Kalb Response PDF

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Eric Johnson
Kalb, Dan; Luby, Oliver
Tony Ruch
FW: Attached Image
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:22:36 PM
1285_001.pdf
Councilmember Kalb,
I hope it isnt too late to bring an issue to you regarding Item 13 Tenant Protection
Ordinance that is on tonights agenda. Our staff attorney would like to suggest changes
outlined below that would provide public housing properties the same partial exemption as
non-profits. As a government agency we are not nonprofits as we manage and administer
the public housing program.
Residents in the public housing program already receive a number of special

considerations related to additional notice and due process under 24 CFR 966.4, and
under our Admissions and Continuing Occupancy Policy (ACOP). I am not certain if the
proposed Ordinance would apply to the public housing program (as a Federally regulated
program and entitled property), but would like to request that we be given the same
consideration as the 501(c)3 nonprofits for the public housing program. The language
change he is suggesting is to add the bolded and underlined language to a sentence (but
there may be another way to accomplish the same thing):
Section 8.22.630 B1 of the Tenant Protection Ordinance
(This language is located at the top of page 8 on the attachment)
Limited exemption for government owned & nonprofit owned rental housing. Any rental
unit owned by (a) a public housing authority, (b) a corporation or organization exempt
pursuant to United States Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) or any successor
legislation exempting charitable organizations from federal income tax, (c) a limited
partnership where the managing general partner is a corporation or organization exempt
pursuant to United States Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) or any successor
legislation exempting charitable organizations from federal income tax, or (d) a limited
partnership where the managing general partner is a limited liability company whose sole
members are corporations or organizations exempt pursuant to United States Internal
Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) or any successor legislation exempting charitable
organizations from federal income tax shall have limited exemption from the TPO and may
be subject to administrative enforcement only as provided by 8.22.660, and not subject to
civil enforcement pursuant to this article.
If you agree with the change and it would be helpful for me to reach out to any other
councilmembers, please let me know.
All my best,
Eric
Eric Johnson
Executive Director
Oakland Housing Authority
1619 Harrison Street, Oakland, CA 94612
510-874-1510
Please Note: The information in this E-mail message, and any files transmitted with it,are confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are the intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or
personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received
this E-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Robbie Clark
Luby, Oliver
Amendment
Friendly amendment TPO 10 20 2014.docx
Hey Oliver, I wanted to share with you the language that we have been sending around to the
council to remove the exemption.
-Robbie Clark
Housing Rights Campaign Lead Organizer
Causa Justa :: Just Cause
West Oakland Office:3268 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland, California94608
East Oakland Office:9124 International Blvd,Oakland, California 94603
San Francisco Office:2301 Mission Street, Suite 201, San Francisco, California
94103
Phone:510 763 5877x 404| fax: 510 763 5824
Follow Causa Justa on Twitter - @causajusta1
UNITY IS POWER * LA UNION HACE LA FUERZA

www.cjjc.org
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and any files transmittedwith it are private and confidential and are solely for the use of
theaddressee. It may contain material which is legally privileged. If youare not the addressee or the person responsible for
delivering tothe addressee, be advised that you have received this e-mail in errorand that any use of it is strictly
prohibited.
Friendly amendment:
Under the section 8.22.630 Applicability and Exemptions, under letter B - Exemptions, remove
number 7: below
7.
A rental unit in a newly constructed residential property that has a certificate of occupancy
issued after the effective date of O.M.C. 8.22.600, et seq. For the purposes of this exemption,
newly constructed means all units on the parcel were built from the ground up under the
same certificate of occupancy and not converted from property previously used for nonresidential purposes. In the event the property is not issued a certificate of occupancy, then
the exemption starts on the date that the last building related permit is finaled, if after the
effective date of O.M.C. 8.22.600, et seq. This exemption is a limited duration exemption and
expires twenty (20) years from the date the exemption commences.
Rationale for why CJJC opposes the new construction exemption:

The exemption for the newly constructed units for 20 years at the point of the certificate of
occupancy - is a long time, and very significant given all the development that is going to take
place in Oakland
o Coliseum City, Brooklyn Basin is breaking ground, the passage of specific plans this
year, and in general all the development that is coming to the region with the Plan Bay
Area
o In addition to the lure of private interests, the Bay Area Oakland in particular is
seeing an unprecedented level of public investment for development as well
Whats the basis for the exemption?
o See above, there is a lot of opportunity for investment to come to Oakland and this
protection doesnt take away the market incentives for residential investment in Oakland
The exemption is also confusing, as it is stated it means that each newly constructed building
will have 20 years from each individual certificate of occupancy this makes the protection
harder to enforce, more confusing for tenants, and continues to create tiers of tenants that this
protection is trying to avoid
Currently in Oakland, 2/3rds of renters who are covered by the rent adjustment program and
measure EE, and 1/3 of Oaklands tenants dont have any protections
Further, Oaklands rental housing stock is aged, about 90% of the housing stock was built
before 1979, so how is it that we distinguish between significant rehab, and new construction?
Possible new language to add: (in order of desirability)
1. None, take the whole thing out (revert the exemption language to the version of the ordinance
that went to CED for the Oct 14th committee meeting)
2. Change the exemption language to have a set time for the exemption (5 years), that isnt
attached to the individual certificate of occupancy, but is for any certificate of occupancy for
newly constructed units issued in the 5 years following the passage of the ordinance
o This would mean that if your building has a certificate of occupancy issued between
2015-2020 that the building would be exempt, and anything after 2020 will not be
exempted from the ordinance (whats the rationale for needing this exemption, given
that there isnt any proof that tenant protections will deter new construction of
rental/residential units?)
3. Reduce the years of the exemption to 5 years from the date of the certificate of occupancy for
newly constructed units
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Bryan Reed
Kalb, Dan; Bolotina, Olga; Swanson, Sandre
Office of the Mayor; Cowan, Richard
City Ordinance
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:06:35 AM
I am not sure if this is true or not by if it is I would like to let you know as citizen of the city of
Oakland I am not in favor of any new laws on the books. This city has one of the most strict rent
laws on the books in the country in the form of Measure EE, along with the RAP and state laws
tenants rights are well protected. No new laws need to be added. Again if this is not true then
please disregard my email. If it is true then please do not make it worse for business people in the
rental market.
Thank you,
Bryan Reed
Oakland, Ca 94608
Rising rents in the Bay Area is not a new phenomenon and, alone, do not justify the assumption
that tenants are being harassedand that we therefore need a new law. Are we to add a new law
each time rents go up? If so, where does it end?
To justify the need for a new law,we need "specifically" related cases of tenantharassment and
not just a reference to how many calls the rent board receives each month.
Regarding tenant harassment, Oakland renters have protection throughstate laws,

Oakland'sRent Ordinance and Oakland's Measure EE.The protections afforded to renters by
these should not be trivialized. This ordinance just piles on, with no basis for doing so.
The stakes are significant. Indeed, imposition of a bad law here could have the same
consequences that it is having in San Francisco, with lawsuits and record numbers of rental
owners trying to escape the "hassle factor" of such laws by getting out of the rental business
entirely,through the use of the state Ellis Act. This is not good for renters in San Francisco and
would notbe good for renters in Oakland. Oakland is not San Francisco.
Facts suggesting a need for the ordinance, provided to the council by tenant representatives,
should be brought to the table. Facts suggesting that there is no need, brought by other
constituents should not be dismissed or scoffed atas mere "complaining."There is no justifiable
reason torush the issue by trying to pass a lawfirst, anddetermine its need later.
Nonprofits should not be exempt if engaging in tenant harassment activity.
Only tenant and city attorney should be able to bring complaints to the city and/or rent board.
October 16th, 2014

President Pat Kernighan and Oakland City Councilmembers
One Frank Ogawa Plaza
One City Hall Plaza, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: The ordinance prohibiting various harassing behaviors by landlords and providing civil remedies for
violations
I am writing on behalf of Causa Justa :: Just Cause (CJJC), a housing and immigrants rights organization in
the Bay Area, that is committed to stopping the displacement of low income communities of color from
Oakland. Each day we work with Oakland tenants facing a number of issues with irresponsible and bad
landlords, and we know that harassment is one of the top issues that we see, right along with habitability
(see attached document for more information about what we are seeing in our Oakland clinic).
The Tenant Protection Ordinance as it was written prior to the Community and Economic Development
Committee represented a strong anti-harassment policy that was accessible to Oaklands tenants who
range in age, language and citizenship status. The policy is needed to now to address the impacts
gentrification is having on Oakland residents. The health, wellness and ability to remain in this city are
being threatened, and you as legislators can do something about it.
On Tuesday, the Community and Economic Development Committee along with the author of the
ordinance, Dan Kalb made amendments to the ordinance that weakened its effectiveness to respond to the
concerns expressed by the Jobs and Housing Coalition and the City Administrator, Henry Gardner. The
ordinance is now named The ordinance prohibiting various harassing behaviors by landlords and providing
civil remedies for violations.
This compromised ordinance has 2 major changes that we want to address:
The new ordinance completely removes the administrative program from the ordinance. In
conversations with the author, Council Member Dan Kalb, we understand the compromise was
made at the request of city staff due to their current inability to implement these remedies at this
time. We are clear that the city is limited in there ability to currently enforce existing protections. It
is our hope that CJJC, along with Councilmember Kalb can count on your support when the
administrative program comes back to council as a separate ordinance in early 2015.
The new ordinance exempts units under construction for the next 20 years due to the concern
raised by those opposing it that development would be deterred with more tenant protections.
We do not agree with the premise for the compromise and do not think it was grounded in the
truth of Oaklands current economic development. It is clear that Oakland is in a boom right now,
and there is no evidence indicating that tenant protections will limit the profitability of real estate in
Oakland. In addition, does our city really want investors that are solely interested in their ability to
harass tenants? Neither do we. Furthermore, the state law that we are making more accessible with
this local ordinance applies to every rental unit, so limiting the units that it applies to locally is
confusing to tenants who, regardless of year, or size of unit, already have the right to some of these
protections given the state law and civil codes*
Despite limiting the enforcement mechanisms and applicability of the ordinance, we are concerned that
questions have been raised to further weaken the ordinance with amendments to the civil penalties section of
the ordinance.
We are completely against any efforts to edit this ordinance. Another key goal of this ordinance is to deter
irresponsible and bad landlords from continuing to harass and neglect tenants. There needs to be some
consequences when this occurs. The treble damages that bad acting and irresponsible landlords will have to
pay if they are found to be in violation of this ordinance are necessary for the ordinance to discourage
harassment and neglect of irresponsible landlords. While the courts are not accessible to many of the tenants
we see at Causa Justa :: Just Cause, we know that a number of Oakland tenants will greatly benefit from having
this judicial remedy and the hope is that these damages will make it easier for lower income tenants to find
legal representation to protect their rights.
We are counting on your support to put these protections in place, the categories of harassment that are
outlined in the ordinance prohibiting various harassing behaviors by landlords and providing civil remedies for
violations, clarify what constitutes harassment to make it clearer for tenants, and to have a metric for landlord
accountability. The civil penalties that remain in the ordinance are critical, and we need your support to
ensure that the treble damages remain in the ordinance, so that we can reach the goal of making this policy a
deterrent to bad, irresponsible, landlord behavior.
The following organizations expressed support for the tenant protection ordinance in its entirety:
Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD)
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE)
FAME (Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy)
Oakland Rising
Tenants Together
PolicyLink
Urban Habitat
Public Advocates
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
Oakland Tenants Union
Centro Legal de la Raza
ACCE
Oakland Community Organizations (OCO)
Regional Asthma Management Program (RAMP)
Youth Uprising
Mujeres Unidas y Activas (MUA)
Street Level Health Project
Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
SEIU USWW
Unite Here 2850
Phat Beets
Movement Generation
Oakland Food Policy Council
California Partnership
Office of Supervisor Keith Carson
- Place Matters and Asthma Start
Causa Justa :: Just Cause, along with our supporters and allies above hope that we can count on you to take a
stand for tenants health and wellness and pass the ordinance prohibiting various harassing behaviors by
landlords and providing civil remedies for violations.
We dont not want any more compromises its time for the city of Oakland to join other California cities that
have passed similar ordinances to protect their tenants. Oaklands tenants are seniors, immigrants, young
people, workers, and families. We need the council to take a stand to keep families together and keep
communities together. Displacement is bad for our health mentally and physically. This one ordinance can
do something about that. Displacement is not an inevitable result of gentrification. You have the power to
make a decision that will help stop displacement in Oakland and we hope we can count on you to do the right
thing.
Robbie Clark,
Housing Rights Campaign Lead Organizer, on behalf of Causa Justa :: Just Cause
*Civil Code Sec. 789.3; Civil Code Secs. 1954 and 1940.2; Civil Code Sec. 1927; Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2075;
Civil Code Secs. 1940.3 and 3339
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Robbie Clark
Kalb, Dan; Luby, Oliver
cinthya munoz
CJJCs letter re: The ordinance prohibiting various harassing behaviors by landlords and providing civil remedies
for violations
Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:57 PM
CJJC urges support for tenant protections 10 16 2014.pdf
Greetings - thanks to the both of you for the work thus far moving the ordinance. Attached is
the letter that we will be sending to the council today re" the new version of the ordinance.
We wanted to share it with you because it does express our disagreement with the
compromises made and want you to have a heads up that we will be sharing this with council
members.
Please reach out to me directly if you have any concerns,
-Robbie Clark
94103
Phone:510 763 5877x 404| fax: 510 763 5824

www.cjjc.org
prohibited.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Beacon Properties
Kernighan, Pat; Kalb, Dan; McElhaney, Lynette; Schaaf, Libby; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid, Larry; At Large
concerns about the Tenant Protection Ordinance
Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:57:33 AM
Honorable members of theOakland City Council:
I am a resident of Oakland, a real estate broker, and a property manager. My firm, Beacon
Properties,currently manages some seven hundred units in the East Bay, 494 of them covered
by Oakland's rent adjustment and just cause for eviction laws. I have lived in Oakland for
forty-five years.
I want to express some seriousconcerns about the Tenant Protection Ordinance, which you
will be consideringon Tuesday, October 21.
Findings: In his Agenda Report dated September 25, 2014, Councilmember Kalb says: "The
Rent Adjustment Program office of the City of Oakland has conservatively estimated
receiving 100 to 200 complaints each month claiming landlord harassment, many of which
are completely outside the current jurisdiction of the Rent Adjustment Program."When
questioned by Councilmember Kernighan on October 14, the director of the Rent Adjustment
Program was unable to provide any details or records relating to these alleged complaints.
Councilmember Kalb also cites "Numerous press articles on the rise of tenant harassment
throughout the Bay Area," but provides no details. Major legislation such as this should not
be approved without extensive factual documentation of the problems it claims to remedy.
Scope of Law: In paragraph E, he states: "The rising market demand for rental housing in
Oaklandcreates an incentive for some landlords to engage in harassing behavior or fail to
make repairs to pressure existing tenants in rent controlled units to move so that rents can be
raised."But he has extendedthe scope of the law to non-rent controlled units, whose owners
have no incentive to force theirtenants out, since they are free to raise the rent to marketat
any time. In all the testimony that was heard on September 30 and October 14, there was not
a single complaint reported by a tenant in a non-rent controlled unit, andnone has been
reported in any documentation.And no explanation has been given of the law's exemption of
non-profit agencies.
Existing Agencies: In testimony at the hearings on September 30 and October 14, a number
of tenants alleged that there were problems related to their tenancies. There were a
fewvague allegations of threats by landlords, but almost all of their major complaints were
related to either housing code violations or reduced housing services. Violations of the
Oakland Housing Code are alreadydealt with by the Oakland's Code Compliance inspectors,
and reduced housing services are dealt with by the Rent Adjustment Board. If there are
problems in these areas, it makes more sense to devote more resources to publicizing these
agencies and increasing their staffing, rather than establishing a new law to deal with alleged
threats or harassment. Many tenants are unaware of their rights, and some owners are
unaware of their responsibilities, under state and local law, but no outreach program is
planned to deal with this issue. The Rent Adjustment Board has a three month backlog of
cases, and the Code Compliance Department does not have enough inspectors to deal with
housing code violations in the City. This law does nothing to address these problems.
Rising Rents: Councilmember Kalb presents statistics about "rising rents" in his Findings
and Purpose, without explaining that these numbers are for asking rents for vacant units, not
for occupied apartments. This proposed law does nothing to addressthis issue of rising rents
for vacant apartments, which isentirely a result of increasing regional demand caused by
economic growth and job creation.Oakland's Rent Adjustment Ordinance, which limits rent
increases on occupied units to 1.9%, and its Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, which
prohibits arbitrary evictions, together provide ample protections for tenants.
Lack of Adequate Notice: The current draft of the ordinance (which has changed several
times since it was first drafted in September)was released onlineat 4:15 pm on Thursday
October 16, which has not given concerned parties sufficient time to evaluate it, and may
constitute a violation of the laws requiring adequate notice of agenda items.
Frivolous lawsuits: Rather than dealing with real problems in landlord-tenant relations and
housing conditions, the law will result in frivolous lawsuits in which tenants will be free to
allege various forms of harassment and force landlords into expensive court proceedings or
expensive settlements.
Thank you for your consideration.
Carlon Tanner
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Robbie Clark
Luby, Oliver; Kalb, Dan
eddiefair; James Vann
Edits to the TPO
Monday, September 22, 2014 12:49:41 PM
OTU-Edits to TPO-16Se14.doc
Greetings Councilmen Kalb (and Oliver)

I'm reaching out to share with you all edits on some of the language to the TPO that OTU sent
us last week. Please reply all with any thoughts on changing the ordinance to reflect these
(see attached).
Thanks,
-Robbie Clark
94103
Phone:510 763 5877x 404| fax: 510 763 5824

www.cjjc.org
prohibited.
8.22.530
Applicability and Exemptions
A.
The TPO shall apply to all Rental Units where there is a Rental
Agreement, oral or written, between an Owner and one or more Tenants, unless
exempted herein. The application of the TPO includes units that may not be
covered under the Rent Adjustment Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.100, et seq.) or the
Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.300, et seq.)
6.
8.22.540
A rental unit in a residential property that is divided into a maximum

of three units, one of which is occupied by the Owner of record as
his or her principal residence, except that harassment of Tenants,
by any Owner, as defined in this Ordinance, is an actionable
violation. For purposes of this section, the term Owner of record
shall not include any person who claims a homeowner's property
tax exemption on any other real property in the State of California.
Tenant Harassment
6. Influence or attempt to influence a Tenant to vacate a Rental
Unit through fraud, intimidation, or coercion, which shall include
threatening to report a Tenant to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, though that prohibition shall not be construed as
preventing communication with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement when legally required regarding an alleged violation;
7.
Offer payments to a Tenant to vacate more than once in six (6)

months, after the Tenant has notified the Owner in writing that
Tenant does not desire to receive further offers of payments to
vacate;
12. Refuse to cash a rent check for over 30 days unless a written
receipt for payment has been provided to the Tenant, except as
such refusal may be permitted by state law after a notice to quit
has been served on the Tenant and the time period for
performance pursuant to the notice has expired;
A.
Notice to Tenants.
b. For all Rental Units that are not covered by the Rent Adjustment
Ordinance, Owners are required to provide a notice regarding the
TPO to all Tenants in the form prescribed by the City staff, and as
updated within the previous 6 months.
] 8.22.550 General Remedies.

5. Appeal of Administrative Citation or Civil Penalty.
b. The appeal must be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date
of service of the Administrative Citation or Civil Penalty. The date of
service is the date of delivery if personally served or five (5) days
after the date of mailing if service is by mail.
8.22.560 Miscellaneous
000. Designation of Representative. In proceedings with City staff, any party
may be represented or assisted by a person(s) of their choice. A
representatives does not have to be a licensed attorney. Representative
designated in writing at least 10 days before an action or mailing will also
receive copies of notices or correspondence issued by City staff.
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Gregory McConnell
Kernighan, Pat; Reid, Larry; Schaaf, Libby; McElhaney, Lynette
Kalb, Dan; JR McConnell; Byrd, Michele; Illgen, Richard; Wayne Rowland
JHC Position on TPO
tenant protection legislation--9 30 14_revised gmc edits 4.docx
JHC Position on TPO3.doc
CED Committee Members,

Attached is a memo on our position on the TPO and a mark up of suggested edits. I
am available to discuss.
Greg
Gregory McConnell
President and CEO
Jobs and Housing Coalition
350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 703
Oakland CA, 94612
(510) 834-0400 Office
(510) 701-7158 Mobile
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Cc:
From:
Re:
Date:
The Honorable Members of the CED Committee

The Honorable Dan Kalb
Greg McConnell, President and CEO
Proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance
September 30, 2014
The Jobs and Housing Coalition (JHC) represents owners of rent controlled properties and new
developments that are exempt from rent control under Oakland and California laws. Our members
have been great community partners that have supported reasonable efforts at regulation against bad
behavior by the small number of landlords that have abused tenants by engaging in practices that
would be made illegal by the proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO). We agree that abusive
conduct should be prohibited. However, the proposed remedy goes too far.
Attached to this memo you will find our suggestions on how the TPO should be amended.
1. The TPO Should Not Apply to Exempt Properties
If the purpose of the TPO is to prevent harassment that causes tenants to relocate so rents can be
increased, the TPO should not be applicable to properties that are exempt from rent control. Owners
of such properties can raise rents as they choose. They have no incentive to engage in bad behavior.
There is no evidence that owners of exempt properties engage in the conduct that would be prohibited.
Nevertheless, if included, they will be subject to speculative lawsuits by aggressive tenant attorneys
who will file costly lawsuits. These owners will be forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to
defend themselves at the risk of attorney fees and treble damages.
Moreover, the overriding theme of the TPO is that rising rents incentivize bad behavior to remove
tenants so rents can be increased. This may be true in limited scenarios. However, for the most part,
rents are increasing because demand is greater than supply. JHC is a leader in trying to bring more
housing developments to Oakland. We believe that onerous new laws will discourage development
and reduce the incentive to develop housing that Oakland desperately needs.
2. The TPO Should be Limited to Administrative Actions by Private Parties
JHC asked the author to quantify the need for the TPO. We asked, how many tenants have been
abused? How many have been forced to relocate? What evidence is there that 100s of tenants
regularly report abuse to the Rent Board? He has not done so, because he cannot.
We do not doubt that there are landlords who should not be in the landlord business and who should
be dealt with strongly for their bad behavior. Nevertheless, the bad conduct of a few does not justify
the onerous threats to the vast majority of owners who comply with Oaklands laws. Please consider
350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 703, Oakland, CA 94612
p: 510.834.0400 f: 510.834.3515
the fact that the Rent Board reports less than one percent of the tenants in Oakland file tenant petitions
based upon reductions in services and habitability problems.
We think the proper approach is to start with the administrative process see what happens, how
many petitions are filed, determine the need, and if that proves insufficient to address the problem,
then create the civil process included in the TPO. Council can require an annual review and with real
data determine if Oakland needs to ramp up regulation.
3. City Attorney Action for Abusers
The city of Oakland can determine which landlords are engaging in abusive conduct. It can create a
registry of uninhabitable properties, and with an administrative system in place, it can determine
whom the complaints are about. With that information, it can then direct the City Attorney to take
legal action against the bad actors. JHC will support swift and strong actions against slumlords and
abusive owners.
4. Do Not Create a Vehicle for Aggressive Tenant Attorneys to File Frivolous Lawsuits.
We oppose private actions with treble damages and attorneys fees at this time. We know this will
cause many bogus lawsuits that have one purpose - force owners to pay extortion settlements under
threat of costly litigation. Especially since the problem has not been quantified, we advise a measured
approach.
5. We Have Not Refused to Negotiate with the Author
JHC has been advised by some Council Members that it has allegedly refused to meet with the author.
That is not true. We met with Mr. Kalb. We asked for more data and we asked him to postpone this
matter until that was available and after the electron so we would not be under the gun of election year
politics in addressing this problem. He did not provide more data about the need for the TPO and
moved this matter forward.
Council knows that JHC has always been ready and willing to meet on any issue and we pride
ourselves on negotiating reasonable regulations to address Oaklands regulatory issues. Most
recently, we were the anchors of a major reform of the Rent Control Capital Improvement Regulation.
We did that because there was sufficient evidence on the need for reform. That is not the case with
the TPO.
CONCLUSION
JHC members are constantly asked to support issues that are not in their best interest, but they do so
for the greater good of Oakland. We hope to continue to participate with Council in a collaborative
manner and serve as resources on important matters. We hope you will respect our views on this
matter so that we can be assured that our continued support is appreciated.
Thank you!
Exhibit A Revised Sept. 25, 2014

[Councilmember Dan Kalbs additional proposals are in underline or strikethrough]
Jobs and Housing Coalition suggestions are in underline or strike through in blue
and red
8.22.600
Tenant Protection Ordinance
This ordinance shall be known as the Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO).
8.22.610
Findings and Purpose
A. There is a very significant demand for rental housing in Oakland leading to rising
rents, caused in part by the spillover of increasingly expensive housing costs in
San Francisco. (Comment: This is caused by the failure to produce adequate
housing. Population and demand has increased, but as Council President stated
we have only met 2% of our goals for market rate housing. Eighty Eight percent
of the housing that has been built in last five years is affordable housing
B. Rents in Oakland increased 12% in 2012 and 15% in 2013 (Source: East Bay
Express, February 12-18, 2014, The Rise of the New Land Lords, sourcing
Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development). As noted by a
February 8, 2014 Oakland Tribune article (High prices sending Bay Area renters
and homebuyers to outlying communities), Squeezed by astronomical home
prices and rents that are almost as unaffordable, a growing number of Bay Area
residents are pulling up stakes and trading long commutes for cheaper housing.
C. According to Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development
citing to Zillow Real Estate Research, the estimated rent for all homes in Oakland
for June 2014 ($2,124) is nearly 11% higher than that for the same month last
year ($1,918), and rents have risen every month except for one since January
2013 (18 months total). If current patterns persist, the estimated rent for all
homes in June 2015 will be $2,386. By comparison, the estimated median rent
for all Oakland homes for June 2012 was $1,818, a 31% increase in only 36
months. These are rents for units that are vacant. There is no reliable source for
rents that are controlled and occupied. Rent controlled rents are only increased
by the annual CPI adjustment and, for the most part, capital improvements,
which were recently the subject of reform by the Council.
D. On September 12, 2014, the San Francisco Examiner reported that San
Francisco and Oakland have the distinction of having some of the highest rental
rate increases in the nation for the month of August, with Oaklands rents
increasing 14.4% since last year, according to data collected by Trulia.
E. The rising market demand for rental housing in Oakland icreatescreates an
incentive for some landlords to engage in harassing behavior or fail to make
repairs to pressure existing tenants in rent controlled units to move so that rents
can be raised. Existing remedies, such as petitioning the Rent Adjustment
Program to restore a rental rate or order repairs, or employing an attorney at
great cost to file a lawsuit to enforce state law or lease provisions, are insufficient
deterrents to engaging in the illegal conduct in the first place. While there may be
Formatted: Font color: Light Blue
Councilmember Dan Kalb - Tenant Protection Ordinance - 2
some landlords who would take this approach, there is no empirical data showing
this is a widespread problem. Moreover, this does not apply to exempt units as
owners can raise rents without need to harass tenants.
F. The imbalance between supply and demand creates an imbalance of bargaining
power between landlords and tenants, which has resulted in many tenants,
especially those not in rent controlled units, being unwilling or unable to assert
their legal rights, which is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
Oakland because the stability, security and quality of housing opportunities are
reduced.
G. The Rent Adjustment Program office of the City of Oakland has conservatively
estimated receiving 100 to 200 complaints each month from tenants claiming
landlord harassment, many of which are completely outside the jurisdiction of the
Rent Adjustment Program.
H. Numerous press articles have reported on the rise of tenant harassment
throughout the Bay Area.
I. Data from organizations providing services to low-income renters in Oakland,
including East Bay Community Law Center and Centro Legal de la Raza, indicate
that some of their clients live in housing with habitability problems and
experience landlord harassment. Oakland has existing laws on habitibilty issues
and tenants can sue for reduced services or constructive evictons.
J. Of the approximately 480 Oakland tenants who received legal services at Centro
Legal de la Raza during fiscal year 2014 (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014),
approximately 40% faced harassment by their landlords. The forms of
harassment varied, but included one or more of the following in each case:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Interrupting, terminating, failing to provide or threatening to interrupt,

terminate or fail to provide housing services required by contract or by
State, County or municipal housing, health or safety laws;
Failing to perform required repairs and/or maintenance or threatening to
fail to do so;
Failing to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance
once undertaken or failing to follow appropriate industry
repair, containment or remediation protocols designed to minimize
exposure to noise, dust, lead paint, mold, asbestos, or other building
materials with potentially harmful health impacts;
Abusing the owners right of access into a rental housing unit as that
right is provided by law;
Unlawfully removing from the rental unit personal property, furnishings,
or any other items without the prior written consent of the tenant;
Influencing, or attempting to influence, a tenant to vacate a rental unit
through fraud, intimidation or coercion;
Attempting to coerce a tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to

vacate which are accompanied with threats or intimidation;
o Threatening the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm;
o Substantially and directly interfering with a Tenants right to quiet use
and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by
California law;
o Fraudulently refusing to accept or acknowledge receipt of a Tenant's
lawful rent payment.
o
K. J. A majority of Oakland residents are renters. The rental housing units in the
City of Oakland include many subject to rent stabilization and some that are not.
The cities of San Francisco, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and East Palo Alto
have each passed ordinances prohibiting various forms of harassment by
landlords and their agents against tenants.
L. K. The City Council of Oakland recognizes that displacement of tenants is a
major concern and is interested in putting forth policies that help to maintain the
ability of people in all income categories to live in our city. The increased housing
pressures for residents across a range of lower and middle income levels
warrants improved rent stabilization and tenant protection policies. The City
Council finds that reasonable regulation of aspects of the landlord-tenant
relationship is necessary in order to foster constructive communication, maintain
an adequate supply of a variety of rental housing options, and protect health,
safety, and the general welfare of the public.
M. L. The purpose of this policy is to deter harassing behavior by landlords, to
encourage landlords to follow the law and uphold their responsibility to provide
habitable rental properties, and to give tenants legal recourse in instances where
they are subjected to harassing behavior by landlords.
8.22.620
Definitions
"Owner" has the same meaning as in the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance
(O.M.C. 8.22.340).
"Owner of Record" has the same meaning as in the Just Cause for Eviction
Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.340).
"Rent" has the same meaning as in the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance
(O.M.C. 8.22.340).
"Rent Board" has the same meaning as in the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance
(O.M.C. 8.22.340).
"Rental Agreement" has the same meaning as in the Just Cause for Eviction
"Rental Unit" has the same meaning as in the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance
(O.M.C. 8.22.340).
Tenant has the same meaning as in the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance
(O.M.C. 8.22.340).
"Skilled Nursing Facility" has the same meaning as in the Just Cause for Eviction
"Health Facility" has the same meaning as in the Just Cause for Eviction
8.22.630
Applicability and Exemptions
A.
The TPO shall apply to all Rental Units where there is a Rental Agreement
between an Owner and one or more Tenants, unless exempted herein. The application
of the TPO includes units that may not be covered under the Rent Adjustment
Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.100, et seq.) or the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (O.M.C.
8.22.300, et seq.)
B.
Exemptions.
1. Limited exemption for nonprofit owned rental housing. Any Rental
Unit owned by (a) a corporation or organization exempt pursuant to United States
Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) or any successor legislation exempting
charitable organizations from federal income tax, (b) a limited partnership where
the managing general partner is a corporation or organization exempt pursuant to
United States Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) or any successor legislation
exempting charitable organizations from federal income tax, or (c) a limited
partnership where the managing general partner is a limited liability company
whose sole members are corporations or organizations exempt pursuant to
United States Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) or any successor legislation
exempting charitable organizations from federal income tax shall have a limited
exemption from the TPO and may be subject to administrative enforcement only,
and not subject to civil enforcement pursuant to this article.
2. Rental Units in any Hospital, Skilled Nursing Facility, or Health
Facility.
3. Rental Units in a nonprofit facility that has the primary purpose of
providing short term treatment, assistance, or therapy for alcohol, drug, or other
substance abuse and the housing is provided incident to the recovery program,
and where the client has been informed in writing of the temporary or transitional
nature of the housing at its inception and is licensed for such purpose where
such license is required.
4. Rental Units in a nonprofit facility which provides a structured living
environment that has the primary purpose of helping homeless persons obtain
the skills necessary for independent living in permanent housing and where
occupancy is restricted to a limited and specific period of time of not more than
twenty-four (24) months and where the client has been informed in writing of the
temporary or transitional nature of the housing at its inception and is licensed for
such purpose where such license is required.
5. Rental Units exempted from Part 4, Title 4, Chapter 2 of the
California Civil Code (CCC) by CCC 1940(b) (transient occupancy in
hotels/motels).
6.
A rental unit in a residential property that is divided into a maximum
of three units, one of which is occupied by the owner of record as his or her
principal residence for a period of no less than twelve (12) months. For purposes
Comment [GM1]: Units not subject to the Rent

Stabilization Ordinance should not be included in
this Ordinance. No evidence that these owners
harrass tenants. No motivation to do so becauase
they are free to raise rents under state and local
law.
of this section, the term owner of record shall not include any person who claims
a homeowner's property tax exemption on any other real property in the State of
California.
(Add 7) Rental units that are exempt from the Rent Stabilization Ordinance based upon
new construction and California Civil Code Section 1954. 53 et. seq. (This
provision is intended to encourage new development in Oakland.)
8.22.640
Tenant Harassment
A.
No Owner or such Owners agent, contractor, subcontractor, or employee,
shall do any of the following, in bad faith.
1. Interrupt, terminate, or fail to provide housing services required by
contract or by State, County or municipal housing, health or safety laws, or
threaten to do so;
2. Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by
State, County or municipal housing, health or safety laws, or threaten to do so;
3. Fail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance
once undertaken or fail to follow appropriate industry repair, containment or
remediation protocols designed to minimize exposure to noise, dust, lead paint,
mold, asbestos, or other building materials with potentially harmful health
impacts;
4. Abuse the Owners right of access into a rental housing unit as that
right is provided by law;
5. Remove from the Rental Unit personal property, furnishings, or any
other items without the prior written consent of the tenant, except when done
pursuant to the procedure set forth in Civil Code section 1980, et seq.
(disposition of tenants property after termination of tenancy).
6. Influence or attempt to influence a Tenant to vacate a Rental Unit
through fraud, intimidation or coercion, which shall include threatening to report a
Tenant to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, though that prohibition
shall not be construed as preventing communication with U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement regarding an alleged violation;
7. More than once in six (6) months oOffer payments to a Tenant to
vacate more than once in six (6) months, after the Tenant has notified the Owner
in writing the Tenant does not desire no longer wishes to receive further offers of
payments to vacate;
8. Attempt to coerce a Tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to
vacate which are accompanied with threats or intimidation; This does not include
settlement offers made in pending eviction actions
9. Threaten the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm;
10. Substantially and directly interfere with a Tenants right to quiet use
and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by California law;
11. Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a Tenant's lawful rent
payment, except as such refusal may be permitted by state law after a notice to
quit has been served on the Tenant and the time period for performance
pursuant to the notice has expired;
Comment [GM2]:
12. Refuse to cash a rent check for over 30 days unless a written receipt
for payment has been provided to the Tenant, except as such refusal may be
permitted by state law after a notice to quit has been served on the Tenant and
the time period for performance pursuant to the notice has expired;
13. Interfere with a Tenant's right to privacy;
14. Request information that violates a tenant's right to privacy, including
but not limited to residence or citizenship status or social security number, except
as required by law or, in the case of a social security number, for the purpose of
obtaining information for the qualifications for a tenancy, but in any event, not
release such information except as required or authorized by law;
15. Other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to
substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any
person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause, are
likely to cause, or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to
occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive
any rights in relation to such occupancy;
16. Removing a housing service for the purpose of causing the Tenant to
vacate the Rental Unit. For example, taking away a parking space knowing that
a Tenant cannot find alternative parking and must move.
B.
Retaliation Prohibited. Retaliation against a Tenant because of the
Tenants exercise of rights under the TPO is prohibited. Retaliation claims may only be
brought in court and may not be addressed administratively. A court may consider the
protections afforded by the TPO in evaluating a claim of retaliation.
C.
Evictions. Nothing in the TPO shall be construed as to prevent an Owner
from lawfully evicting a Tenant pursuant to state law or Oaklands Just Cause for
Eviction Ordinance. (O.M.C. 8.22.300, et seq.).
D.
Rent Adjustments. Nothing in the TPO shall be construed as to prevent
an Owner from lawfully increasing a Tenants rent pursuant to state law or Oaklands
Rent Adjustment Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.100, et seq.).
E.
Notice to Tenants.
1.
Commencement.
a. For Rental Units covered by the Rent Adjustment Ordinance the Notice
at Commencement of Tenancy required by O.M.C. 8.22.06 shall include a
reference to the TPO.
b. For all Rental Units that are not covered by the Rent Adjustment
Ordinance, Owners are required to provide a notice regarding the TPO to
all Tenants in a formusing the required form prescribed by the City staff.
c. Failure to provide the notice to tenants required by this subsection may
subject the Owner to an administrative citation or civil penalty as set out in
8.22.550B.
2
Common area. If Rental Units are located in a building with an interior
common area that all of the buildings Tenants have access to, the Owner must
post a notice in at least one such common area in the building via a form
prescribed by the City staff. This provision is not applicaple to exempt properties.
8.22.650 General Remedies.
A.
Violations of the TPO.
Comment [GM3]:
1.
Violations of the TPO. Violations of 8.22.640 may be enforced
administratively or by civil remedies as set forth in this section or as otherwise
specifically set out in this O.M.C Article. Before a private party may file an
administrative complaint or a civil suit alleging a violation of 8.22.640.A.2., 10.,
11., or 12., an affected Tenant must first notify the Owner or his or her designed
designated agent in writing regarding the problem. If the problem is not corrected
within 15 calendar days of issuing the notice, a private party may file a complaint
or suit. (This is insufficient time, Owner must hire contractor, get permits and take
other steps) Owner not liable where the tenant caused the problem.
2.
In addition to the remedies provided in the TPO, a violator is liable
for such costs, expenses, and disbursements paid or incurred by the City in
abatement and prosecution of the violation.
3.
The remedies available in the TPO are not exclusive and may be
used cumulatively with any other remedies in this chapter or at law.
B.
General Administrative Remedies.
1.
Administrative Citation. Anyone who violates 8.22.640.A. or E may
be issued an administrative citation. Administrative citations shall be issued in
accordance with O.M.C Chapter 1.12 (Administrative Citations) , except that the
cumulative annual limit shall be on a per unit basis rather than on a per individual
parcel or separate structure basis.
2.
Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties. Anyone whose
violation of 8.22.640.A. or E. results in a Tenant vacating her/his Rental Unit or
who violates the TPO after receiving three or more administrative citations for
TPO violations occurring during the preceding two year period may be
administratively assessed a civil penalty. Civil penalties for violations are
assessed in accordance with O.M.C Chapter 1.08 (Administrative Assessment of
Civil Penalties) as a major violation under that Chapter 1.08, except that the
cumulative limits shall be on a per unit basis rather than on per individual parcel
or separate structure basis.
3.
The City Administrator shall designate staff authorized to issue
administrative citation and civil penalties under the TPO.
4.
Each and every day or any portion of a day during which a violation
of any provision of this chapter is committed, continued, or permitted is a
separate violation and shall be punishable accordingly. Separate acts or
omissions that violate the TPO are separate violations and shall be punishable
accordingly.
5.
Appeal of Administrative Citation or Civil Penalty.
a.
A party who has received an Administrative Citation or Civil
Penalty may appeal that action to a hearing officer designated by the City
Administrator.
b. The appeal must be filed within twenty-one (21) days from
the date of service of the Administrative Citation or Civil Penalty. The date
of service is the date of delivery if personally served or five (5) days after
the date of mailing if service is by mail.
c. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be the final decision
of the City. Any further review must be by writ of administrative
mandamus to the Superior Court.
6.
Private parties may file an administrative complaint alleging a violation of
the TPO no later than 180 days after the complainant knew or reasonably should
have known of the underlying conduct.
C.
General Civil Remedies.

1.
Enforcement by Aggrieved Parties. An aggrieved party may bring a
civil action for injunctive relief or damages, or both, for any violation of 8.22.540.
An aggrieved party may also request that an administrative citation or civil
penalty be issued by the City.
1.
Enforcement by City Attorney. The City Attorney may enforce the
TPO through civil action for injunctive relief or damages, or both, for when the
party against whom enforcement is sought has a pattern and practice of violating
the TPO. The City Attorney may also request that an administrative citation or
civil penalty be issued by the City. The City Attorney has the sole discretion to
determine the cases appropriate for enforcement by the City Attorneys Office.
2.
The city shall develop a roster of buildings that have substantial
habitability problems or landlords who engage in a ongoing practice of violating
the provisions of the TPO and the city attorney shall bring civil actions against
such landlords.
D.
Treble and Exemplary Damages.
1.
Any person who violates, aids, or incites another person to violate
8.22.640.A or E. is liable in a court action for each and every such offense for
money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered by an
aggrieved party (including damages for mental or emotional distress), or for
minimum damages in the sum of one thousand dollars, whichever is greater, and
whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of
damages for mental or emotional distress, said award shall only be trebled if the
trier of fact finds that the Owner acted in knowing violation of or in reckless
disregard of the TPO.
2.1. A court may award punitive damages in a proper case as set out in
Civil Code section 3294 and pursuant to the standards set forth in that Code
Section or any successor thereto, but may not award both punitive damages and
treble damages.
E.
Civil Remedies Inapplicable to Nonprofit Owned Rental Units. The civil
remedies provided for in this subsection are not applicable to Rental Units owned by a
corporation or organization exempt pursuant to United States Internal Revenue Code
501(c)(3) or any successor legislation exempting charitable organizations from federal
income tax.
F.
Injunctive Relief. Any person who commits an act, proposes to commit an
act, or engages in any pattern and practice which violates the TPO may be enjoined
therefrom by any court of competent jurisdiction. An action for injunction under this
subsection may be brought by any aggrieved person, by the City Attorney (for a pattern
and practice only), or by any person or entity who will fairly and adequately represent
the interest of the protected class.
G.
Attorneys Fees and Costs
1.
Action by City Attorney. In any administrative, civil, or special
proceeding brought pursuant to the TPO, the City may, at the initiation of the
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
proceeding, seek an award of attorney's fees. If the City seeks an award of

attorney's fees, the award shall be made to the prevailing party. Provided
however, that no award may be made to a prevailing party that exceeds the
amount of reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City in the action or
proceeding. Court costs may be awarded to a prevailing party pursuant to state
law.
2.
Action by Private Party. In any civil action brought pursuant to the
TPO., the prevailing Tenant is entitled to recover the Tenants reasonable
attorneys fees. A defendant Owner may recover reasonable attorneys fees if
the complaint brought by the Tenant was devoid of merit and brought in bad faith.
Court costs may be awarded to a prevailing party pursuant to state law.
3.1. Costs of Investigation. In the event the City Attorney brings an
administrative, civil, or special proceeding pursuant to the TPO, the City Attorney
may recover its costs of investigation.
8.22.660 Miscellaneous
A.
Regulations and Forms. The Rent Board has the authority to make such
regulations to implement this O.M.C.8.22 Article V as are not inconsistent with the TPO.
Within 90 days of the effective date of the TPO, the City Administrator or his or her
designee shall develop forms to implement this section. Any changes to the initial forms
shall be effective thirty (30) days after they are made available to the public at the Rent
Adjustment Program offices, unless the Rent Adjustment Program makes a finding that
an earlier effective date is necessary. All Forms required by the TPO shall include
translations in all group languages, as specified for Tier 1 required translations inare
vital communication documents and shall be translated and distributed in accordance
with the Equal Access to Services Ordinance, O.M.C Chapter 2.30.
B.
Non-waiverability. Any provision, whether oral or written, in or pertaining to
a rental agreement whereby any provision of the TPO is waived or modified, is against
public policy and void.
C.
In proceedings with City staff, any party may be represented or assisted
by a person of their choice. The Rent Board shall create a regulation to implement this
section.
D.
C. Implementation Date. The administrative remedies provided in
subsection O.M.C. 8.22.650B shall not be implemented until funding and staffing
sufficient to implement these remedies is in place. The City Administrator, or his or her
designee, shall conduct a fee analysis and develop an implementation plan regarding
the administrative remedies program of the TPO and shall present them to the City
Council for approval no later than March 31, 2015. The City Administrator shall
determine when the requirements for implementation of administrative remedies have
been met and shall set the date for the start of implementation, reporting back to the
City Council on the start of implementation. Requirements related to City-provided
notices shall not take effect until such notices are available to the public and effective.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
ann mcclain
mcelhaney@oaklandnet.com; Schaaf, Libby; Kalb, Dan; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; At Large
Oppose The "Tenant Protection Ordinance"
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to opposed the proposed Tenant Protection

Ordinance. Many of these added protections are already covered by
current state and local rent ordinances. This ordinance penalizes often
normal communication between owner and renter in regular
maintenance type activities.
Rising rents in the Bay Area is not a new phenomenon and, alone, do
not justify the assumption that tenants are being harassed and that we
therefore need a new law. Are we to add a new law each time rents go
up? If so, where does it end?
To justify the need for a new law, we need "specifically" related cases of
tenant harassment and not just a reference to how many calls the rent
board receives each month. Regarding tenant harassment, Oakland
renters have protection through state laws, Oakland's Rent Ordinance
and Oakland's Measure EE. The protections afforded to renters by
these should not be trivialized. This ordinance just piles on, with no
basis for doing so.
The stakes are significant. Indeed, imposition of a bad law here could
have the same consequences that it is having in San Francisco, with
lawsuits and record numbers of rental owners trying to escape the
"hassle factor" of such laws by getting out of the rental business
entirely, through the use of the state Ellis Act. This is not good for
renters in San Francisco and would not be good for renters in Oakland.
Oakland is not San Francisco.

Facts suggesting a need for the ordinance, provided to the council by
tenant representatives, should be brought to the table. Facts
suggesting that there is no need, brought by other constituents should
not be dismissed or scoffed at as mere "complaining." There is no
justifiable reason to rush the issue by trying to pass a law first, and
determine its need later. Only tenants and the city attorney should be
able to bring complaints to the city and/or rent board.
This protection is one sided and provides protections for all tenants
without ensuring that property owners are protected from aggressive
tenants. If this is truly about reducing the abuses that go on, it should
cover and address all party scenarios.
Yours truly,
Ann McClain
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Cindy Norton
Luby, Oliver
Re: EBHO Support Letter for Tenant Protection Ordinance
Thanks Oliver
Let me take a look this morning ... Are you in the office this morning if I have questions?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 29, 2014, at 6:39 PM, "Luby, Oliver"
<OLuby@oaklandnet.com<mailto:OLuby@oaklandnet.com>> wrote:
Hi Cindy,
Im sorry that we still havent been able to connect to discuss the Tenant Protection
Ordinance. I tried calling you again, today, and received a message that your voice mail box
was full.
Anyone, I thought you might be interested to know that EBHO is supporting the legislation
(see below and attached). We also expanded the nonprofit exemption. The updated legislation
is available here under the supplemental report link:
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1908693&GUID=5CFD43A7-4E284C6A-A3F8-EA995FAE0913&Options=&Search
The legislation will be considered tomorrow at the City Councils 2 pm CED committee. It
would be wonderful if EBALDC was willing to support its adoption.
Oliver
From: Jeffrey Levin [mailto:jeff@ebho.org]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 4:22 PM
To: Reid, Larry; Kernighan, Pat; McElhaney, Lynette; Schaaf, Libby; Brooks, Desley; Gallo,
Noel; Kalb, Dan; Kaplan, Rebecca
Cc: Merriouns, Iris; Gerard, Jennie; Farmer, Casey; Nosakhare, Shereda; Garza, Shelly;
Ordaz, Karely; Luby, Oliver; Chan, Ada
Subject: EBHO Support Letter for Tenant Protection Ordinance
Dear Chairperson Read, Members of the CED Committee, and Members of the City Council:
Attached please find EBHO's letter of support for the proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance,
scheduled for consideration by the CED Committte on September 30. As advocates for
affordable housing, we are deeply concerned about the ongoing displacement of renters from
Oakland and urge you to vote in favor of this measure to protect tenants, stabilize
neighborhoods, promote healthy housing, and preserve Oakland's diversity.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Jeffrey P. Levin
Policy Director
East Bay Housing Organizations
538 9th Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
510-663-3830 x316
jeff@ebho.org<mailto:jeff@ebho.org>
NOTE: I am generally in the office only on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, so I may not be
able to reply to your e-mail right away.
[https://www.google.com/a/ebho.org/images/logo.gif]
Visit us at www.EBHO.org<http://www.ebho.org/> and follow us on
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/eastbayhousingorganizations> and
Twitter<https://twitter.com/EBHO_Housing>!
Save the Date: September 17th is EBHO's 10th Annual Interfaith Breakfast! Visit our website
for details.<http://ebho.org/eventslist/icalrepeat.detail/2014/09/17/261/23/save-the-date-forebho-s-10th-annual-interfaith-breakfast>
<Oakland TPO Ordinance - EBHO Support Ltr.pdf>
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
wayne rowland
Kalb, Dan; Luke Blacklidge
Jr. Jack W. Schwartz; Rick Philips; Fred Morse; Luby, Oliver; Greg McConnell
Re: Proposed tenant proptection ordinance
Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:29:19 PM
Dear Mr. Kalb,

We met with you on September 10, to discuss your proposed ordinance andwere surprised to find that while the
ordinance itself was fully drafted, the purpose and findings showing a need for the ordinance were a work in
progress. Indeed the spacereserved forits purpose and findings was left blank.During the discussionwe
offeredourparticipation and cooperationwith your efforts.We only asked thatin return you provide us with data
showingthe need for the ordinance. Youvolunteered that you would provide us such data showing that tenant
harassment was widespread problem. That's how we concluded our meeting.
Subsequently,instead of providingthe promiseddata, you instead sent an additional copy of the ordinancewith
references to newspaper articles, addressingthe fact that rents are increasingin the Bay Area. Reference to
these articleswereinserted into the space reserved for purpose and findings that had been previously left blank.
Rising rents in the Bay Area is not a new phenomenon and of themselvesdo not justify the assumption that
tenants are being harassedand that therefore we need a new law. Are we to add a new law each time that rents
go up? If so, where does it end?
Inreading the newspaper articlesinserted into your proposal nowhereare there references to tenant harassment
in connection with rising rents. The articles only talk aboutthe fact that rents are rising and do not address tenant
harassment.These articlescannot possibly substitute for actual facts regarding tenant harassment. Neithercan
the assertion that the rent board receives "roughly" 200 calls per month on issues"broadly" defined as tenant
harassment act as asubstitute for actual facts.To justify the need for a new law,would it not be more appropriate
that such callsbe "specifically" related to tenantharassment and not just a reference to how many calls the rent
board receives each month?
Regarding tenant harassment, Oakland renters have protection throughstate laws, Oakland'sRent Ordinance and
Oakland's Measure EE.The protections afforded to renters by these should not be trivialized. Yourproposal is
just piling on with no basis for doing so.
We believe the proposed ordinance is not needed.We also believe that it is reasonable of us to inquire of you the
basis upon which you feel that the law is needed; that it is reasonable of us to expect that in asking for our
input,that youwould be open to hearing rather thandismissive of our concerns; that itis reasonable of us to
expect that prior to enactment of new law, that the need for such law be fully established; and thatin the absence
of established need, it is reasonable of us to be skeptical as to the motivations for your proposed ordinance.
The stakes are significant. Indeed, imposition of a bad law here could have the same consequences that it is
having in San Francisco, with lawsuits and record numbers of rental owners trying to escape the "hassle factor" of
such laws by getting out of the rental business entirely,through the use of the state Ellis Act. This is not good for
renters in San Francisco and would notbe good for renters in Oakland. Oakland is not San Francisco.
Mr. Kalb, you were not elected as the tenant representative to the Oakland City Council. You were elected to
represent all of the people of your district. If tenant harassment is of such importance as an issue, then it should
be treated as such. Facts suggesting a need for the ordinance, provided to you by tenant representatives, should
be brought to the table. Facts suggesting that there is no need, brought by other constituents should not be
dismissed or scoffed atas being mere "complaining."There is no justifiable reason torush the issue by trying to
pass a lawfirst anddetermine its need later.Nor should the matter be rushedjust to make it an issue of current
electoral races. If it is of suchimportance, there is ample time to get it right.
We remain willing to participate. Butin the absence ofreasonable effort on your part to consider, rather than
dismiss our input wehave becomestronglyopposed to this proposal. From our vantage point, as the city of
Oakland is making great strides, the proposed ordinance and the expensive new bureaucracy that would be
required to administerit appear to bejust one more new "adventure" the city of Oakland can ill afford to embark
upon.
Sincerely,
Wayne C. Rowland
510.339.7152
On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:06 AM, "Kalb, Dan" <DKalb@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Dear Wayne,
Thanks for your e-mail reply. Your reply is unclear specifically regarding my invitation
to you and Mr. Blacklidge inviting the EBRHA to participate in an negotiation meeting
with tenant representatives on the content of the introduced Tenant Protection
Ordinance (TPO). You did write that you would like to continuing discussing my
efforts to protect renters from harassment and are willing to participate, but you do
not reference the invitation to the meeting or any specific times that were put forth.
My invitation noted various times that were available for the negotiation meeting and
requested that the EBRHA respond by yesterday regarding whether or not it was
willing to participate in the negotiation meeting.
Is the EBRHA willing to participate in a negotiation meeting with the tenants regarding
the content of the TPO? If so, please respond by 2:00pm tomorrow (Wednesday,
September 24), indicating the availability of EBRHA representatives to meet later
Wednesday afternoon or on Friday, which representatives (up to 3) would attend,
and your top 4-5 priorities regarding the content of the TPO. Monday, Sept. 29 is
also a possibility.
With regard to our September 10th meeting, you and the other EBRHA
representatives, as well as Mr. McConnell of JHC, spent most of the meeting time
arguing that a Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO) is not necessary, offering little in
the way of specific constructive suggestions regarding the actual content of the
TPO. After I repeatedly asked for substantive suggestions, the only ones I received
at the meeting were to eliminate the nonprofit exemption, which I am still reviewing,
and to restrict the TPO to the Larson case with regard to protected speech and
attorneys fees. The TPO has been drafted to comply with Larson. In addition, I also
volunteered at the meeting, in response to your groups generalized concerns about
the landlord-tenant business relationship, that it made sense to require the tenant to
notify that landlord of the problem for certain types of claims, before a complaint or
suit could go be filed. Those attending were receptive to that change. As you can
see from the updated draft legislation, that requirement was added for selected
provisions.
With regard to your concerns about the overall justification for the TPO, the Findings
and Purpose in the TPO that I have sent to you following our meeting provide ample
data and justification for establishing the TPO, and I am anticipating that the Findings
will be further expanded with additional data. Already, it is clear that soaring market
rate costs of rent in Oakland are creating an economic incentive for some landlords
to pressure tenants in rent-controlled units to move out, as well discourage tenants in
non-rent-controlled units from asserting their rights. It is clear that many tenants
complain about harassment by their landlord. As you know, not only San Francisco
but also West Hollywood, Santa Monica, and, most recently, East Palo Alto each
have laws prohibiting tenant harassment. My proposed TPO does not track only San
Franciscos law closely the laws of each of these jurisdictions are similar regarding
the types of landlord harassment that are prohibited. The Findings and Purpose in
my proposed TPO are also far more extensive than for the established tenant
harassment laws of these other cities.
It is also clear that the current remedies available under state law for the type of
landlord behavior covered by the TPO are inadequate. For example, a tenant who
prevails in court regarding a landlords breach of contract or failure to repair
habitability violations may, in many cases, only receive actual damages. The TPO
provides for treble actual damages or a statutory minimum of $1,000, creating a
greater deterrent to the inappropriate conduct. Moreover, attorneys fees are not
currently available for tenant suits regarding many of the prohibited behaviors in the
TPO. As a result, many legitimate tenant claims are not able to utilize a lawyer,
either because the plaintiff cannot afford one or the damages are too low to warrant a
lawyers contingency fee. The TPOs attorney fee provisions enables tenants who
have been harassed to obtain an attorney, which further serves to deter the
harassing conduct.
As an aside, I do not share your assertion on the presss motivation for ample
reporting about the plight of tenants in the Bay Area. I do not think it is simply a
matter of wanting to sell newspapers. Given the soaring rental market in much of the
Bay Area, the displacement of tenants is an issue of vast public concern and, when
newspapers report on that issue, they are doing their job. Such displacement is
absolutely relevant to the TPO because of the aforementioned concerns about being
nudged out of rent controlled units and some tenants fearing to enforcing their rights.
My office is in the process of collecting additional data that is relevant to the
establishment of the TPO. I would be happy to provide the additional data to you.
For example, of the approximately 480 Oakland tenants who received legal services
at Centro Legal de la Raza during fiscal year 2014 (July 1, 2013 though June 30,
2014), approximately 40% faced harassment by their landlords. The forms of
harassment varied but included one or more of the following in each case:
o Interrupting, terminating, failing to provide or threatening to
interrupt, terminate or fail to provide housing services required by
contract or by State, County or municipal housing, health or safety
laws;
o Failing to perform required repairs and/or maintenance or
threatening to fail to do so;
o Failing to exercisedue diligence in completing repairs and
maintenance once undertaken or failing to follow appropriate industry
repair,containment or remediation protocols designed to minimize
exposure to noise, dust, lead paint, mold, asbestos, or other building
materials with potentially harmful health impacts;

the owners right of access into a rental housing unit as
that right is provided by law;
o Unlawfully removing from the rental unit personal property,
furnishings, or any other items without the prior written consent of the
tenant;
o Influencing, or attempting to influence, atenant to vacate a rental
unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion;
o Attempting to coerce a tenant to vacatewith offer(s) of payments to
vacate which are accompanied with threats or intimidation;
o Threateningthe tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm;
o Substantially and directly interfering with a Tenants right to quiet
use and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by
California law;
o Fraudulently refusing to accept or acknowledge receipt of a
Tenant's lawful rent payment.
I also want to reiterate that the Citys RAP staff has indicated to us that they do
indeed receive roughly 200 calls each month on issues broadly defined as
harassment of tenantsmost of which fall under one or more of the provisions in our
proposed ordinance.
I sincerely hope that you will accept my invitation to the EBRHA to negotiate with
tenant representatives regarding the content of the TPO. As I previously stated, I am
willing to honor any agreed-to compromise between the landlords and tenants
regarding the content of the TPO when presenting my proposal to my colleagues on
the City Council. In any case, I would welcome the EBRHAs input regarding the
specific provisions.
Thanks and best regards,
-Dan
o Abusing
--- ---
DAN KALB
Oakland City Councilmember, District One
One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd floor
Oakland, CA 94612
510-238-7001
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CityCouncil/o/District1/index.htm
To sign up for my District One Community Newsletter, please click here.
From: wayne rowland [mailto:wayne.rowland@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Kalb, Dan; Luby, Oliver
Cc: Greg McConnell; Jr. Jack W. Schwartz; Luke Blacklidge; Rick Philips; Fred Morse
Subject: Proposed tenant proptection ordinance
Dear Mr. Kalb and Mr. Luby,
On September 10, 2014, members of the East Bay Rental Housing Association met in good faith with you to
discuss your proposed tenant protection ordinance. During the meting, we, as well as Greg McConnell ofthe Jobs
and Housing Coalition, expressed concern that the ordinance creates a low threshold for drawing rental owners
into costly administrative hearings, although the ordinance had no defined findings or purpose that it would fulfill.
Additionally, as the proposed ordinance is duplicative of state law regarding tenant harassment, we expressed the
opinion that Oakland's private housing resources shouldn't be needlessly burdened by an additional ordinance
that duplicates state law.
As the proposed ordinance had no findings or purpose, we inquired of you the basis upon which you felt the
ordinance was needed. You indicated that your concern stems from a discussion you had with someone at the
rent board who indicated that they arereceiving 100 or 200 calls per month concerning rent related issues.
Regarding the broad numerical spread of this assertion, you indicated that you could not be more precise
because you weren't sure how much record keeping activity the rent board conducts regarding issues outside of
their area of control. You also could not state whether the 100 or 200 call said to be received by the rent board
each monthare regarding the type of tenant harassment the proposed ordinance would address or for something
else.
We further expressed the concern that the proposed ordinance tracks very closely, San Francisco's Measure M,
which has not only been the subject of much litigation but is also part of the "hassle factor" which is causing San
Francisco rental owners to flee the rental business in record numbers by using the state Ellis Act. We don't want
to import their problems by importing their housing policy.
Last, we expressed the concern that if it is determined that in addition to the three pillars of protection Oakland
renters already have (State of California laws regarding tenant harassment, Oakland's Rent Ordinance, Oakland's
Measure EE) an additional ordinance is needed, such ordinance should apply to all housing providers and should
not allow non-profit organizations that provide housing an exemption to engage in the type oftenant harassment
that would be prohibited by the ordinance. Not onlywould such uneven application of law be highly suspect, but
the ordinance itself offers no explanation as to why tenant harassment conduct by a non-profit organization that
provideshousing would be any less harmful to tenants than such conduct by other propertyowners.
We concluded our meeting with your comments in response to our concerns regarding the lack of actual data
provided by your officethat wouldsuggestthe need for an additional ordinance. You indicated that ours was a fair
concern and that you would get back to us with more datato help us understandthe need for the ordinance, at
which time we would continue our discussion of the actual details of the ordinance.
To date we have not been provided with any such data. Instead, yesterday I reviewed an email attachment form
your office that contained an additional copy of the proposed ordinance. In the space for findings and purpose,
thathad been previously blank,are mostly references to newspaper headlines regarding increasing rents in the
Bay Area and Oakland. The headlines, while deliberately provocative to sell newspapers, don't reference tenant
harassment and are not what could be fairly or reasonably described as "purpose and findings" for theimportant
businessof enacting a new law. Indeed, with one of the referenced newspaper articles not even having been
written until some days after our meeting,wefeel reinforced in our concernthat the ordinance was drafted first
and the determination of need for the ordinanceis still a work in progress.
Mr. Kalb and Mr. Luby, we would like to continue to discuss your efforts to protectrenters from harassment.
Asrenters are our only customers, we think this is a worthy goal and are willing to participate. Nonetheless, we
also think that it is fair and reasonable that prior to discussing the mechanics of a new and exceedingly
burdensome law, we first do our utmost to determine whether a new law is needed.
I'm sure that you can agree thatwe would not be good stewards of Oakland's housing if we didn't.

Sincerely,
Wayne C. Rowland
President, East Bay Rental Housing Association
510.339.7152
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Jeffrey Levin
Luby, Oliver
Amie Fishman; Gloria Bruce
Re: Tenant Protection Ordinance
Friday, September 26, 2014 6:32:38 PM
Oliver Thanks to both you and Dan for these changes. EBHO will be getting out a letter of support
next week (before the CED Committee meeting) and we expect to have someone attending
and speaking at the CED meeting as well.
JeffreyP.Levin
Policy Director
510-663-3830 x316
jeff@ebho.org
NOTE: I am generally in the office only on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, so I may
not be able to reply to your e-mail right away.
Visit us at www.EBHO.org and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Save the Date:September 17this EBHO's 10th Annual Interfaith Breakfast!Visit our website for details.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Luby, Oliver <OLuby@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi Jeff and all,
I wanted to let you know that Dan decided to include you suggested additions, which will be filed
tomorrow in the supplemental. I also appreciate receiving the reasoning behind nonprofits.
When we met with landlord representatives, they stated, after first arguing that there was no
need for a TPO, that nonprofits should not receive a partial exemption. So, your explanation
regarding the additions is very helpful. Thanks.
Oliver

To: Luby, Oliver
Cc: Amie Fishman; Gloria Bruce
Subject: Re: Tenant Protection Ordinance
Thank you Oliver. I will be in the office on Tuesday and Thursday. Let me know if you
have any questions about the need for that language.
JeffreyP.Levin
Policy Director
510-663-3830 x316
jeff@ebho.org

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Luby, Oliver <OLuby@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Much thanks, Jeff. We really appreciate your support and are delighted that your will attend the
9/30 committee meeting.
I will run your drafting suggestion by Dan and get back to you.
Oliver

To: Luby, Oliver
Cc: Amie Fishman; Gloria Bruce
Subject: Re: Tenant Protection Ordinance
Oliver:
Thanks for forwarding this. EBHO strongly supports this ordinance and we plan to attend
the 9/30 CED Committee meeting.
However, we have concerns about one small definitional item pertaining to the partial
exemption for non-profit owned housing.
The draft ordinance creates an exemption for non-profit owned housing, which we greatly appreciate.
However, it inadvertently leaves out a large number of nonprofit-sponsored affordable housing
projects.
Many affordable housing developments (including most City-sponsored developments) are financed in
part through sale of low-income housing tax credits to investors in return for equity contributions to the
development of the housing. The projects remain controlled by the sponsoring nonprofit, but
technically the properties are owned by a Limited Partnership. In these cases, the nonprofit is the
managing General Partner. (The for-profit investors are limited partners and have no role in managing
or operating the building - as limited partners they simply receive the tax benefits from the low income
housing tax credits.)
We urge you to make the following change to ensure that the intent of the ordinance to provide a partial
exemption to nonprofit owned developments can be realized in practice:
8.22.630 Applicability and Exemptions
A. The TPO shall apply to all Rental Units where there is a Rental Agreement between an Owner and
one or more Tenants, unless exempted herein. The application of the TPO includes units that may not
be covered under the Rent Adjustment Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.100, et seq.) or the Just Cause for
Eviction Ordinance (O.M.C. 8.22.300, et seq.)
B. Exemptions.
1. Limited exemption for nonprofit owned rental housing. Any Rental Unit owned by:
(a) a corporation or organization exempt pursuant to United States Internal Revenue Code
501(c)(3) or any successor legislation exempting charitable organizations from federal income
tax, or
(b) a limited partnership where the managing general partner is a corporation or organization
exempt pursuant to United States Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) or any successor
legislation exempting charitable organizations from federal income tax, or
(c) a limited partnership where the managing general partner is a limited liability company whose
sole members are corporations or organizations exempt pursuant to United States Internal
Revenue Code501(c)(3)or any successor legislation exempting charitable organizations from
federal income tax
shall have a limited exemption from the TPO and may be subject to administrative enforcement only,
and not subject to civil enforcement.

Making this change would be consistent with language in State law (Revenue and Taxation Code
section 214(g)(1)) that provides property tax exemption for nonprofit owned affordable housing - those
provisions also include exemption if a project is owned by a limited partnership in which the nonprofit is
the managing general partner. The exact language there is:
Property used exclusively for rental housing and related facilities and owned and operated by religious,
hospital, scientific, or charitable funds, foundations, limited liability companies, or
corporations,including limited partnerships in which the managing general partner is an eligible
nonprofit corporation or eligible limited liability company,
This small change would not expand the exemption beyond what was intended - it
simply accounts for the various ways in which nonprofit developers structure
ownership of their housing developments in order to secure the necessary
financing.
Note that apart from the administrative remedies that you provide in the ordinance,
affordable housing developments are financed and monitored by multiple
governmental agencies. That oversight provides an additional mechanism for
tenants who feel they are being harassed, as they could bring their issue to the
monitoring agency (City, State, HUD, etc).
We urge you to submit this change as a supplemental report for the 9/30 CED
Committee meeting so that the legislation can move uninterrupted to the City
Council for adoption.
Please call me to discuss this further.
JeffreyP.Levin
Policy Director

510-663-3830 x316
jeff@ebho.org

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Luby, Oliver <OLuby@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Dan asked me to send the attached legislation to you. It will be on the CED agenda on 9/30.
Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss.
Best,
Oliver Luby

Policy Manager
Office of District 1 City Council Member Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230 Oakland, CA 94612
(o) 510-238-7001 (d) 510-238-7013 (e) oluby@oaklandnet.com
Click this link to subscribe to Council Member Kalb's newsletter.
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Robbie Clark
Luby, Oliver
Bolotina, Olga; Kalb, Dan
RE: Updated policy language?
Thursday, September 11, 2014 1:54:36 PM
Thanks for the response. I will call you this afternoon to discuss and set a time to meet.
On Sep 11, 2014 1:28 PM, "Luby, Oliver" <OLuby@oaklandnet.com> wrote:
Hi Robbie,
Dan would like to meet on Friday or Monday with you if youre available to come into City Hall. As
an alternative, the three of us can talk over the phone. As comes as no surprise, we have a lot of
heavy lifting ahead of us, so we are looking forward to constructively partnering towards achieving
our shared goal of passing a strong TPO.
In response to your three questions of concern:
1. As I mentioned in the voice messages I left for you, we need to speak about the timeline, now
that its been pushed back to this ordinance being introduced at the 9/30 CED Committee. As an
FYI reminder, this email and all of our electronic correspondence is subject to public disclosure
under the Sunshine Ordinance. We should definitely speak this week about strategizing and
building support based on this timeline.
(Again, it was not Dans decision to push back going to CED on 9/16. That came from the CED
Committee Chair based on the crowded nature of the 9/16 committee agenda and the
controversial nature of our proposal. We had no say in the matter.)
2. Im sorry that our communication hasnt met your expectations. Its not uncommon to have
unanticipated delays when working with lawmaker offices. We are managing complex review
processes for multiple pieces of legislation, which takes a considerable amount of time.
Additionally, Dan was on vacation for 10 days during the second half of August. Nevertheless, we
are committed to introducing this legislation and getting it passed as soon as possible. Again, we
very much appreciate your June 26 and July 28 feedback to the May 16 draft and are still
consulting with the City Attorney about the newer pieces.
3. As I previously mentioned, we cannot mandate staff oversight action without adequate
resources in place. We will be including in the legislation benchmarks that require staff to
determine that level of resources. Note that, by contrast, the private right of action provisions will
become effective much sooner, either per the normal date for passage or, in the case of
requirements related to City forms, after the forms are developed. So, passage of the TPO would
promptly create added protection for tenants.
In the additional responses you gave to my email (under #3), you asked questions related to this
administrative remedies issue. Please recall that the delay in implementing the administrative
remedies components was in the draft we sent you in May. Regardless, according to the City
Attorney and agency staff, delaying the effective date of that part of the legislation is necessary.
Regarding your question, we are aiming for the budgeting to occur for the next cycle
(approved by the end of June of next year), which is the soonest we could realistically
expect to get the program budgeted. Some of the questions you raised are best discussed
over the phone or in person. After you receive this email, lets set up a time to talk as soon
as possible.
In response to your further comments added to my email:
*Findings & Purpose:

Thank you for getting ACPHD data for us. We are eager to get any data you have.
Thanks also for all the media cites. Do you have a list of articles that concern tenant harassment
problems in Oakland?
Bolstering the Findings and Purpose section is the single biggest challenge before us now. We
need to be able to show evidence and data that conclusively demonstrates that harassment is a
problem and that the TPO is the necessary solution. Anecdotes may not be enough.
The more controversial a piece of legislation is, the more critical the Findings and Purpose section
becomes.
*Expanding the nonprofit exemption under the TPO:
We hear you that you are saying that you are first and foremost concerned about protecting
tenants. We certainly share that concern. That is why Dan happily agreed to be the author of this
legislation. Its important to note as well that facilitating a well-run program, addressing the
concerns and working conditions of hardworking City staff, and making sure adequate financial
resources are in place for a City program to function are all factors in getting good legislation
enacted.
We expect to receive a significant challenge from the landlords regarding how we can justify any
nonprofit exemption. I will inquire with staff again about the concern regarding expanding the
nonprofit exemption, so that I can be more specific about their concern. We should talk about the
scope of the nonprofit exemption. We dont want that to become a delaying distraction that could
jeopardize or substantially delay passage of the ordinance.
*State law pre-emption:

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act preempts local laws prohibiting rental
discrimination. As you know, some state laws dont preempt local law (creating merely a
minimum floor), while others do. Legal preemption depends upon whether or not the provisions
in the law indicate intent to take over the field. This is the case with CFEHA.
*Penalties:
As I previously mentioned, the Charter limits assessment of a particular City fine to a maximum of
$1,000. Thats the max. It cannot be the minimum unless we want the maximum and minimum to
be the same, which would be very unusual. To work around that Charter limitation, the legislation
provides that a violation that lasts for more than one day is a separate violation on each day,
which will help create a deterrent in many cases. The deterrent effect is bolstered by the private
right of action, which has fines set at triple actual damages or a minimum of $1,000, whichever is
greater.
*Your last comment:

My question (#2 in my email) concerned a prior question that you asked in July 28 e-mail:
Can we add this as a requirement in city contracts with NEWLY constructed affordable housing?
In response, I noted that the TPO was broader than Just Cause, because it applies to all new
construction (as well as substantial rehab). So, I asked if the application to new construction
addressed your question. Your comment below doesnt appear to answer my question, but I
assume I addressed the question from your July 28th email.

As for broadening the TPO further regardless of the unit size and whether or not the owner lives
there, I will be sure to run that by Dan.
Talk to you soon,

Oliver
From: Robbie Clark [mailto:robbie@cjjc.org]

Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 6:03 PM
To: Luby, Oliver; Kalb, Dan; Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Re: Updated policy language?
Greetings all -
I know that Oliver is out of town, but wanted to communicate with all of you regarding the tenant
protection ordinance and how much the timeline continues to be pushed back. I want to make sure
that I'm clearly communicating all of the concerns that we (CJJC) have:
1. The timeline
- after our July meeting, there was the impression that we were united on the timeline moving
forward, now that's changing. What's the new timeline? Is it still possible for us to move on the
same timeline that we set (for the full council meetings)? What would it take from us to make this
happen?
2. Communication
- The communication about the shifts in the policy and the questions about the policy haven't been
good, what needs to happen to improve this? I feel like we have responded with what we have
been asked to give to you all, but that we don't hear concerns/questions until more than a month
after providing key feedback.
3. Administration
- The key goal is to pass a policy that will require the city to protect tenants from harassment, the
policy as it is written doesn't do that if there's not a clear way plan or mandate the staffing to
enforce it.
Below are my responses below to the email that Oliver sent me this week after I reached out to get
updated policy language.
Thanks please email or call me at 510 693 0605 if you have any questions, concerns or feedback.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Luby, Oliver <OLuby@oaklandnet.com> wrote:

Hey Robbie.
Much thanks for all of this feedback, and for the additional feedback in your 2nd July 28th email.
Were trying to incorporate some of it and looking into some of the questions raised. However,
given how tight the timeline is, we will be focusing on the big picture of passing what we had
originally discussed. Were filing the first draft with the Clerks office on Thursday.
Some specific responses:
1. Thanks for the Findings and Purpose. It needed a lot of editing and is , but it was helpful to
have that starting point. However, even with editing, it is far from adequate, because, in it, we
basically need to lay out in detail our case for why the legislation is needed. Were contacting staff
to get some stats, and will be looking at rising rent figures we previously received from the TJ
campaign, and will be looking at the experience of other jurisdictions that have a tenant
harassment ordinance, but, if you have any facts and figures that are relevant to the story for why
this thing is necessary, please feel free to send them. Case examples appearing in the press?
We have some data from the ACPHD that we can send over, we could have sent it sooner if we
knew that you all were going to need more.
Here's the media that we have on the issues:
Landlord Harassment Media
Santa Monica - due to the Ellis Act, harassment has been on the rise. Santa Monica is taking
another look at their tenant harassment protections.
City Again Accuses Landlord of Harassing Tenant

by Jenna Chandler
January 4, 2013
Santa Monica
http://santamonica.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/santa-monica-landlord-accusedagain-of-harassing-tenant
SF Considers Boost to Tenant Protections

by Jessica Kwong
October 30, 2013
San Francisco
San Francisco is one of few cities with protections in place for tenants allegedly harassed by
their landlords, but those without the money to sue are left with little recourse, local housingrights advocates say.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-considers-boost-to-tenant-protections/Content?
oid=2615508
Supervisors to consider law targeting tenant harassment

by Joshua Sabatini
December 17, 2013
San Francisco
Currently, if a tenant is harassed the only recourse is to file a civil lawsuit in San Francisco
Superior Court. But under legislation supported Monday by the Board of Supervisors Land Use
and Economic Development Committee, tenants would be able to file complaints with the Rent
Board. The complaint would trigger a review by an administrative law judge who would hear
from both sides. The judge would provide a summary of the testimony to the Rent Board, which
would decide whether to hand the case over to the city attorney or the district attorney for legal
action.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/supervisors-to-consider-law-targeting-tenantharassment/Content?oid=2651562
For Some Tenants, Only Thing Heating Up Is A Temper

by John Leland
January 7, 2014
New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/nyregion/for-some-tenants-only-thing-heating-up-is-atemper.html?
module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A15%22%7D
Tenants Living Amid Rubble in Rent-Regulated Apartment War

by Mireya Navarro
February 24, 2014
New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/nyregion/in-new-york-push-for-market-rate-housing-pitslandlords-against-tenants.html?
module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A15%22%7D&_r=0
East Palo Alto Unanimously Backs Tenant-Protection Ordinance
by Elena Kadvany
April 2, 2014
East Palo Alto
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/04/02/east-palo-alto-unanimously-backs-new-tenantprotection-ordinance
City Of Santa Monica To Take A Look At Tenant Harassment

by Parimal M. Rohit
April 11, 2014
Santa Monica
We continue to lose affordable housing units and in many cases we find that people who are in
those units are being pressured to move out, McKeown told his colleagues. Im sure other
council members get the same heartbreaking phone calls I do from the people who have been
told by their landlords, for instance, were going to Ellis the building, you have four months to
move out. There is a lot of pressure on renters which has resulted in people losing their
housing. And then they cant replace it because there is such a shortage of affordability.
http://www.smmirror.com/articles/News/City-Of-Santa-Monica-To-Take-A-Look-At-TenantHarassment/39945
Tenant harassment claims rising

by David Mark Simpson
April 13, 2014
Santa Monica
This fiscal year, Santa Monica City Hall is on pace to receive 43 official harassment complaints
from renters. Last fiscal year they heard 38 and the year before it was 34. There have been 34
so far this year with more than two months remaining.
http://smdp.com/tenant-harassment-claims-rising/133829
Brooklyn Tenants Unionize (VIDEO)

by Channon Hodge
April 28. 2014
New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/video/nyregion/100000002842265/brooklyn-tenants-unionize.html?
Tenants rights group demands East Palo Alto records

by Sue Dremman
May 9, 2014
East Palo Alto
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/05/09/tenants-rights-group-demands-east-palo-altorecords
Rent-Regulated Tenants Excluded from Amenities

by Ronda Kaysen
May 16, 2014
New York City

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/realestate/rent-regulated-tenants-excluded-fromamenities.html?
I-Team: Tenants Believe They Are Victims of Landlord Sabotage (VIDEO)

by Ann Givens and Jonathan Vigliotti
July 24, 2014
New York City
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Landlord-Sabotage-Housing-Scheme-NassauAvenue-248609651.html
Upper West Side tenants accuse landlord, Stellar Management, of harassment

by Jan Ransom
August 14, 2014
New York City
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/uws-tenants-landlord-stellar-article-1.1902856
Chinatown landlord under investigation on charges of abusive behavior to force tenants out of
rent-controlled apartments
by Kenneth Lovett
August 20, 2014
New York City
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/chinatown-landlord-investigation-complaints-forcingtenants-apartments-article-1.1909758
Thousand Oaks Council Approves Anti-Slumlord Ordinance

by Kate Folmar
April 30, 1998
Thousand Oaks
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/30/local/me-44629
For Some Tenants, Only Thing Heating Up Is A Temper

by John Leland
January 7, 2014
New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/nyregion/for-some-tenants-only-thing-heating-up-is-atemper.html?
East Palo Alto family sues landlord Equity Residential over housing conditions
by Bonnie Eslinger
April 30, 2014

East Palo Alto
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_25663784/east-palo-alto-family-sues-landlord-equityresidential
Blackstone unit Invitation Homes sued over rental house's condition

by Andrew Khouri
May 5, 2014
Los Angeles
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blackstone-lawsuit-20140506-story.html
California Reinvestment Coalition
Some tenants face monthslong waits for Rent Board case review
by Joshua Sabatini
June 19, 2014
San Francisco
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/some-tenants-face-monthslong-waits-for-rent-boardcase-review/Content?oid=2825125
Old housing may have rampant lead violations

by Chris Roberts
July 24, 2014
San Francisco
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/landlords-sue-sf-over-new-relocation-assistancelaw/Content?oid=2857823
Report: NYC Housing Falls Short

AP
July 28, 2014
NYC
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Report-NYC-public-housing-falls-short-5650987.php
Repair requests increase at San Francisco Housing Authority sites

by Chris Roberts
July 29, 2014
San Francisco
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/repair-requests-increase-at-san-francisco-housingauthority-sites/Content?oid=2862028
After SF residents actions improve dismal SRO units, they could be without homes
by Jessica Kwong
August 13, 2014
San Francisco
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/after-sf-residents-actions-improve-dismal-sro-unitsthey-could-be-without-homes/Content?oid=2872745
Tenants at Harlems Ennis Francis building fired up after blaze

by Jan Ransom
August 25, 2014
New York
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/ennis-francis-tenants-sound-alarm-harlembuilding-catches-fire-article-1.1914089
2. We really liked expanded the non-profit exemption to LPs where the managing general
partner is a nonprofit. However, this makes it inconsistent with Just Cause. Currently, all the
definitions and exemptions track Just Cause, and it creates some headaches if we change that.
We're not concerned with headaches, we are concerned with being able to protect tenants. The non
profit exemption language was to clarify the language. The Just Cause ordinance has some
challenges and this is a new policy that we can do differently and should usher in a new era of
tenants rights, where tenant protections are not bound by the old rules.
3. With regard to adding a specific date for implementing administrative remedies, we
potentially create risks if we activate administrative remedies without funding and we cant put
deadlines for such activation until funding is in place. Well be adding a provision that requires
the Administration to do a fee analysis. More on this later.
This is a major flag, we're not trying to pass something that won't be implemented?
What's the plan to get it implemented? What options do we have? Can we put placeholder
language in there to make it effective after the next budget is set next summer?
Can you clarify the risks? The concern with putting the language in there? Can we see a final
assessment of what it would take for staff to do that? Do we need to pressure the mayor to make
that happen?
We already met with Michelle and Connie about it (in May), so if we need to follow up with them,
we can.
Can you say more about what needs to happen to make this something that will actually protect
tenants?
4. Regarding adding sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination, Dan and I had had
the same thought in the spring, however, we cannot add this to the TPO because of state law.
Can you say more about the state law? That seems contradictory to other state law, so it would be
helpful to be clear on that.
5. Dan had a similar idea of making fines start at $1,000 and then go up, but the Charter
already limits fines to a maximum of $1,000, so it doesnt make sense. The legislation already
makes the prohibited conduct a separate violation for each day it occurs (so, if somebody does
something that lasts a week, thats 7 violations).
see below for our response to this
6. Regarding making threats of physical harm a criminal act, such conduct is already a crime
under 1 or more various state laws (assault, if the threat is imminent; I believe there is also a
criminal threat prohibition in the Penal Code).
Questions:
1. The comments in your Track Changes version asks about adding additional penalties and fees
in the civil remedies section. However, nothing specific is suggested. Did you have something
specific in mind?
Yes that they start at $1000 and go up from there. Not really a deterrent to big landlords.
2. In your email below, I believe your first question appears to ask if we can make the TPO
provisions required for newly constructed affordable housing done per city contract. The draft
TPO already applies to all new construction, whether done per city contract or not (with the
exception of buildings with three or less units where one is owner-occupied, to accord with Just
Cause). Does that address what you were asking about with that first question in your email?
All of our comments have been about making this as broad as possible, so we're not interested in
having the same exemptions as EE. This should protect people regardless of the unit size and
whether or not the owner lives there. More and more landlords are starting to use owner move ins
to get people out, which means that they are effectively getting rid of the protections that tenants
would have.
Happy to discuss in greater detail over the phone.
Oliver
From: Robbie Clark [mailto:robbie@cjjc.org]

Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:30 PM
To: Luby, Oliver
Subject: Updated policy language?

Hey Oliver, I'm checking in to see if there's any updated policy language for the tenant protection
ordinance. Let's talk soon,
RC
-Robbie Clark

East Oakland Office: 9124 International Blvd, Oakland, California 94603
San Francisco Office: 2301 Mission Street, Suite 201, San Francisco, California 94103
Phone: 510 763 5877 x 404 | fax: 510 763 5824

www.cjjc.org
delivering tothe addressee, be advised that you have received this e-mail in errorand that any use of it is strictly prohibited.
-Robbie Clark
East Oakland Office: 9124 International Blvd, Oakland, California 94603

San Francisco Office: 2301 Mission Street, Suite 201, San Francisco, California 94103
Phone: 510 763 5877 x 404 | fax: 510 763 5824

www.cjjc.org
delivering tothe addressee, be advised that you have received this e-mail in errorand that any use of it is strictly prohibited.
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
jamesevann@aol.com
At Large; Kalb, Dan; Kernighan, Pat; McElhaney, Lynette; Schaaf, Libby; Gallo, Noel; Brooks, Desley; Reid, Larry
Quan, Jean; Gardner, Henry; City Administrator"s Office
Tenant Protection Ordinance (CC Agenda Item #13) -- Should NOT Be Amended
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:20:01 AM
TO: Councilmembers
The presently proposed amendments to the draft Tenant Protection Ordinance should not be adopted.
State Law prohibitsharassmentand retaliation applicable to all housing, without exemption, and provides
civil remedies for violations. The amendment to exempt "new construction" from harassment and
retaliatory actions (proposed by Greg McConnell) is contrary to State Law, and puts the city at risk of
legal challenge.
Additionally, why should it even be suggested that owners of new construction be made free to harass
andretaliateagainst tenants with impunity ! By what rationale does that make sense ?
At present, Oakland is losing families (23% of African American households have been pushed out of
Oakland in the last 10 years). No doubt, non-English speaking households and undocumented families
(who are in the shadows because they fear reporting to police) are being affected at an even greater
rate).
The TPO was developed to give those targeted residents a means by which they might seek some
semblance of justice -- without exposing themselves to deportation.
Please do the right thing. Adopt the TPO -- as originally drafted -- without any amendments.
Respectfully,
James E Vann
Co-founder, Oakland Tenants Union
510-763-0142
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Menna Tesfatsion
Kernighan, Pat; Farmer, Casey; Schaaf, Libby; Reid, Larry
Kalb, Dan; jon@laphamcompany.com
Tenant Protection Ordinance/Concerns and Suggestions of The Lapham Company
Monday, October 13, 2014 5:47:30 PM
image.pdf
Honorable Members of Oaklands City Council CEDA Committee,
Attached please find our letter to you outlining our concerns and suggestions regarding the
proposed TPO. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.
Best regards,
Menna
Menna Tesfatsion
Vice President
The Lapham Company, Inc.
4844 Telegraph Ave. | Oakland, CA 94609
Phone: 510.594.7600 Ext. 109 | Fax: 510.594.7611
menna@laphamcompany.com | www.laphamcompany.com
***********************************************************************
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the
confidential information it may contain. Email messages from The Lapham Company presumptively contain
information that is confidential. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an
intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back. The Lapham Company
is a corporation in the United States under the laws of the State of California, which laws limit the personal liability
of its shareholders.
***********************************************************************
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Chris Moore
Kalb, Dan
Vote NO on the TPO
Councemember Kalb,
Please vote NO on the TPO.
Tenants being harassed? Not at my buildings - why put additional regulation on me? Rents have gone up,
yes, but that's no reason to put in new laws that ARE ALREADY on the Books.
Please consider facts - there are very few cases and they seem unsupported to me - how can you enact
a new law based on this?
The protection is very one sided. What about the tenants that make it misrable for all the other tenants?
You want to make it even more difficult to deal with those problems? Tenants and Landlords just want to
be happy. The laws you are considering make it difficult to keep a happy environment for everyone
involved, just to support a very few undocumented cases.
If it's about reducing abuses - it should cover every landlord (otherwise, you'll continue to hear problems
from the ones not covered).
Vote NO on the TPO
Sincerely,
Chris Moore

Kalb Response PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kalb Response PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From:

Residents in the public housing program already receive a number of special

Section 8.22.630 B1 of the Tenant Protection Ordinance

(This language is located at the top of page 8 on the attachment)

UNITY IS POWER * LA UNION HACE LA FUERZA

Rationale for why CJJC opposes the new construction exemption:

Regarding tenant harassment, Oakland renters have protection throughstate laws,

Nonprofits should not be exempt if engaging in tenant harassment activity.

October 16th, 2014

- Place Matters and Asthma Start

UNITY IS POWER * LA UNION HACE LA FUERZA

Honorable members of theOakland City Council:

Thank you for your consideration.

Greetings Councilmen Kalb (and Oliver)

UNITY IS POWER * LA UNION HACE LA FUERZA

A rental unit in a residential property that is divided into a maximum

Offer payments to a Tenant to vacate more than once in six (6)

] 8.22.550 General Remedies.

CED Committee Members,

The Honorable Members of the CED Committee

Exhibit A Revised Sept. 25, 2014

Findings and Purpose

Formatted: Font color: Light Blue

Councilmember Dan Kalb - Tenant Protection Ordinance - 2

Interrupting, terminating, failing to provide or threatening to interrupt,

Councilmember Dan Kalb - Tenant Protection Ordinance - 3

Attempting to coerce a tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to

Councilmember Dan Kalb - Tenant Protection Ordinance - 4

Applicability and Exemptions

Comment [GM1]: Units not subject to the Rent

Councilmember Dan Kalb - Tenant Protection Ordinance - 5

Councilmember Dan Kalb - Tenant Protection Ordinance - 6

Councilmember Dan Kalb - Tenant Protection Ordinance - 7

Councilmember Dan Kalb - Tenant Protection Ordinance - 8

General Civil Remedies.

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Councilmember Dan Kalb - Tenant Protection Ordinance - 9

proceeding, seek an award of attorney's fees. If the City seeks an award of

Dear Council Members,

I am writing to ask you to opposed the proposed Tenant Protection

Oakland is not San Francisco.

Dear Mr. Kalb,

materials with potentially harmful health impacts;

Thanks and best regards,

To sign up for my District One Community Newsletter, please click here.

From: wayne rowland [mailto:wayne.rowland@yahoo.com]

Subject: Proposed tenant proptection ordinance

Dear Mr. Kalb and Mr. Luby,

Visit us at www.EBHO.org and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

From: Jeffrey Levin [mailto:jeff@ebho.org]

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 5:03 PM

Visit us at www.EBHO.org and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

From: Jeffrey Levin [mailto:jeff@ebho.org]

8.22.630 Applicability and Exemptions

Please call me to discuss this further.

538 9th Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607

Visit us at www.EBHO.org and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss.

Click this link to subscribe to Council Member Kalb's newsletter.

In response to your three questions of concern:

3. As I previously mentioned, we cannot mandate staff oversight action without adequate

In response to your further comments added to my email:

*Findings & Purpose: