|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Renters facing eviction or major renovations could soon see new safeguards under a new package of policies passed by Redwood City council on Oct. 13.
In a 4-2 vote, the council approved a new tenant protection ordinance that restores and expands relocation benefits, updates leasing terms, and introduces a “right to return” for tenants displaced by apartment or building renovations.
The ordinance replaces the city’s 2018 Relocation Assistance Ordinance and Minimum Lease Term Ordinance, both of which had become largely unenforceable after state lawmakers passed the California Tenant Protection Act in 2019. The city’s new tenant protection ordinance consolidates and updates those earlier measures to align with state law while reintroducing stronger local safeguards for renters. It will take effect Jan. 1, 2026.
After extensive discussion, Mayor Elmer Martínez Saballos, Vice Mayor Kaia Eakin and council members Diane Howard and Chris Sturken voted in favor of the ordinance. Martínez Saballos noted that rental costs in the Bay Area are among the highest in the nation. He said he didn’t want to delay implementation of the ordinance through further staff analysis; he wanted to make the strong relocation assistance provisions enforceable in Redwood City. Sturken said that the ordinance would help prevent displacement from high rental costs.
“I am very supportive of this ordinance because it keeps people from losing their homes, while also enabling property owners to maintain and upgrade their properties,” Sturken said during the meeting. “Ultimately, I just want to make sure that my neighbors… can stay in the city.”
Council members Jeff Gee and Isabella Chu voted to oppose the ordinance, and council member Marcella Padilla was absent from the meeting.
Gee, who voted against the ordinance, expressed concern that the right to return section of the ordinance lacks a clear definition of “substantial renovation” and doesn’t account for the complex and expensive requirements of upgrading older buildings to meet current building codes. He wondered how landlords could afford necessary upgrades under the new ordinance.
“The math doesn’t work for me,” Gee said.
The right to return policy was the most contentious of the new rules, generating extensive debate among the council members and public commenters. The provision, which is not included in California state law, allows tenants to return to their rental home after a landlord substantially remodels. Landlords must offer the rental unit at the same rent amount charged when the tenant moved out, plus any rent increases allowed under the Tenant Protection Act.
Under the new ordinance, Redwood City’s relocation assistance benefit goes beyond state law. The state’s 2019 Tenant Protection Act offers tenants displaced through no fault of their own one month of relocation assistance.
In the city’s new ordinance — which reinstates provisions from the 2018 ordinance that never took effect because it was preempted by state legislation — low-income households qualify for three months of fair-market rent in relocation assistance, and special-circumstance households, including seniors and disabled tenants, qualify for four months. Other tenants will continue to receive one month’s rent, in alignment with state law.
Chu, who described herself as “pro-renter,” noted that much of the naturally affordable housing in her district was getting old and would soon need extensive renovation. She expressed concern that the relocation assistance policy would discourage landlords from renting to lower-income tenants and or would prompt landlords to put off renovations. She favored aligning the city’s relocation assistance benefits with the lower level of assistance that the state offers, of one month for all tenants.
“There’s a consistent pattern of these sorts of policies having the opposite of the pro-renter intended effect, and often the renters who are hurt most are the renters that [the policies are] intended to help,” Chu.
The new ordinance also specifies that landlords must now offer a 12-month lease only at the beginning of a tenancy, instead of at each renewal like the 2018 city ordinance specified, though this provision also went unenforced due to the state law.
In approving the ordinance, the City Council accepted the recommendation of city staff, who based their view on focus groups conducted with stakeholders and years of research by the Housing and Human Concerns Committee, a city body that promotes affordable housing.
Several community members spoke during the public comment section of the meeting. Most supported the ordinance, while some opposed it.
Some commenters said the “right-to-return” section would close a loophole that allowed “phantom substantial remodels” — cases where landlords notify tenants of an intent to remodel to evict them and then re-rent the unit at a higher price.
Redwood City community member Nicole Noga expressed support for the measure and said during the public comment period that the ordinance would have assisted her and her partner last year when they were “displaced from their home of over a decade due to a substantial remodel eviction.”
“We were thankfully able to find a new apartment in Redwood City, but our downstairs neighbor, a nurse, ended up having to move out of the area,” Noga said. “The additional protections provided by these proposed measures, particularly the right to return, would have kept her and her vital skills in the city.”
Council member Sturken said in an email to this publication that he believes the ordinance, if effectively enforced, could deter and reduce phantom substantial remodels.
Two members of the public expressed opposition to the ordinance.
Rhovy Lyn Antonio, who spoke on behalf of the California Apartment Association, expressed concern about the right to return policy. Antonio said the right to return policy would impose a “double penalty,” requiring landlords to pay the cost of relocation expenses, mandated under state law, and placing a on what housing providers can charge for tenants after they return. She warned that the policy could impact housing marketability which could impact property values, resulting in declining revenue to the city.
Fernando Pena, spoke on behalf of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors, expressed his opposition to the right to return provision.
“This provision creates a disincentive for property owners and developers to invest in rental housing, places increased financial burdens to housing providers on top of relocation assistance, and minimizes the tenant protections already found in SB 1482 and SB 567,” Pena said. “It would only lead to administrative and legal complexities, and taxpayer expense.”
With the tenant protection ordinance passed, the city will inform citizens of the new policy via online outreach, mailers, community meetings, and collaboration with organizations.
