|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A San Mateo County Board of Supervisors study session turned tense last week as a proposed tenant protection ordinance sparked heated discussions among members.
Supervisor Noella Corzo and Supervisor Warren Slocum presented the draft ordinance, aimed at introducing new "just cause" eviction requirements and other provisions to safeguard tenants in unincorporated parts of San Mateo County.
However, the board was divided on the 28-page ordinance, with Supervisor Ray Mueller expressing particular skepticism. Mueller raised concerns about the complexity and effectiveness of the ordinance, referring to it as "dense."
Mueller spent nearly 90 minutes firing questions at County Attorney Brian E. Kulich, raising doubts about the provisions on each page and voicing his apprehensions, suggesting that the ordinance could inadvertently burden landlords and impede their ability to manage their properties effectively.
The concerns raised by Mueller were echoed during the public comment period, where small-scale landlords expressed fears that the proposed ordinance could impose significant burdens on their businesses. The landlords cited worries about property rights and specific provisions that might hinder their capacity to maintain a balance between their needs and those of their tenants.
Daniel Lee, a housing provider in San Mateo County, expressed his discontent and suggested that landlords “are not in the business to evict people.”
"We don't evict people for no reason,” Lee said. “We are in the business to provide housing, and you guys know that. And the Supervisor that brought this one up, you guys know that… you guys are just ignoring it. Very, very simple."
Despite the opposition, others expressed support for the ordinance.
Jeremy Levine, policy manager for San Mateo County's Housing Leadership Council, said the ordinance protected tenants who followed the rules and affected “landlords that break them, so it's not affecting every tenant.”
“These are consumer protections for renters,” Levine said. “Producing the housing we need and protecting tenants is not mutually exclusive, as designed. This ordinance strives to provide flexibility to landlords, especially small ones, while also closing loopholes in the state law that currently allow tenants to follow all of the rules to be pushed out of their homes into homelessness."
One provision that raised concern for Supervisor Mueller was a requirement that prohibits landlords from interfering with a tenant's right to quiet use and enjoyment of a dwelling unit, as defined by law. Mueller highlighted the potential for legal disputes. For example, a tenant might argue that a landlord's renovation activities violated this provision by entering the unit without consent, Mueller said. Another provision prevents landlords from performing elective renovations, or renovations that aren't legally necessary, without the prior written consent of the tenant.
"Renovations are driven in part by need but they're also driven in part by when the owner has the money to do them. So, if you have the money to do it, if the taxes line up right that year… you're going to do the renovation now rather than wait until you don't have the money and things have gotten really bad," said Mueller.
County Attorney John Nibbelin acknowledged that certain sections of the ordinance could benefit from tighter language but clarified that for a violation to occur, the landlord would have to take those actions in bad faith, with the motive of forcing the tenant to vacate.
Supervisors Dave Pine and David Canepa joined Mueller in criticizing the current draft of the ordinance.
Pine raised concerns about the complexity of the draft ordinance, the potential for extensive litigation and its possible chilling effect on small landlords. He questioned whether the broad scope of the ordinance was proportionate to the number of bad actions it aimed to address.
Canepa expressed his lack of support for the ordinance but emphasized the need for San Mateo County to take a leadership role in addressing the issues outlined in the ordinance. He also highlighted that the development of the draft ordinance had been a "clumsy process."
On the other side of the debate, Slocum defended the ordinance while acknowledging the need for some refinements. Corzo passionately advocated for the ordinance, considering it a necessary form of consumer protection that would safeguard the rights of small landlords and criticized the amount of time Mueller had spent questioning the county's attorneys about the ordinance.
"I'm not used to seeing supervisors drill staff with questions for an hour… for over an hour straight. I'm used to having a much more collaborative, open dialogue between supervisors," Corzo said.
In light of the tense discussions, Corzo called for the board to develop bylaws for future discussions, highlighting the need for a more structured process.
The board did not reach an agreement on when to reintroduce the ordinance, but Pine, Canepa and Mueller expressed concerns that the upcoming July 25 meeting would be too soon to put the ordinance to a vote.
Atherton police arrest two men for allegedly trying to meet up with a 14-year-old for sexApril 3, 2026 10:38 am
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am