Creekview owners defend decision to rebuild


Owners of the 194-unit Creekview Condominiums in Richmond say they are being unfairly slandered amid a vigorous campaign to pass a rent control ordinance in Richmond in the November election.

Tenants rights groups supported by the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA) have been pushing for a rent control policy locally and in other Bay Area cities, saying rents are surging and displacing low-income residents. Despite warnings from a majority of economists that rent control policies do more harm than good, supporters gathered enough signatures this past summer to place the measure on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The measure came at an inopportune time for PMI Properties, owner of Creekview Condominiums, according to spokesman David Silver. The nine-building complex at 3535 El Portal Dr. developed a mold problem so pervasive that it needed to be vacated and rebuilt “from ground up,” Silver said.

creekview-10-5-1Creekview’s decision to vacate the complex for a complete reconstruction mobilized tenants rights advocates who support Measure L, the rent control measure that would prevent landlords from increasing rents by more than the Consumer Price Index, about 2 percent a year.  The policy would affect about 10,000 Richmond units and would create a rent control board estimated to cost the city between $1.5 million and $3 million annually.

Advocates and RPA members have accused Creekview of purposefully evicting tenants in advance of the possibility that voters will approve rent control on Nov. 8. They have joined tenants in holding demonstrations at the property, as well as a demonstration during a vote on rent control at Richmond City Council. Activists and tenants proclaimed the evictions were a result of greed rather than concern over the health risks from a growing mold problem.

Silver flatly denied any link between the decision to vacate residents and the impending rent control vote. He sent the Richmond Standard a “fact sheet” (posted in full below) that he says disproves claims by tenant rights advocates.

“During these years of rebuilding, we are losing millions in rents and investing millions to make the entire 194 units safe to live in,” Silver said, adding the property isn’t expected to be completed until 2018.

The RPA and supporters, according to Silver, have ignored the fact that Creekview managers had informed a majority of its residents about mold issues as early as December 2014, well before the rent control measure was put on the ballot. He said property owners have worked closely with the city of Richmond’s building staff to obtain the proper permits for the remediation and rebuild.

Richmond Mayor Tom Butt, a veteran architect who opposes rent control, has backed Silver’s claims, saying the building repairs “would not be possible with tenants present.”

creekview-10-5-2“Because of a combination of design flaws and construction defects, the buildings have been subjected to massive water damage that has resulted in widespread mold,” Butt said in his e-forum newsletter.

The same activists targeting Creekview were recently accused of unfairly branding an elderly Iron Triangle resident as a greedy landlord, holding protests in front of her home as part of the campaign to promote rent control as a necessary policy for the city.

Mayor Butt and Councilmember Vinay Pimple, who faced a flurry of insults after voting against a temporary moratorium on evictions, have said the RPA’s actions on rent control are mostly for the purpose of “political theater.”

Creekview ended up falsely cast a bad actor, according to Silver.

Tenants were made aware of a significant water intrusion in Building H as early as December 2014, he said. Property managers attributed it to shoddy construction when the structure was built in the early 1990s. Despite remediation attempts the mold problem only worsened. “Engineers, architects, mold specialists and health specialists” had “all agreed” the structure required total rebuilding, he said.

Then, rains this past winter invited mold in all the other buildings, Silver said. Despite relocating residents to other units during repairs, the mold problem persisted. Further investigation, including a demolition on the C and D buildings in May, led experts to conclude it was unsafe and dangerous for families to live in the complex.

Owners decided to move all tenants out for a complete rebuild prior to the coming winter rains, Silver said.

Here’s the “fact-sheet” sent by Silver:


  1. PMI Companies has been associated with the city of Richmond for 27 years and has been in business for 40 years. We are proud members of every community where we have properties, this includes Richmond.
  2. The Creekview Condominiums were built to provide safe housing for the residents seeking to rent/lease units.
  3. The entire complex includes nine buildings with a total of 194 units.
  4. As most of the residents became aware, on December 14, 2014, the managers of Creekview discovered a significant water intrusion issue in Building “H,” attributable to the original construction of the building in the early 1990s.
  5. Substantial “destructive testing,” and inspections by construction professionals, found that a quick fix to the problem was not practical or possible. There was mold within the walls of the building and it was getting worse because moisture from rain leaked into the building causing the mold growth to accelerate.
  6. The consensus of these experts were that the repair necessitated striping the Building “H” to its studs, which is the wooden skeleton of the building, and rebuilding the entire structure after the molds were extrapolated from the walls in each unit.
  7. The experts included engineers, architects, mold specialists and health specialists. They all agreed, once seeing the unhealthy mold within the structure, it required a total rebuilding.
  8. During the rains this past winter, some units in all the other buildings in the complex, including at Buildings “C,” “D,” “A,” “B,” “E,” “F,” and “G,” began displaying mold. Residents were relocated to other units and temporary repairs were undertaken to the units they vacated with the belief that they would be able to be promptly occupied again without further water intrusion related incidences. These units were leased, but despite the substantial remediation work done to these units, the mold came back after subsequent rains had occurred. The residents were relocated to other apartments.
  9. As the remediation work on the first building, “H”, proceeded to the interior walls, the experts found that the mold was much more extensive than originally believed and that it was pervasive inside the wall cavities and existed in all of the units in the building. Having gained a comprehensive understanding of the conditions that existed in the H building, and upon further investigation during the demolition  process that commenced in May, 2016 on the C&D buildings,  combined with the recurrence of mold that occurred the previous winter in the units where temporary fixes to stop water intrusion in units that were located in all the other buildings in the complex had been performed , the experts concluded that it was unsafe and dangerous for families living there during the rainy season that was fast approaching, and consequently the ownership decided to vacate all of the units for health reasons and rebuild from ground up.
  10. We have worked closely with the City of Richmond Building staff who have approved the permits to remediate the mold and reconstruct all of the buildings to cure the sources of water intrusion, and we are doing our best in balancing the needs of residents and our obligations as the property owner as communicated to us by the City of Richmond.
  11. We started the rebuilding process to rid potentially dangerous, harmful molds from the buildings in 2015, and we do not expect the project to be completed before the end of 2018.
  12. During these years of rebuilding, we are losing millions in rents and investing millions to make the entire 194 units safe to live in.
  13. Outside agitators who have not lived in, paid any taxes to, or created any jobs for the City of Richmond as we have, insist that it is because of the rent-control measure being voted on November 8th in the election. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  14. This has nothing to do with a rent control initiative on the ballot. To lose significant sums in rent and having to invest millions of dollars more to repair the building than it originally cost us originally to build it from the ground up just to make it safe and habitable again for residents just to beat rent-control does NOT make financial or business sense.
  15. We needed to vacate all the units and to start doing the work because when the rains start again in a few weeks, we will have the same problems with molds and will be substantially delayed in finishing all of the units.
  16. Additionally, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, insurance does not cover molds to rebuild. Consequently, we have to invest millions of dollars to rebuild all 194 units.
  17. Since the entire complex will be fully vacant for a substantial period of time while the property is being reconstructed, we will be receiving no, or limited income for a period of many years; but we will still be obligated to continue to pay all of the costs of operating the property. No easy task, but we decided to do the right thing for the residents and the City of Richmond
  18. All residents will receive back their security deposits and we are helping them find other locations to move to and accommodate them in doing so.
  19. Mayor Tom Butt has lived in Richmond since 1973, is the only city council member who has a business in Richmond, is a UCLA-educated architect, and has served as a council member, vice mayor and now mayor since 1995, understands the gravity of the situation and why we need to rebuild.
  20. In a recent E-Forum editorial, The Mayor, supported what we are doing and unveiled the opposition’s unscrupulous accusations against us and project. It is included below.
  21. Read it and understand what we are trying to do to help the City of Richmond and how the other side is using the tactics of Saul Alinsky, who wrote the book, “Rules for Radicals,” which is the school of negative and unscrupulous agitation publicly with the made-up positions just to get media attention, not the truth.

Creekview – Another False Rent Control and Just Cause Poster Child

By Mayor Tom Butt

The Richmond Progressive Alliance and twelve other organizations known as Fair and Affordable Richmond are backing Measure L on the November 8 ballot that will impose rent control and just cause on Richmond and set up a multimillion bureaucracy to run it.

As the latest poster child to support their campaign, they cite recent actions by Creekview Apartments not to renew the month-to-month rentals of a large number of tenants. RPA members Gayle McLaughlin and Melvin Willis have recently participated in demonstrations at Creekview to protest the action, and they claim that The Richmond Fair Rent, Just Cause For Eviction And Homeowner Protection Ordinance would have prevented this.

The problem is that this is simply not true. The Creekview Condominiums (actual name, even though they are rented) is vacating units in order to make significant repairs on the buildings that would not be possible with tenants present. Because of a combination of design flaws and construction defects, the buildings have been subjected to massive water damage that has resulted in widespread mold.

The Just Cause part of the proposed ordinance allows eviction for repairs (11.100.050(a) (5)), so it would not have prevented vacation of units at Creekview. It also requires relocation payment  “…amounts shall be determined by the City Council through a Relocation Ordinance,” but there is no “Relocation Ordinance,” and no amount specified for relocation payments. Determination of relocation payments are not in the list of powers and duties of the Rent Board. This is one of many examples of how the rent control and just cause ordinance is flawed. It was hastily drafted by amateurs without any public input.

The repair project started in 2014 with Building H (“Richmond tenants battle Beverly Hills developer to keep their homes,” December 18, 2014, Richmond Confidential). On December 9, 2015, and June 22, 2106, the City of Richmond Design Review Board conducted public hearings “… to consider a design review permit for phase II consisting of exterior renovation to existing multifamily Residential buildings (building A to G), including deck repair, Window and roof replacement, and removal of siding for new exterior stucco.” No one showed up to protest.

A building permit was issued on November 30, 2015, for the exterior renovation of Building H (a 3-Story, 30-Unit Residential Structure) and the Club House (a 2-Story Community Space). The last building inspection was on July 12, 2016. The owner mentioned that subsequently it was found extensive mold damage in the interior of the apartments and the scope of the work has been extended.  A second building permit was issued on June 21, 2016, for phase II for the remaining buildings; work is currently underway.

The bottom line is that the work has to be done, and the buildings have to be vacated to do it. The tenants are victims of bad design and shoddy construction, as is the owner, who is also suffering significant losses. You can’t insure against this type of damage.

Notwithstanding the inconvenience, this would be far less of a tragedy if sufficient housing units existed nearby for tenants to relocate. But the market is tight, and it is getting tighter all the time because of the fear of rent control and just cause. Housing developers are bypassing Richmond in favor of more business-friendly places. That not only constricts supply, but it drives up rents, a significant unintended consequence of rent control and just cause.

In the end, rent control and just cause, if it passes in Richmond, may benefit a few people for a while, but in the long term it will hurt Richmond renters and the City of Richmond big time. The people who drafted and now back The Richmond Fair Rent, Just Cause For Eviction And Homeowner Protection Ordinance are well meaning and compassionate, but they don’t understand real estate economics, the real estate marketplace or the construction industry. They continue to put ideology ahead of practicality.


  1. The people who support Measure L aren’t concerned with with facts. If facts mattered to them then they would have supported the rent control option that council man Pimple supported because he actually had facts backing it up unlike Measure L. Another article asked whether Measure L supporters were like climate change deniers. I think they are more like working class voters who vote for the Republican Party because the propoganda appeals to them, but in doing so only end up voting against their own best interests. Stop and think people, who do you think is going to end up paying the extra multiple MILLIONS this ordinance is going to cost? You the renter in higher rents just like all the other rent controlled cities. I think the RPA is really thinking about creating some nice cushy jobs for their friends. Jobs that higher rents will pay for.

  2. Landlords can’t get their lies published by real journalists, so they do it in the Richmond Standard. Tenants at Creek View were promised until the very last minute that they would be moved into already-remediated units elsewhere in the complex. That promise was broken, and we have received multiple reports that construction workers are being housed in the newly-done units with others left vacant.

    There’s a reason Creek View tenants are fighting so hard, with many taking their evictions to court, it’s because their management is lying to make money.

  3. Ok then why don’t you buy an apartment complex and show everyone how it’s done?
    You’ve probably never done a hard days work in your life. It. If you did spend a few years in the business and understood what it takes I guarantee you would be singing a different tune. There are already laws in place as far as the Creekview issue is concerned, and the tennents can have their day in court, I wish them well. Measure L in the long run is not going to help the kind of tennents you think it is, but it’s going to make it even harder for them to find housing, otherwise I would join you in supporting it I assure you. That isn’t an opinion, it’s based on observable facts from years of rent control in other cities. It’s like Richmonds Kids First Initiative. It sounds good until you dig into it and discover that it will do more harm than good. Even Richmonds RPA was against it, especially when they realized it would be harmful to their union backers. But unlike Kids First, the RPA refuses to consider the negative effects of their rent control measure. Most people just hear the two words ‘rent control’ and immediately agree because obviously it sounds very reasonable in today’s housing situation. And I assure you if I was simply rent control you would find plenty of support among landlords as well. But I find that it’s the Just Cause and other provisions in the measure that landlords find objectionable, particularly among the small owners and so called ( by the RPA) ” good landlords”. For the small owners and owner occupiers they are looking at losing control over who is living in their buildings, and being stuck with difficult tennent basically forever unless they cough up some pretty big bucks. I already know of several small owners who are doing one of these:
    -Selling their units to larger investment groups. I assure you, that isn’t a good thing if you are not a high wage earner and/ or not a grade A applicant. So much for Mike Parkers statement ” good landlords will hardly be affected at all”. That’s a dam lie.
    -Keeping their units empty until they can assess how the new ordinance will affect them. These people already know they are facing higher risks and higher costs. They will no longer be willing to take a risk on questionable tennents or set their rents a bit below market rate to keep tennents in longer. They will ask the highest rent they can get and take each and every increase they are allowed.If you don’t understand that then you shouldn’t be making laws about things you don’t understand.
    -Renting out only to family members or people they personally know. Again these people have read the ordinance and concluded the risks are too high for them to rent to strangers. These are people who rent out units in their homes. If you don’t understand that then pretend you are Jovanka Beckles and you rent out a space in your own home, then find out later it’s Corky Booze and he knows just how far he can push you to make your life miserable and take advantage of rent control to stay in your house FOREVER. Not only that, he can also move in Mark Wassburg or whatever that guys name is who makes all the crazy comments at the city council meetings. I guarantee you Beckles would see things in a new light if it happened to her like it’s happened to many small owners.
    To conclude, I get it that people are having a hard time with housing. I would totally support a cap on yearly rent increases. But Measure L is bad medicine written by people who can’t and won’t look at the big picture. It will end up doing more harm to renters than good, and that is why I will vote against it even though I think it will enough votes to pass. Apparently other owners think so as well and I see they are already pricing rent inot their asking rents. You the renter will pay for rent control and nice new cushy jobs for RPA friends and supporters. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.