A Housing Solution Success Story for San Francisco Tenants

Tenants in North Berkeley who are fighting an Ellis Act eviction (see blog post below) are hoping that the Small Sites program and the Bay Area Community Land Trust will purchase their building and guarantee them affordable housing for 99 years.

Tenants in San Francisco partnered with MEDA (Community Real Estate for the Mission Economic Development Agency). MEDA connected these tenants to the Small Sites Program which used public money to help nonprofits like MEDA buy buildings off the private market so tenants can stay.

"MEDA owns the largest number of buildings associated with the Small Sites Program. San Francisco provided $75 million to help MEDA purchase 26 buildings and help more than 400 tenants keep their affordable housing. All told, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development helped nonprofits buy 35 buildings and keep more than 500 residents in place."

"In June [2019, San Francisco] enacted the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, or COPA, that law now ensures nonprofits get a five day heads up to purchase eligible properties on the market."

Berkeley is considering a similar program called TOPA or Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act which paves the way for tenants to have a first right of refusal to purchase the building in which they live before other offers are considered.

Read all about the tenant and Small Sites success story in San Francisco via the following link from CBS News.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/12/11/a-housing-solution-success-story-nonprofits-buy-buildings-to-prevent-displacement/

MEDA advises tenants to be on the lookout for signs that the building may be sold. For example, the Owner may suddenly decide to paint the building exterior after 30-years or make other major capital improvements. Building improvements can be a tell-tale sign that the Owner is prepping the building for an appraisal and a subsequent sale.

Ellis on My Mind

Berkeley tenants are not taking Ellis Act eviction notices lightly. For more about their story, see link below:

https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/12/10/theyve-been-evicted-from-a-north-berkeley-building-now-they-want-to-buy-it-with-help-from-a-land-trust

AN ELLIS STORY. . .

This is a story, a true story, about a property owner, a building, and tenants in Berkeley;

about tenants who lost their homes; and

about Owners who undoubtedly profited on a real estate investment; and

about a situation that is often played out in the Bay Area, in Los Angeles, and other California cities concerning the Ellis Act, a state law passed in 1985. 

Now, here's the story:

In 1972, a partnership was formed between several individuals, a company (Royston Herts), and an LLC (Channing Prop.) The partnership was recorded with the Alameda County Recorders Office under Instrument Number 72116117 and the name Channing Properties. Between 1972 and 1981, the partnership was modified several times and the modified partnership recorded with the recorder’s office.

According to Property Shark, on December 4, 1998, the property at 2601 Channing Way, Berkeley, California, parcel number 055-187201200, was deeded to Channing Properties. 2601 Channing Way is a 33-unit building. The building was covered by rent control.

It is believed that sometime between 1998 and 1989, Channing Properties served all tenants with an Ellis eviction notice.

On June 28, 1989, Channing Properties “filed a complaint for declaratory relief concerning the validity of the City of Berkeley’s laws restricting removal of housing from the rental market.” See Channing Properties v. City of Berkeley, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 32, 11 Cal.App.4th 88 (Cal. App., 1992). Channing Properties was contesting the 6-month eviction notice period required by the City on the Ellised tenants and the City mandated $4,500 per unit relocation fee.

On November 9, 1989, the complaint was amended to add “2601 Channing Way Tenants Union” as a real party in interest.

On April 9, 1990, 2601 Channing Way Tenants Union “filed a cross-complaint for injunctive relief against Channing Properties and its general partner.”

On March 7, 1991, the City moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the municipal code challenged was not preempted by the Ellis Act. (The Ellis Act is state law is found under Cal. Gov. Code sections 7060-7060.7.) The motion was granted on April 17, 1991.

On May 14, 1991, Channing Properties appealed the judgment which was decided in favor of the City. The appellate court overruled the trial court and instead held in favor of the Owner that 1) a six-month notice period conflicts with the notice requirements of the Ellis Act and was invalid, and 2) that Berkeley’s relocation assistance program, if not limited to lower income households, also violated the Ellis Act.

Since the Channing case, Berkeley’s municipal laws have changed and currently require 1) a 120-day notice for all tenants with some exceptions such as senior citizens and/or disabled tenants who receive a 365-day notice, and 2) Berkeley awards a base relocation fee of $15,585 for most tenants plus an additional $5,195 for low income, disabled, elderly citizens, or households with minor children whose tenancies began prior to January 1, 1999. See: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Home/Ellis__Explanation_of_Required_Conditions_and_Owner_Obligations.aspx

What happened to the tenants? What happened to the tenants is probably documented in the Berkeley Rent Stabilization files; they relinquished their tenancy rights either through voluntary relocation, a tenancy buyout, a settlement in lieu of eviction, or an actual eviction.

Today, the municipal code, is considerably different than it was in 1989. Today Berkeley Municipal Code states: 

• “Once a Notice of Intent to Withdraw Accommodations has been filed with the Rent Board, no vacancy rent increase may be taken on the affected rent controlled units during the five year period following the date the notice is filed or the actual date of withdrawal, whichever is later. This prohibition applies even if the Notice of Intent is subsequently rescinded or the withdrawal of the units from the market is never completed. Thus, once a Notice of Intent to Withdraw is filed, the rent on the units covered by the notice may be increased only as authorized by the Rent Board, regardless of how many vacancies occur during the next five years. (BMC §13.77.040.A.)”

And the following:

• “You must offer to those [Ellised] tenants who expressed an interest, the opportunity to re-establish their tenancy in your property if you elect to re-rent the property within ten years of the date you withdrew the units from the rental housing market. (BMC § 13.77.040.)”

• “You must notify the City of Berkeley of your intent to re-rent your property.”

Berkeley also limits condominium conversions of Ellised buildings as follows:

• “Berkeley Municipal Code section 21.28.050.A specifically prohibits the conversion to condominium of dwelling units for the 10-year period immediately following the date of filing of a notice of intent to withdraw accommodations from the rental housing business under the Ellis Act. (Note: There is also a 10-year prohibition on condominium conversion from the date of an owner or relative move-in eviction. (BMC § 21.28.060.C.1; B.M.C. 21.28.090 B.1.(a))”

So, what happened to the 33-unit building at 2601 Channing Way? 

Deeds to the property were transferred to different owners[1] until a transfer in 2010 to Royston Apartments, LP The property currently appears to be offered as apartments for rent. See: https://www.apartments.com/royston-apartments-berkeley-ca/0hjy2j2/

Did the owner withdraw housing from the rental market? Yes.

But, it appears that they waited the requisite time to re-rent the apartment units at market rate.

Did the owner also sell some of the units as TIC’s? Only a lot of “digging” will tell.

What’s the real purpose of the Ellis Act? You tell me.

It's Noteworthy:

to note that on June 30, 1993, the City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board sued Channing Properties et al in the Superior Court of Alameda County, Case No. C-718880. The case was settled on December 7, 1995 and dismissed on July 8, 1996. The Register of Actions shows a highly litigated record. Another case brought by the City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization board against Panoramic Way Associates was consolidated with the former case (C-718882-8).

See AntiEviction Mapping Project

See: https://www.kcet.org/shows/city-rising/mapping-ellis-act-evictions-throughout-california

---

Is Your Building being TIC'ed?

There appears to be a growing trend for land owners to get out of the rental business by using the Ellis Act to evict sitting tenants and then to re-sell the units under a Tenancies In Common Agreement (TIC). At least, this trend appears to be growing in Los Angeles as reported by "Curbed Los Angeles." 

But, exactly what is a TIC? A good explanation of the ownership model is explained in this article, "TIC's could change LA's housing market."

According to the article linked here, Mitch O'Farrell, Los Angeles City Council-member, is "trying to get a handle on just how many rent-controlled tenants are being pushed out to make way for" TIC's. "O'Farrell recently introduced a motion calling on the city planning department to explore creating a tracking system for the number of rent-controlled apartments that have been flipped into TICs." 

A good primer on what a TIC is, how to create one, how to secure a mortgage, and state requirements has been developed by Goldstein & Gellerman. Click here to review.

The California Department of Real Estate provides TIC guidelines here.

The San Francisco Tenants Union advises tenants on how to fight the development and sale of a TIC here: https://www.sftu.org/newtic/ 

Last, Berkeley's municipal code Chapter 21.28, "Condominiums and Other Common Interest Subdivisions" states under B.M.C. 21.28.020A(4):

"The City of Berkeley discourages tenancies in common (TICs) as a less desirable form of home ownership because this form of ownership may be less separable while carrying greater financial and legal risks, despite initial costs appearing more affordable than condominiums, community apartments and stock cooperatives."

If your building is being Ellised, perhaps it's in the plans to sell the units under a TIC relationship. This is definitely worth investigating.

Housing is a Human Right - Join Berkeley Tenants at a Rally on 11/22/2019

Join tenants or express your support by clicking on the Facebook invitation below.


https://www.facebook.com/BerkeleyTenants/photos/gm.1364596140392508/2367152620056980/?type=3&theater

State Closes Loopholes in Ellis Act Eviction Law

An excerpt from a public announcement made by State Assembly Member Richard Bloom is published below: For the full press release, click here.

"The Ellis Act gives rental property owners in rent control jurisdictions the right to exit the rental housing market but also places reasonable conditions and restrictions on landlords in order to avoid unscrupulous use of the bill simply to evict tenants and re-rent one or more units for more money. These conditions include a requirement to notify tenants 120 days prior to withdrawing a unit (or 1 year for tenants who are disabled or over the age of 62. The Act also restricts when owners can re-enter the market, what price they can re-rent units at when they re-enter, and requires that all units in a building be removed simultaneously. As the housing crisis has driven up the market rate for rental units, some landlords have increasingly subverted the intent of the Ellis Act by withdrawing individual units from the rental market, then returning them in a piecemeal manner to avoid the Ellis Act’s restrictions and to evade rent control. In the Los Angeles area alone, over 20,000 rent-stabilized units have been removed from the rental market since 2001, with tens of thousands of tenants evicted in the process.

AB 1399 prohibits this conduct by establishing that there can only be one withdrawal date for a property and by clarifying that the date on which the accommodations are deemed to have been withdrawn from the rental market is the date on which the final tenancy among all tenants are terminated. AB 1399’s reforms mandate that wrongfully evicted tenants be offered the opportunity to re-rent their former unit."

For further details about the changes to the law, please click here.

Looming Deadline for Tenants in Mountain View

Tenants are relocating or have relocated from affordable housing that is rent-controlled in Mountain View to make way for their apartment's conversion to private town homes that will sell for upwards of $1 Million.

Read more about it on KRON 4's website, click here.

California Inching Closer to Capping Rents in Non-Rent Controlled Jurisdictions

Few protections are afforded renters in non-rent controlled jurisdictions in California. Under current state law, a landlord may raise the rent of a month-to-month tenant with 30-days notice if the rent increase is less than or equal to 10% or by 60-days if the rent increase is greater than 10%.

But, there's a new initiative before the state Senate and that is Assembly Bill 1482 which is sponsored by Assembly member David Chiu and backed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

AB 1482, as it is currently worded, would:

Prohibit landlords from raising rent more than once annually;

Prohibit a rent increase of more than either 1) 5% plus the change in the CPI (consumer price index) or 2) 10%, whichever is lower, and extend to a significant number of rental units.

Rental housing that would be exempt from this law includes housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years, specified single-family housing, specified dormitories, deed-restricted affordable housing, and housing subject to a local ordinance that imposes a more restrictive rent increase cap than AB 1482.

In addition, the bill adds a just cause eviction requirement which affords the landlord with specified fault and no-fault evictions (such as owner move-in).

Called the "Tenant Protection Act (TPO) of 2019," the proposed law was amended in the Senate on September 5, 2019, and if it passes the Senate and is signed into law by the Governor, the TPO will remain in effect until calendar year 2030.

Making Your Voice Heard - Richmond Rent Board Solicits Your Opinion about Owner Move-In Evictions

On June 22, 2019, the Richmond Rent Board held a tenant and a separate landlord workshop concerning Owner Move-In evictions. The board is considering revisions to the rent board Regulations which "clarify the municipal ordinance."

Having some familiarity with the rent board's OMI requirements, there is no requirement for the landlord to prove property ownership and/or percent ownership and, if the landlord purports to be a protected landlord (e.g. disabled and/or a senior), there is no proof required of the landlord to prove disability and/or age. However, if the tenant is protected, the tenant must provide written evidence of disability and/or age. I consider this a discriminatory and unfair practice. I hope that the rent board will re-balance this landlord-tenant equation.

The Board is requesting community feedback on topics such as:

• Methods of Tracking Compliance with Owner Move-In Requirements;
• Tenant First Right of Refusal Requirement;
• Rent Increases for Units Placed Back on the Rental Market; and
• Ownership Requirements.

To make your voice heard, call or email the Rent Program at (510) 234-RENT (7368) or rent@ci.richmond.ca.us.

You can also respond to the City survey via the links below (English, Spanish):

Access the English Survey

Access the Spanish Survey

Oakland City Council Votes to Include Owner-Occupied Duplexes and Triplexes under Rent Control and Tenant Protection Ordinance

On June 4, 2019, the Oakland City Council voted to revise the rent control ordinance to cover owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes and to allow these owners to "petition for a transitional rent increase equivalent to the Consumer Price Index increase of the last three years as permitted under the city’s rent control ordinance." See: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/05/23/oakland-scraps-rent-control-exemption-for-owner-occupied-duplexes/

For exact revisions to the municipal code, see file entitled "13542 CMS." Click here.

Is It Right to Rescue?

Recently, there was a post on a neighborhood social media website about a dog who had been left for 20 minutes in a car on a hot Oakland day. The dog was crying and a passerby didn't know what to do. So, she asked for help on social media and there were a flurry of replies. The woman called the police (who did not arrive) and the owner showed up. The dog was still alive but, given the extreme heat inside the car, likely heat damaged and dehydrated.

It is a crime to leave an animal in an unattended vehicle and there are penalties attached.

Steps to follow:

1) Call 911, animal control, police, or the fire department;

2) Break into the car; and

3) Stay with the animal until the authorities arrive.

Since the law is a little more detailed than what's written above, read about the Good Samaritan law via the following link:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB797

Also see the effect that outside (and inside vehicle) temperatures can have on your pet.

https://www.avma.org/public/PetCare/Pages/pets-in-vehicles.aspx

Landlords Should Proceed with Caution in State-Controlled Jurisdictions Concerning Rent Hikes

Thinking about enticing your tenant to leave through an over 10% rent increase? You may be wise to read AB-1482, a bill to cap rent increases throughout the state in non-rent controlled municipalities. While the bill has been approved by the State Assembly, it is now in the Senate's hands. For more about the legislation, click here.

For an article discussing AB-1482, see link below:

https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/30/18645819/ab-1482-rent-bill-approved-california-assembly
 

Concord in Talks Concerning Rent Control

For more about this initiative, click here.

Just Cause Eviction Protection Expanded to El Cerrito with Limitations

Following is an excerpt from the City website:

"On May 21, 2019, the City Council adopted the Just Cause for Eviction and Prohibition on Harassment of Tenants Ordinance, El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 10.300 (Ordinance No. 2019-04), which was to become effective June 20, 2019. As passed, the ordinance would limit the bases for termination of residential tenancies. It would only apply to multi-family properties with five or more units that received a Certificate of Occupancy issued before January 1, 2015."

"However, on June 10, 2019, a referendum petition was filed with the City Clerk related to the Ordinance. This process, allowed by California Elections Code, suspends implementation of the ordinance and may require the City Council to either repeal the ordinance or call an election to allow voters to decide. Depending upon the timing of the Contra Costa County Elections Office whether the petition has a sufficient number of valid voter signatures, Council will meet in July or August to take any further action that might be required."

Fore more information, see website for the El Cerrito Progressives.

Tenants Right to Counsel in San Francisco

"San Francisco and New York are the first two jurisdictions to recognize the necessity of having a lawyer to protect housing rights."

Proposition F, Tenants' Right to Counsel in San Francisco, was approved by voters in June 2018 but the proposition left the right to implement the program up to the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development.

The Eviction Defense Collaborative is acting as the main "clearing house" for tenants facing eviction and is working with various partner organizations to ensure legal representation. Partner organizations are AIDS Legal Referral Panel, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, Bay Area Legal Aid, La Raza Centro Legal, Legal Assistance to the Elderly, Open Door Legal, Tenderloin Housing Clinic, and the Bar Association of San Francisco and its affiliated-but-separate nonprofit, Justice & Diversity Center.

For more about this new initiative in San Francisco, see the links below:

http://www.sfweekly.com/news/tenant-right-to-counsel-moves-forward/

https://sfpublicpress.org/news/2018-04/proposition-f-free-legal-aid-for-tenants-facing-eviction

http://www.sfbar.org/forms/sfam/q32018/prop-f-right-to-housing-counsel-SFAM-Q318.pdf

For Guardians of Cats and Dogs - Low Cost Vaccinations

Although their primary mission used to be solely related to feral cats, this non-profit organization has expanded their services to domestic cats and dogs.

Fix our Ferals is offering a low-cost vaccination clinic on:

Sunday, June 30, 1-4 pm at 12226 San Pablo Avenue, Richmond, California

FVRCP, DHPP, Rabies vaccines, Microchip. Each $20. NO EXAM FEE

Cats must be in carriers. Dogs must be on leash.

No appointments necessary. First come, first served.

OUR MISSION

The Fix Our Ferals mission is to humanely end overpopulation of cats and dogs in San Francisco’s East Bay.

We make spay/neuter accessible and affordable for cats and dogs cared for by the members of the public and rescue organizations.

We promote and actively support Trap-Neuter-Return of community cats.

We support retaining animals in their homes and keeping them out of shelters by helping their guardians with other than spay/neuter surgeries.

Now this is an organization that I can get behind!

Registration Opens for Landlord Registry - Marin County

Below is a news release from Marin County which is reproduced in full.

Just cause for eviction ordinance sets new requirement, helps data collection

San Rafael, CA – In a quest for more data about the Marin County housing market, the County of Marin has created an online registry for landlords to share rental data. Affected landlords are required to register their rental units by June 1, 2019, and County staff is hosting three events in late May to help with registration.

In December 2018, the Marin County Board of Supervisors approved a pilot ordinance requiring landlords to provide legal reason – a just cause – before evicting a renter within the unincorporated areas of Marin. The ordinance, which went into effect January 2019, applies to properties with three or more rental units and does not limit allowable rent increases.

“In response to calls from the public and the Board for more accurate and timelier data on the local housing market, a data collection provision was part of the ordinance,” said Leelee Thomas, Planning Manager for the Marin County Community Development Agency. “We rely on private property owners for rental housing stock, but there’s been no mechanism for them to share rental data with us. We have a strong need for more trusted statistics in order to recognize trends.”

When a landlord registers, the County will be able to track the costs of rent, changes in occupancy, and evictions, among other categories. Previously the only data available to the County was year-old statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau or numbers from for-profit real estate data analytics companies that typically only survey properties with more than 50 units. Those properties account for less than seven percent of housing units in the unincorporated county, and landlord representatives regularly assert that larger “corporate” landlords behave differently than housing providers with fewer units.

Over the past several years, the Board of Supervisors has taken actions to alleviate pressure in the county’s housing market, beset by high rents and marked by displacement and low vacancy rates.

“All of us agree we need a lot more housing in this county, but we are taking small steps forward,” said Board President Kate Sears during the December 2018 session in which the just cause ordinance was unanimously approved. “Everything matters. I think this is a good step, and hopefully it will make a difference and we will get good data, and there will be a greater feeling of dignity for our renters.”

The just cause ordinance was recommended by two independent groups that studied fair housing practices and existing barriers to fair housing choice for more than a year in the local market. Just cause joins a larger series of affordable housing and tenant protection measures the Board has supported since 2015 as it has made equity one of its top priorities. 

County housing measures already approved and in place include source of income protection for tenants with housing vouchers, mandatory mediation for rent increases above 5 percent, financial incentives to encourage landlords to rent to those who need shelter the most, and expanded a fee waiver program to encourage the creation of both accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).

Thomas said the intent of the just cause ordinance is to relieve displacement pressures and support stability for renter households while retaining the rights of landlords to terminate rental agreements for legitimate reasons. The justifiable causes for eviction described in the ordinance include:

• failure to pay rent;
• a breach of the rental contract;
• the tenant using the unit for illegal activities;
• the landlord permanently removing the unit from the rental market; and
• the landlord moving into the unit.

Later in May, CDA is teaming with the Marin County Free Library to host a registration drive for landlords. Staff from the CDA Housing and Federal Grants Division, CDA Environmental Health Division, and the Department of Finance will be on hand to assist landlords with the registration process. Landlords must have a business license and be registered for environmental health checks.

The events are:

Tuesday, May 21Fairfax Library, 2097 Sir Francis Drake Blvd. 

5-8 p.m.

Wednesday, May 29
Novato Library, 1720 Novato Blvd.
5-8 p.m.

Thursday, May 30
Corte Madera Library, 707 Meadowsweet Dr.
5-8 p.m.

Anyone may subscribe to receive e-mailed notifications about housing-related issues.

Oakland Fails to Police Landlords

Click here to review interesting article concerning an NBC investigation of some fraudulent actions of Oakland landlords who "routinely ignore Oakland eviction laws."

No Eviction Without Representation - San Francisco Implements its Guarantee

In June 2018, San Francisco voters passed Proposition F, which has become known as "No Eviction Without Representation." Since its passage, Major London Breed has allocated $5.8 million in funds to several housing rights organizations including the Eviction Defense Collaborative, Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Bay Area Legal Aid, La Raza Centro Legal, and other non-profit organizations to help support the initiative and ensure that any tenant being evicted - regardless of age, medical status, or income - is represented in an unlawful detainer proceeding. San Francisco is the second city in the U.S., after New York City, to guarantee a lawyer for an evicted tenant. For more about this program, click here.

Berkeley Offers Stronger Protection Against Tenant Harassment than Richmond but Municipal Laws are Continually Evolving

In March 2017, the City of Berkeley adopted their Tenant Protection Ordinance. Much of the wording appears to be patterned after the San Francisco and Oakland harassment or protection ordinances. However, Berkeley places additional emphasis on landlord reports to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and adds a section on a landlord's exploitation on a tenant's disability as well as wording relating to human trafficking.

In Berkeley, for units covered by rent control and/or just cause eviction ordinance, landlords are required to issue a notice at the beginning of tenancy that began after April 2017 and this notice must be included with any eviction notice.

Richmond residents are newer to rent control. Rent control was enacted on December 30, 2016. A small section of the municipal code speaks to homeowner and tenant protection but the code is significantly "thin" compared to municipalities with more established rent control ordinances. To learn more about Richmond's rent control program, the City offers workshops for landlords and for tenants and they make their presentations available via the following link.

Below is a comparison of the two ordinances.

BERKELEY	RICHMOND
B.M.C.  Sec. 13.79.060 Tenant Protections	R.M.C. sections 11.100.040 and 11.100.050 Tenant and Homeowner Protections
No Landlord of any Rental Unit located in the City of Berkeley, shall do any of the following in BAD FAITH	No landlord shall take action to terminate any tenancy, including but limited to making a demand for possession of a rental unit, threatening to terminate a tenancy verbally or in writing, serving any notice to quit or other eviction notice, or bringing any action to recover possession or be granted recovery of possession of a rental unit unless [there is a just cause for eviction.] R.M.C. 11.100.050
Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate rental housing through fraud, intimidation, or coercion or through unauthorized physical acts	Homeowner Protections: Home-ownership is of great importance to the residents of the City of Richmond. The following protections for homeowners shall be part of this ordinance: 1) temporary rentals allowed; 2) small, second units unregulated. A unit that is lawful and in compliance with the Small Second Unit Ordinance of the R.M.C. sec. 15.04.810 will be exempt from this Chapter if the owner is the Primary Resident of the first, larger single-family home. 3) Renting of a room unregulated. . .where the tenant shares a bathroom or kitchen with the homeowner shall be exempt from this Chapter if the home is the primary residence of the homeowner. R.M.C. sec. 11.100.040
Threaten by use of fraud, intimidation, or coercion to terminate a tenancy, to recover possession of a Rental Unit, or to evict a Tenant from a Rental Unit. Such threats shall include threatening to report any Tenant, occupant, or guest of any Tenant or occupant, to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Reduce, interrupt, or withhold any services or amenities provided to the Tenant pursuant to rental agreement, custom, or law. Such services include, but are not limited to, provision of the quiet use and enjoyment of the Rental Unit.
Interfere with a tenant’s right to privacy. Unlawful interference with a Tenant’s right to privacy shall include, but is not limited to, requesting information regarding citizenship or residency status or social security number of any Tenant or member of the Tenant’s family or household, occupant, or guest of any Tenant, except for the purpose of obtaining information for the qualifications for a tenancy prior to the inception of tenancy. . .
Abuse the owner’s right of access into a rental housing unit as established and limited by Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1954
Abuse, exploit, discriminate, or take advantage of, any actual or perceived disability, trait or characteristic of any Tenant, including, but not limited to, the Tenant’s participation in any section 8, housing choice voucher, or other subsidized housing program.
Fail to perform repairs or threaten to do so or fail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance
Threaten to not perform repairs and maintenance required by contract, custom, or law, or threaten to do so
Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s rent, or to promptly deposit a Tenant’s rent payment, or to promptly provide a receipt to a tenant upon request, except as such refusal may be permitted by state law after a notice to quit has been served and the time period for performance pursuant to the notice has expired.
Offer payments to a tenant to vacate without providing notice to the Tenant of his or her rights under this Chapter, using the from prescribe by City staff, however, this shall not prohibit offers made in pending unlawful detainer actions. [See B.M.C. 13.79.050 Tenant Buyout Ordinance.]
Engage any Tenant in any form of human trafficking as defined by California Penal Code section 236.1, as a condition of that Tenant’s continued occupancy of a Rental Unit.

Oakland Landlords who live in their duplexes and triplexes can’t raise the rent higher than 3.4 percent for the next six months

See article published by the East Bay News on Feb. 15, 2019.

For a copy of the City Council report related to these matters, access "View Report" and the "Supplemental Report," click here and download the relevant reports.

Strong Measures Against Tenant Harassment in San Francisco and Oakland

In November 2008, San Francisco voters approved Proposition M to amend the City's Rent Ordinance (S.F. Admin. Code, sec. 37.1 et seq.) The proposition modified the definition of housing services to include the "quiet enjoyment of the premises, without harassment by the landlord as provided in Section 10B." Section 37.10B was expanded to include 15 prohibited acts of harassment and to allow tenants to file a petition with the Rent Board for any conduct violating this Section and request a rent reduction.

Larson et al challenged these modifications in a civil law suit alleging that the expanded definition of a decrease in housing services violated the judicial powers clause of the Cal. Const. art. VI, sec. 1) and infringed on free speech rights, and that the additional mandatory, tenant-only cost and attorney fees provision violated equal protection rights.

The court struck the words "with ulterior motive or without honest intent" in the beginning phrase of the ordinance, upheld the decrease in housing services definition, and invalidated the cost and attorney fee provision. The plaintiff appealed the adverse part of the ruling. Pursuant to the appeal, the court ruled that if harassment was found under 37.01B(a)(4) through (15), that the Rent Board could not order rent reductions since, to do so, would impinge on the judicial power of the courts and allow the Rent Board to award damages for emotional distress. The court also struck 37.10B(a)(7) and 37.10B(c)(6).

In November 2014, Oakland's City Council passed a Tenant Protection Ordinance, in part, due to the "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." The Rent Board requires landlords to issue a RAP (rental assistance program) notice to new tenants of rent-controlled residences and a TPO (tenant protection ordinance) notice is also supposed to be posted in the common area of residential rental units.

In both jurisdictions, should a tenant allege harassment by the landlord, their remedy is in civil court. The rent boards do not have the authority to decide a harassment issue but they can -- and do - define tenant harassment through their municipal code. Below is a cross-comparison of the Oakland and San Francisco tenant harassment ordinances. And, while certain sections were struck down by the courts in San Francisco, Oakland's similar wording has not yet faced a challenge, at least to this writer's knowledge.

OAKLAND	SAN FRANCISCO
TPO applies to all rental units where there is a lease agreement except nonprofit owned rental housing, rental units in a hospital, skilled nursing facility, or health facility, rental unit in a residential property that is a triplex and where one of the units is occupied by the owner, a rental unit in a newly constructed building
No owner or owner’s agent, contractor, subcontractor, or employee shall do any of the following in BAD FAITH	No landlord, and no agent, contractor, subcontractor, or employee of the landlord shall do any of the following in BAD FAITH with ulterior motive or without honest intent
Fail to perform repairs or threaten to do so	Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract and/or law
Fail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance	Fail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance
Abuse the owner’s right of access into a rental housing unit	Abuse the owner’s right of access into a rental housing unit
Remove tenant’s personal property, furnishings, or other items without the prior written consent of the tenant unless when done pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1980 et seq.
Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate rental housing through fraud, intimidation, or coercion which includes threatening to report a tenant to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement	Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate rental housing through fraud, intimidation, or coercion
Offer payments to a tenant to vacate more than once in six (6) months after tenant has notified the owner in writing about their desire not to receive further offers of payment to vacate	Offer payments to a tenant to vacate after tenant has notified the owner in writing that they no longer wish to receive offers of payments to vacate. [This clause was stricken pursuant to Larson v. City and Co. of San Francisco, (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 1263.]
Attempt to coerce a tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to vacate which are accompanied by threats or intimidation	Attempt to coerce a tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to vacate which are accompanied by threats or intimidation
Threaten the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm	Threaten the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm
Substantially and directly interfere with a tenant’s right to quiet use and enjoyment of the rental unit	Interfere with a tenant’s right to quiet use and enjoyment of the rental unit pursuant to California law
Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment (with one exception)	Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment
Refuse to cash a rent check for over 30-days unless a written receipt for payment has been provided to the tenant (with an exception)	Refuse to cash a rent check for over 30-days
Interfere with a tenant’s right to privacy	Interfere with a tenant’s right to privacy
Request information that violates a tenant’s right to privacy (see exceptions)	Request information that violates a tenant’s right to privacy (see exceptions)
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, or are likely to cause, or are intended to cause a tenant to vacate the rental unit or waive any rights related to that unit	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, or are likely to cause, or are intended to cause a tenant to vacate the rental unit or waive any rights related to that unit
Remove a housing service for the purpose of causing a tenant to vacate the rental unit such as a parking space or garage	Interrupt, terminate or fail to provide housing services required by contract or law

San Francisco Looks Askance at Exhorbitant Rent Increases

Although single-family homes and condominiums built after 1979 may be exempt from rent-control (see San Francisco rent ordinance 37.2(r)(7)), they are covered by the just cause eviction ordinance (sec. 37.9) which provides several enumerated reasons to evict a tenant.

To thwart just cause and stimulate a tenant to move, landlords sometimes raised the rent to exorbitant rates, since, under state law, there is no cap on residential rental rates. But no more! Beginning February 25, 2019, an amendment to San Francisco rent ordinance sections 37.10A and 37.10B, makes this activity illegal as follows:

Sec. 37.10(A)(i): “It shall be unlawful for a landlord to endeavor to recover possession of a rental unit as defined in Sec. 37.2(r)(7) by means of a rent increase that is imposed in bad faith with an intent to defraud, intimidate, or coerce the tenant into vacating the rental unit in circumvention of Section 37.9(a), 37.9(A), 37.9(B), or 37.9(C). Evidence of bad faith may include but is not limited to the following:

1) The rent increase was substantially in excess of market rates for comparable units;

2) The rent increase was within six months after an attempt to recover possession of the unit; and

3) Such other factors as a court or the Rent Board may deem relevant.”

As guided by Sec. 37.10B(a)(5), “No landlord, and no agent, contractor, subcontractor or employee of the landlord, shall do any of the following in bad faith or with ulterior motive or without honest intent:"

"Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion; for example and without limitation, by endeavoring to recover possession of a rental unit as defined in Section 37.2(r)(7) by means of a rent increase that is imposed with an intent to defraud, intimidate, or coerce the tenant into vacating the rental unit in circumvention of Section 37.9(a), 27.9A, 37.9B, or 37.9C, in which case evidence of bad faith may include but is not limited to the following:

1) The rent increase was substantially in excess of market rates for comparable units;

2) The rent increase was within six months after an attempt to recover possession of the unit; and

3) Such other factors as a court or the Rent Board may deem relevant.”

Section 37.10A is entitled the “Misdemeanors, and Other Enforcement Provisions,” while Section 27.10B is called the “Tenant Harassment” ordinance.

If you rent an apartment in San Francisco that is exempt from rent control but covered by San Francisco's just cause eviction ordinance, and if you received an excessive rent increase, keep this information in mind. You may have a legal basis to contest the rent increase if the rent increase was done in bad faith.

Hayward City Council Expands Just-Cause Eviction Protections

An excerpt of the news release is quoted below. For the full press release, click here.

The unanimous 7-0 Council vote had the effect of extending to an estimated total of 22,237 units eviction protections previously applied to a more limited number of rental homes—approximately 14,900 units constructed prior to passage of the City’s 1979 Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RRSO).

Under the ordinance, landlords retain the ability to evict tenants for failure to pay rent, violation of other terms of a lease, and for other reasons provided for under law. Such other allowable reasons include:

• The tenant has substantially damaged the property and will not agree to repair or pay for repairs.

• The tenant refused to sign a new lease that is identical to the old one (when the old one expires).

• The tenant has continued to bother other tenants and neighbors after being told to stop.

• The tenant will not let the landlord into the building, even with written notice.

• The landlord wants to perform repairs to the unit to meet the City’s building standards that cannot be completed with the tenant living there. Once work is complete, the tenant must be offered the unit first.

• The landlord wants to demolish the unit.

• The landlord wants to move into the unit or wants to allow certain family members to move in. This is not allowed if there is a similar unit on the property that is vacant and available.

• The landlord wants to move into the unit and the lease allows this.

• The tenant has used or allowed the use of the unit for the manufacture, sale, distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs.

• The tenant has continued to break the rule of the property.

• The landlord fires the tenant, and housing was part of the employ’s pay.

• The tenant threatened to kill or hurt any person on the premises. A report must be filed with the Hayward Police Department.

Additionally, under state law, landlords may evict a tenant from a residence in order to sell the property or otherwise permanently get out of the business of renting the home pursuant to certain conditions.

The new just-cause eviction legislation does not apply to hotels and motels, hospitals, transitional housing, skilled nursing facilities and shared housing where the property owner lives in the unit.

Electronic Rent Payments and New Law Related to Third Party Rent Payments

Recently, I represented some tenants who received a letter from their new landlord demanding that they pay rent electronically. Aside from the fact that this was a change in the terms in their tenancy requiring 30-days advance written notice, the landlord gave them one choice -- electronic payment only. 

However, under Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1947.3, if the rent checks aren't returned for insufficient funds in which case the landlord can demand cash payments, the landlord MUST offer another form of payment other than cash or electronic payment.

This same statute has recently been amended and enacted into law as of January 1, 2019 as it concerns rent payments made by third-parties [C.C.C. sec. 1947.3(3)] as follows:

(3) Subject to the limitations below, a landlord or a landlord’s agent shall allow a tenant to pay rent through a third party.

(A) A landlord or landlord’s agent is not required to accept the rent payment tendered by a third party unless the third party has provided to the landlord or landlord’s agent a signed acknowledgment stating that they are not currently a tenant of the premises for which the rent payment is being made and that acceptance of the rent payment does not create a new tenancy with the third party.

(B) Failure by a third party to provide the signed acknowledgment to the landlord or landlord’s agent shall void the obligation of a landlord or landlord’s agent to accept a tenant’s rent tendered by a third party.

(C) The landlord or landlord’s agent may, but is not required to, provide a form acknowledgment to be used by third parties, as provided for in subparagraph (A), provided however that a landlord shall accept as sufficient for compliance with subparagraph (A) an acknowledgment in substantially the following form:

I, [insert name of third party], state as follows:

I am not currently a tenant of the premises located at [insert address of premises].

I acknowledge that acceptance of the rent payment I am offering for the premises does not create a new tenancy.

(signature of third party) _____

(date)

(D) A landlord or landlord’s agent may require a signed acknowledgment for each rent payment made by the third party. A landlord or landlord’s agent and the third party may agree that one acknowledgment shall be sufficient for when the third party makes more than one rent payment during a period of time.

One of the issues that landlords fear is that by accepting rent from a third party, such as a parent, that a tenancy is also created. If the third party stops rent payments, rent payments would probably revert to the occupant of the rental unit and, if that person cannot make rent payments, then the landlord may issue a 3-Day Notice to Cure or to Quit [e.g. to pay rent or to move-out.] The landlord’s ability to evict the occupant may also be complicated by whomever executed the lease agreement. This new law clarifies that the third-party payer is not a tenant and acceptance of their rent check does not create a tenancy.

Interestingly, the lawmakers included a parting word as follows:

"A waiver of the provisions of this section is contrary to public policy, and is void and unenforceable."

More Time to "Cure" a Three-Day Notice and to Answer an Unlawful Detainer Complaint Beginning Sept. 1, 2019

On September 1, 2019, two new laws will go into effect relating to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. sections 1161 and 1167 as follows:

1) The time to "cure" a 3-day notice will exclude Saturdays, Sundays and judicial holidays providing the tenant more time to fix the issue, and 2) the time to answer a unlawful detainer complaint will be 5-days counting from the day after the notice was personally served but these 5-days will also exclude Saturdays, Sundays, and judicial holidays. See Assembly Bill 2343 for more information, the salient part which is excerpted below.

Sec. 1161 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read:

"3. When he or she continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, after a neglect or failure to perform other conditions or covenants of the lease or agreement under which the property is held, including any covenant not to assign or sublet, than the one for the payment of rent, and three days’ notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, in writing, requiring the performance of such conditions or covenants, or the possession of the property, shall have been served upon him or her, and if there is a subtenant in actual occupation of the premises, also, upon the subtenant. Within three days, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, after the service of the notice, the tenant, or any subtenant in actual occupation of the premises, or any mortgagee of the term, or other person interested in its continuance, may perform the conditions or covenants of the lease or pay the stipulated rent, as the case may be, and thereby save the lease from forfeiture; provided, if the conditions and covenants of the lease, violated by the lessee, cannot afterward be performed, then no notice, as last prescribed herein, need be given to the lessee or his or her subtenant, demanding the performance of the violated conditions or covenants of the lease."

Section 1167 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read:
"1167. (a) The summons shall be in the form specified in Section 412.20 except that when the defendant is served, the defendant’s response shall be filed within five days, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, after the complaint is served upon him or her."

Judicial holidays are listed here and may differ from "typical" holidays celebrated by businesses in the Golden State.