about tenants who lost their homes; and
about Owners who undoubtedly profited on a real estate investment; and
about a situation that is often played out in the Bay Area, in Los Angeles, and other California cities concerning the Ellis Act, a state law passed in 1985.
In 1972, a partnership was formed between several individuals, a company (Royston Herts), and an LLC (Channing Prop.) The partnership was recorded with the Alameda County Recorders Office under Instrument Number 72116117 and the name Channing Properties. Between 1972 and 1981, the partnership was modified several times and the modified partnership recorded with the recorder’s office.
What happened to the tenants? What happened to the tenants is probably documented in the Berkeley Rent Stabilization files; they relinquished their tenancy rights either through voluntary relocation, a tenancy buyout, a settlement in lieu of eviction, or an actual eviction.
See AntiEviction Mapping Project
See: https://www.kcet.org/shows/city-rising/mapping-ellis-act-evictions-throughout-california
According to Property Shark, on December 4, 1998, the property at 2601 Channing Way, Berkeley, California, parcel number 055-187201200, was deeded to Channing Properties. 2601 Channing Way is a 33-unit building. The building was covered by rent control.
It is believed that sometime between 1998 and 1989, Channing Properties served all tenants with an Ellis eviction notice.
On June 28, 1989, Channing Properties “filed a complaint for declaratory relief concerning the validity of the City of Berkeley’s laws restricting removal of housing from the rental market.” See Channing Properties v. City of Berkeley, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 32, 11 Cal.App.4th 88 (Cal. App., 1992). Channing Properties was contesting the 6-month eviction notice period required by the City on the Ellised tenants and the City mandated $4,500 per unit relocation fee.
On November 9, 1989, the complaint was amended to add “2601 Channing Way Tenants Union” as a real party in interest.
On April 9, 1990, 2601 Channing Way Tenants Union “filed a cross-complaint for injunctive relief against Channing Properties and its general partner.”
On March 7, 1991, the City moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the municipal code challenged was not preempted by the Ellis Act. (The Ellis Act is state law is found under Cal. Gov. Code sections 7060-7060.7.) The motion was granted on April 17, 1991.
On May 14, 1991, Channing Properties appealed the judgment which was decided in favor of the City. The appellate court overruled the trial court and instead held in favor of the Owner that 1) a six-month notice period conflicts with the notice requirements of the Ellis Act and was invalid, and 2) that Berkeley’s relocation assistance program, if not limited to lower income households, also violated the Ellis Act.
Since the Channing case, Berkeley’s municipal laws have changed and currently require 1) a 120-day notice for all tenants with some exceptions such as senior citizens and/or disabled tenants who receive a 365-day notice, and 2) Berkeley awards a base relocation fee of $15,585 for most tenants plus an additional $5,195 for low income, disabled, elderly citizens, or households with minor children whose tenancies began prior to January 1, 1999. See: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Home/Ellis__Explanation_of_Required_Conditions_and_Owner_Obligations.aspx
On June 28, 1989, Channing Properties “filed a complaint for declaratory relief concerning the validity of the City of Berkeley’s laws restricting removal of housing from the rental market.” See Channing Properties v. City of Berkeley, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 32, 11 Cal.App.4th 88 (Cal. App., 1992). Channing Properties was contesting the 6-month eviction notice period required by the City on the Ellised tenants and the City mandated $4,500 per unit relocation fee.
On November 9, 1989, the complaint was amended to add “2601 Channing Way Tenants Union” as a real party in interest.
On April 9, 1990, 2601 Channing Way Tenants Union “filed a cross-complaint for injunctive relief against Channing Properties and its general partner.”
On March 7, 1991, the City moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the municipal code challenged was not preempted by the Ellis Act. (The Ellis Act is state law is found under Cal. Gov. Code sections 7060-7060.7.) The motion was granted on April 17, 1991.
On May 14, 1991, Channing Properties appealed the judgment which was decided in favor of the City. The appellate court overruled the trial court and instead held in favor of the Owner that 1) a six-month notice period conflicts with the notice requirements of the Ellis Act and was invalid, and 2) that Berkeley’s relocation assistance program, if not limited to lower income households, also violated the Ellis Act.
Since the Channing case, Berkeley’s municipal laws have changed and currently require 1) a 120-day notice for all tenants with some exceptions such as senior citizens and/or disabled tenants who receive a 365-day notice, and 2) Berkeley awards a base relocation fee of $15,585 for most tenants plus an additional $5,195 for low income, disabled, elderly citizens, or households with minor children whose tenancies began prior to January 1, 1999. See: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Home/Ellis__Explanation_of_Required_Conditions_and_Owner_Obligations.aspx
What happened to the tenants? What happened to the tenants is probably documented in the Berkeley Rent Stabilization files; they relinquished their tenancy rights either through voluntary relocation, a tenancy buyout, a settlement in lieu of eviction, or an actual eviction.
Today, the municipal code, is considerably different than it was in 1989. Today
Berkeley Municipal Code states:
- “Once a Notice of Intent to Withdraw Accommodations has been filed with the Rent Board, no vacancy rent increase may be taken on the affected rent controlled units during the five year period following the date the notice is filed or the actual date of withdrawal, whichever is later. This prohibition applies even if the Notice of Intent is subsequently rescinded or the withdrawal of the units from the market is never completed. Thus, once a Notice of Intent to Withdraw is filed, the rent on the units covered by the notice may be increased only as authorized by the Rent Board, regardless of how many vacancies occur during the next five years. (BMC §13.77.040.A.)”
And the following:
- “You must offer to those [Ellised] tenants who expressed an interest, the opportunity to re-establish their tenancy in your property if you elect to re-rent the property within ten years of the date you withdrew the units from the rental housing market. (BMC § 13.77.040.)”
- “You must notify the City of Berkeley of your intent to re-rent your property.”
Berkeley also limits condominium conversions of Ellised buildings as follows:
- “Berkeley Municipal Code section 21.28.050.A specifically prohibits the conversion to condominium of dwelling units for the 10-year period immediately following the date of filing of a notice of intent to withdraw accommodations from the rental housing business under the Ellis Act. (Note: There is also a 10-year prohibition on condominium conversion from the date of an owner or relative move-in eviction. (BMC § 21.28.060.C.1; B.M.C. 21.28.090 B.1.(a))”
So, what happened to the 33-unit building at 2601
Channing Way?
Deeds to the property were transferred to different owners[1]
until a transfer in 2010 to Royston Apartments, LP The property currently appears
to be offered as apartments for rent. See: https://www.apartments.com/royston-apartments-berkeley-ca/0hjy2j2/
Did the owner withdraw housing from the rental market? Yes.
But, it appears that they waited the requisite time to re-rent
the apartment units at market rate.
Did the owner also sell some of the units as TIC’s? Only a
lot of “digging” will tell.
What’s the real purpose of the Ellis Act? You tell me.
It's Noteworthy:
to note that on June 30, 1993, the City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board sued Channing Properties et al in the Superior Court of Alameda County, Case No. C-718880. The case was settled on December 7, 1995 and dismissed on July 8, 1996. The Register of Actions shows a highly litigated record. Another case brought by the City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization board against Panoramic Way Associates was consolidated with the former case (C-718882-8).
It's Noteworthy:
to note that on June 30, 1993, the City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board sued Channing Properties et al in the Superior Court of Alameda County, Case No. C-718880. The case was settled on December 7, 1995 and dismissed on July 8, 1996. The Register of Actions shows a highly litigated record. Another case brought by the City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization board against Panoramic Way Associates was consolidated with the former case (C-718882-8).
No comments:
Post a Comment