowest-winning bid," the report concluded.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Grand-jury-appalled-at-Oakland-building-inspectors-2366475.php
Practices identified in a 1999 Grand Jury Report were still in use in 2011
Another egregious practice, identified previously in a 1999 grand jury report, was still in use until recently.
In its review of property records from 2007 to 2010, the grand jury found "prospective liens" city officials used to issue "warnings" to property owners.
Not only did the practice encumber a property and make it more difficult for an owner to secure funds to comply with city orders, the fines appeared arbitrary and punitive. The report found no correlation between fine amounts and cleanup costs.
http://www.acgov.org/grandjury/final2010-2011.pdf
June 2011
Grand jury appalled at Oakland building inspectors
If the annual report of the Alameda County grand jury is an accurate account of the operations inside the city of Oakland's Building Services Division, the logical next step must be a criminal investigation
The city's appeals process, if you could actually call it that, operated more like a scam than a legitimate administrative function where property owners' claims were heard by objective parties. Property owners reported being denied on first appeal, often with the code enforcement officer who issued the citation acting as the hearing officer.
Even when residents didn't appeal and did agree to sign a compliance plan to correct the problems, the agency added a 14.75 percent fee for records management and technology enhancement. Yet, when the grand jury issued a subpoena for records, the city could not locate all of them, the report said.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Grand-jury-appalled-at-Oakland-building-inspectors-2366475.php
June 2011
Bldg Services Mgr Receives a 10 year interest only loan made by a debris removal contractor
One of the more troubling findings was confirmation of a 10-year interest-only loan made by a debris removal contractor to a Building Services manager. The same contractor was awarded "a disproportionately large number of contracts" for debris removal and abatement work, the report said.
The loan was reported to the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is required by law, two years later. The city's Building Services manager "at one time listed her address at a property owned by the contractor," the report said.
Inside the city's Building Services offices, the contractor had free rein, and on more than one occasion submitted the low bid for a contract and then issued a change-order to increase its value. "These change orders inflated the price of the contracts, increasing the cost of the lowest-winning bid," the report concluded.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Grand-jury-appalled-at-Oakland-building-inspectors-2366475.php
Practices identified in a 1999 Grand Jury Report were still in use in 2011
Another egregious practice, identified previously in a 1999 grand jury report, was still in use until recently.
In its review of property records from 2007 to 2010, the grand jury found "prospective liens" city officials used to issue "warnings" to property owners.
Not only did the practice encumber a property and make it more difficult for an owner to secure funds to comply with city orders, the fines appeared arbitrary and punitive. The report found no correlation between fine amounts and cleanup costs.
Sunday, December 18, 2016
23 City of Oakland Planning and Bldg Dept (DBI) - the Oakland Fence Saga
March 2016
The Oakland Fence Saga
When Josh Harkinson built a new fence on his property so that passersby wouldn't fall into a creek, he was shocked at the response from neighbors and City Hall.
Soon after Hayes' visit, city inspector Dennis Foster issued Harkinson and Patel an official Notice of Violation. However, the notice did not mention the neighbor's qualms about safety. Instead, it ordered Harkinson to "correct the violations," which the notice defined as "fencing installed in right-of-way without required permits."
Harkinson doesn't deny that he had no permits to build the new fence, but said he figured he didn't need them because he thought the fence was on his property. He also noted that the city doesn't require permits for wooden fences that are shorter than six feet tall.
Harkinson said that when he approached the city to find out exactly where his and the city's property divided, the Planning and Building Department told him that in order to verify this information, he would need to have the land officially surveyed, which costs $17,000 to $19,000. Harkinson said he couldn't afford the survey, and so he has yet to see any official evidence of where the city boundary line resides.
The city told him that because the fence was technically infringing on city property, he would either have to take it down or acquire an encroachment permit for building on city property, which, according to the permit application, costs $2,035.67. However, he had trouble acquiring the encroachment permit, because it required him to obtain private insurance, and he was turned down by two different insurance agencies, he said.
As a result, Harkinson decided to appeal the violation notice. On November 23, 2014, he filed his appeal with the city and included detailed images of the fence, along with historic documents that put surveyor Hayes' property assessment in question. He also submitted a petition signed by nearly fifty neighbors who agreed that the fence should stay. But after presenting the material to city officials, Harkinson and Patel lost their case. Without the encroachment permit, Harkinson's only option was to take down the fence. But rather than do so immediately, he decided to wait.
Harkinson said that in April of 2015, traffic and watershed officials from the city inspected and approved his new fence, determining that it does not prevent parking nor does it inhibit traffic flow in the area.
In a recent interview, Rachel Flynn, Oakland's planning director, said a follow-up inspection occurred in November 2015 to see if Harkinson and Patel had corrected their Notice of Violation. "[The inspector] spoke with the homeowners, and they said they moved the fence out of the city's right of way," Flynn said.
In truth, Harkinson had not moved the fence. Instead, he decided to complain to the city about a neighbor's private parking signs also being on city land. "My position had been if they're going to allow people to put in private parking signs, why can't this fence stay?" Harkinson said. And so city inspector Gene Martinelli arrived at the scene in January of this year to address the issue. He reiterated that Harkinson must find a way to insure the fence, or it had to come down.
When the Express spoke to officials with the city's Planning and Buildig and Public Works departments, they were initially unaware of Martinelli's visit, and disagreed on what should happen to the fence. Kristine Shaff of Public Works said her department suggested the fence should stay because it keeps people and trash away from the creek and also prevents erosion, while Flynn maintained that the fence had to either come down or get insured.
Harkinson was surprised by the response from Public Works, so he again decided to wait while city officials deliberated over the fence's effects on public safety and creek health. Then on February 11, he received a phone call from Oakland Watershed Program Manager Lesley Estes, who told him that city officials involved with the case had met to determine the fate of the fence. But their resolution wasn't entirely new. "They told me I can keep my fence; I just need to get an encroachment policy," Harkinson said. "[Estes] said she pushed on the fact that I wasn't able to get insurance, but they gave her examples of where this has worked and insurance companies that have given insurance for these things. They said I could and just wasn't talking to the right people."
"We wouldn't recommend this if we didn't think it was feasible," Shaff told me, stressing the city's confidence that the fence will get insured.
While Harkinson plans to contact the insurance agencies that Estes recommended, he remains skeptical about his insurance prospects and the resolution as a whole. "I'm going to reach out to those insurance people and see if it can work," he said. "I doubt any will take just the fence, though. I will probably need an entirely new homeowners' policy.
"It's kind of ridiculous because with the encroachment permit, I have to pay the city for the privilege of keeping this fence which replaced the old one that was falling down," he added. "I don't have a choice."
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-oakland-fence-saga/Content?oid=4696997
The Oakland Fence Saga
When Josh Harkinson built a new fence on his property so that passersby wouldn't fall into a creek, he was shocked at the response from neighbors and City Hall.
Soon after Hayes' visit, city inspector Dennis Foster issued Harkinson and Patel an official Notice of Violation. However, the notice did not mention the neighbor's qualms about safety. Instead, it ordered Harkinson to "correct the violations," which the notice defined as "fencing installed in right-of-way without required permits."
Harkinson doesn't deny that he had no permits to build the new fence, but said he figured he didn't need them because he thought the fence was on his property. He also noted that the city doesn't require permits for wooden fences that are shorter than six feet tall.
Harkinson said that when he approached the city to find out exactly where his and the city's property divided, the Planning and Building Department told him that in order to verify this information, he would need to have the land officially surveyed, which costs $17,000 to $19,000. Harkinson said he couldn't afford the survey, and so he has yet to see any official evidence of where the city boundary line resides.
The city told him that because the fence was technically infringing on city property, he would either have to take it down or acquire an encroachment permit for building on city property, which, according to the permit application, costs $2,035.67. However, he had trouble acquiring the encroachment permit, because it required him to obtain private insurance, and he was turned down by two different insurance agencies, he said.
As a result, Harkinson decided to appeal the violation notice. On November 23, 2014, he filed his appeal with the city and included detailed images of the fence, along with historic documents that put surveyor Hayes' property assessment in question. He also submitted a petition signed by nearly fifty neighbors who agreed that the fence should stay. But after presenting the material to city officials, Harkinson and Patel lost their case. Without the encroachment permit, Harkinson's only option was to take down the fence. But rather than do so immediately, he decided to wait.
Harkinson said that in April of 2015, traffic and watershed officials from the city inspected and approved his new fence, determining that it does not prevent parking nor does it inhibit traffic flow in the area.
In a recent interview, Rachel Flynn, Oakland's planning director, said a follow-up inspection occurred in November 2015 to see if Harkinson and Patel had corrected their Notice of Violation. "[The inspector] spoke with the homeowners, and they said they moved the fence out of the city's right of way," Flynn said.
In truth, Harkinson had not moved the fence. Instead, he decided to complain to the city about a neighbor's private parking signs also being on city land. "My position had been if they're going to allow people to put in private parking signs, why can't this fence stay?" Harkinson said. And so city inspector Gene Martinelli arrived at the scene in January of this year to address the issue. He reiterated that Harkinson must find a way to insure the fence, or it had to come down.
When the Express spoke to officials with the city's Planning and Buildig and Public Works departments, they were initially unaware of Martinelli's visit, and disagreed on what should happen to the fence. Kristine Shaff of Public Works said her department suggested the fence should stay because it keeps people and trash away from the creek and also prevents erosion, while Flynn maintained that the fence had to either come down or get insured.
Harkinson was surprised by the response from Public Works, so he again decided to wait while city officials deliberated over the fence's effects on public safety and creek health. Then on February 11, he received a phone call from Oakland Watershed Program Manager Lesley Estes, who told him that city officials involved with the case had met to determine the fate of the fence. But their resolution wasn't entirely new. "They told me I can keep my fence; I just need to get an encroachment policy," Harkinson said. "[Estes] said she pushed on the fact that I wasn't able to get insurance, but they gave her examples of where this has worked and insurance companies that have given insurance for these things. They said I could and just wasn't talking to the right people."
"We wouldn't recommend this if we didn't think it was feasible," Shaff told me, stressing the city's confidence that the fence will get insured.
While Harkinson plans to contact the insurance agencies that Estes recommended, he remains skeptical about his insurance prospects and the resolution as a whole. "I'm going to reach out to those insurance people and see if it can work," he said. "I doubt any will take just the fence, though. I will probably need an entirely new homeowners' policy.
"It's kind of ridiculous because with the encroachment permit, I have to pay the city for the privilege of keeping this fence which replaced the old one that was falling down," he added. "I don't have a choice."
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-oakland-fence-saga/Content?oid=4696997
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)