Protections for tenants splits San Mateo County supervisors

The 28-page proposal received mixed reviews from the public. Housing advocates, residents and renters encouraged the board to back the updated regulations, which many said would give tenants more stability and tools to combat illegal behavior by some property owners.

“This ordinance protects tenants who follow the rules and it affects landlords that break them so it’s not affecting every tenant,” said Jeremy Levine, policy manager with the Housing Leadership Council, one of many organizations that backed the proposal. “Producing the housing we need and protecting tenants is not mutually exclusive. As designed, this ordinance strives to provide flex to landlords, especially small ones, while also closing loopholes in state law that currently allows tenants who follow all of the rules to be pushed out of their homes into homelessness.”

But mom-and-pop landlords and larger groups representing property owners argued the additional requirements would place more burdens on home providers despite only a few bad actors possibly causing trouble.

Rhovy Antonio with the California Apartment Association noted the state’s most recent tenant protection act, Assembly Bill 1482, only took effect at the start of 2020 right before the COVID-19 pandemic led to a number of emergency restrictions on evictions. Rather than implementing more regulations, many called for the county to invest its time and money into building more housing and providing renters with financial assistance.

“If this ordinance passes, this county would be writing its own manual on how privately owned rental homes are operated in the county,” Antonio said. “During the pandemic, you relied on housing providers to help renters shelter in place. You passed legislation to defer rent payments and wait for the county’s reimbursement program. Please, do not do this. Do not give them a thank you letter by providing them with a 28-page ordinance that has 141 restrictions.”

Supervisors David Canepa and Ray Mueller offered the strongest criticism of the proposed ordinance. Mueller spent the most amount of time diving into the details of the draft ordinance trying to clarify the potential legal issues the new regulations could stir up for landlords.

The ordinance would need substantial revisions and greater community input, Mueller said, calling into question assertions that the county underwent an 11-month process drafting the regulations. While work may have been done during that time, Mueller noted the public process only began last Thursday when the draft was released publicly.

Canepa also argued the process to draft the ordinance was “clumsy” and said he couldn’t support it given that the regulations would only apply to properties in the unincorporated areas of the county. Mueller also raised concerns that some of the most vulnerable in his district, the coastside, would not fall under some of the protections including those living in mobile homes, in housing run by nonprofits, or in units where the property owner also resides.

Instead, Canepa advocated for putting more funds into community outreach and education efforts around AB 1482 and its protections including caps to rent increases and requiring a “just cause” to evict a tenant.

Board President Dave Pine, Corzo and Slocum agreed staff could continue improving the proposed ordinance while also pursuing Canepa’s recommendation. County Attorney John Nibbelin acknowledged revisions would be necessary to clarify the intent of the ordinance and County Executive Officer Mike Callagy said a spending plan for the AB 1482 education project could be brought forward in September as part of budget revisions.

“If the only thing that comes out of this study session is that tenants in our community get more support and have a better understanding of state law, I think that’s a win,” Corzo said. “The overall intention here has always been to better support our tenants.”