November 22, 2021Oakland City Council Community and Economic Development Committee Members1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza2nd FloorOakland, CA 94612 Re:Demolition Protections - CED Agenda Item No. 21-0739Dear Honorable Oakland City Council Members:We are pleased that the City of Oakland is updating its local density bonus ordinance, However,doing so without strengthening the City’s inadequate demolition protections is likely to result inthe displacement of low-income tenants and loss of precious affordable and rent-stabilizedhousing stock in the event that existing housing is demolished.We therefore call on you to adopt robust citywide demolition protections for all projectssimultaneously with proposed updates to the city’s density bonus ordinance.In Oakland, a real estate developer can evict all tenants from a building in order to demolish thebuilding and rebuild. Oakland landlords have threatened their tenants with demolition in order tocircumvent rent control and other tenant protections. Although state law now provides somebaseline controls on demolition and requirements for replacement units to be built, it does not gofar enough to prevent loss of affordable housing capacity and ensure that displaced tenants havea meaningful right of return. As a result, until you take action, Oakland tenants and Oakland’saffordable housing stock are not adequately protected from displacement and loss.California’s Housing Crisis Act (HCA or SB 330) explicitly authorizes localities to pass strongerdemolition protections. Oakland has clear legal authority to pass an ordinance that “placesrestrictions on the demolition of residential dwelling units ... that are more protective of lowerincome households, requires the provision of a greater number of units affordable to lowerincome households, or that requires greater relocation assistance to displaced households.” 1 Oakland should work urgently to pass an ordinance with stronger demolition controls forresidential units. This ordinance should contain the following protections:
1 Gov. Code§66300(d)(3).
1 ● Ensure that all affordable units are replaced at the same or deeper level of affordabilityand that affordable housing capacity is not diminished:o Require that replacement units include at least the same square footage asdemolished units, in addition to the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms.o Require replacement units to correspond to lower AMI levels to match theneighborhood based on census data. For example, replacement units in aneighborhood with a lower median income may be required to be replaced at a30% AMI level.o Require the definition of protected units that developers must replace withaffordable housing to include units occupied by a low income household in thepast five years, where if the income of a household is not known, it shall berebuttably presumed that a lower income household occupied the unit.o Require that all tenants of replacement units shall have the same rights andprivileges of other tenants in the same building or complex with respect tocommon space amenities, entry into the building, and building services, includingaccess to laundry facilities, gardens or yards, health facilities and recreationalspace, property management and security services, repairs and maintenance,access to parking spaces, access to doors and keys, and building rules andregulations. ● Prevent landlords from demolishing units to circumvent tenant protections:o Prohibit developers from obtaining a demolition permit if there have been verifiedcases of tenant harassment or threatened or actual illegal eviction during thepreceding three years.o Require developers to provide all existing residential tenants notice of theapplication to demolish the building no later than the date it is submitted to theCity, including a statement of their rights. ● Allow all tenants to stay in their homes until construction is imminent:o Require developers who wish to demolish any residential units, not just protectedunits, to allow tenants to stay in their homes until 30 days before constructionstarts. Prevent demolitions where a developer failed to follow this requirement. ● Ensure housing stability following displacement due to demolition, regardless of the typeof rental housing involved:o Require developers to pay displaced tenants a rent differential (covering thedifference between what the tenant currently pays and market rent) for acomparable unit until permanent replacement housing is made available.o Require developers to prove payment of all required relocation expenses todisplaced tenants 2 o Require developers who wish to demolish occupied residential units to prepare arelocation plan that addresses the housing needs of all displaced tenants as acondition of project approval; the relocation plan must meet the following criteria:▪ Provide temporary comparable 2 replacement housingin Oakland, in thesame neighborhood if possible, until new units are ready for occupancy.▪ Ensure no displaced tenant is paying more in rent for a replacement unit,and that the replacement housing is otherwise affordable to displacedtenants, following the model of 25 Cal. Code of Regulations, section6008(c)(5).▪ Minimize inconvenience of the moving process for displaced tenants▪ Offer tenants the choice between temporary comparable replacementhousing until the new units are ready for occupancy (including a rentdifferential, if necessary) or temporary relocation benefits. ● Ensure that all tenants can exercise their right to return:o Require developers who wish to demolish any residential units to provide a rightof first refusal for a comparable unit in the new development▪ Displaced tenants should have the right of first refusal to rent newcomparable 3 units designated to replace the unitsthat were demolished, atthe rent that would have applied if they had remained in place, as long astheir tenancy continues.▪ Income restrictions should not apply to displaced tenants, except in caseswhere a developer has constructed a 100% affordable housing project. ● Track the impact of demolitions on displacement through reporting and data collection:o Require the Oakland Planning & Building Department to provide annual reportsto the public detailing the number of residential units demolished by address andparcel number, the number of tenants temporarily displaced, and the number oftenants permanently displaced.
We also recommend amending Oakland’s draft density bonus ordinance as follows:● In Section 17.107.045(A), specify that “any other form of rent or price control” includesCalifornia’s anti-rent gouging protections under Civil Code§1947.12 and Oakland’sRent Adjustment Ordinance.● In Section 17.107.045(D), create a process for ensuring that tenants displaced due todemolition for the purpose of developing new housing have received relocationassistance under the Uniform Relocation Ordinance. 3 Define “comparable” in terms of square footage andthe same or greater number of bedrooms. 2 Define “comparable replacement dwelling” to includesquare footage and the same or greater number of bedrooms,consistent with 25 Cal. Code of Regulations, section 6008(c). 3 Thank you for considering our proposal. We look forward to working with your staff to craft anordinance that protects Oakland tenants at risk of displacement due to demolition and preservesmuch-needed affordable housing stock in Oakland.Sincerely,Leah Simon-Weisberg, Legal DirectorAlliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE)Jeffrey Levin, Policy DirectorEast Bay Housing OrganizationsCraig Castellenat, AttorneyPublic Interest Law Project 4