Redwood City approves fees, regulations to implement tenant protections: Councilmembers split on approving agenda item related to right-to-return policies

The item was approved in a 4-3 vote, with Councilmembers Isabella Chu, Jeff Gee and Marcella Padilla opposed — a similar result from when the council considered the Tenant Protection Ordinance itself. 

Redwood City adopted its Tenant Protection Ordinance in November 2025, which, among other protections, established a tenant’s right to return after remodel and tiered-relocation assistance for low-income tenants. 

Opposition to the ordinance largely stemmed from some councilmembers’ concerns that a right-to-return policy would discourage landlords from remodeling their outdated units. While the matter under consideration at Monday’s meeting was more specific to the associated fees and guidelines for implementing the ordinance, similar concerns were raised yet again about the effectiveness of the Tenant Protection Ordinance altogether. 

“I’m supportive of the intent of the policy, but what we’ve seen in housing policy again and again — when you tax, encumber or make housing more difficult or complex, or make things more complex or difficult to do, you get less of it,” Chu said Monday.

Ultimately, the associated costs and guidelines were approved, however, slimly. The ordinance itself was not up for deliberation.  

The city’s fair rate of return policy requires landlords to ensure a tenant’s right to return upon completing a substantial remodel and to offer the unit at the same rent, plus any increases allowed by state law, which typically align with annual rent increases. If desired, landlords can file an appeal to the city to inflict a higher rent increase. 

Appealing to the city would cost landlords a fee of $4,500 in the form of a deposit, which would go toward the actual cost of processing the appeal. The amount was determined on an estimated 10-15 hours of work by a third-party appeal officer and additional city staff time for review. Any difference in true administrative costs from the initial deposit will be either refunded to or required from the landlord. 

The appeal process, conducted by the third-party appeal officer and legal staff, determines whether the revenue from adjusted rents following the remodel could recoup the costs of the remodel itself. The landlord could increase the rents higher than what would typically be allowed in the Tenant Protection Ordinance if the appeal officer deems appropriate. 

The cost to initiate this appeal process could be particularly burdensome to “mom-and-pop” landlords and ultimately incentivize remodels from ever occurring in the first place, some councilmembers worried. 

“If rents can’t adjust to reflect investments, many necessary improvements may be delayed or not taken care of at all,” Padilla said. 

The fees and regulations under discussion also addressed the fees for a tenant’s application for relocation assistance. 

When tenants receive a notice of lease termination from a landlord for no-fault just causes — which could include the owner moving in, withdrawing the unit from the rental market, demolition of the unit, substantial remodel or court order — the tenant is able to submit a relocation assistance application to the city, according to the Tenant Protection Ordinance. 

If sought by the tenant, landlords are required to pay renters the equivalent of one month’s rent, either as a direct payment or waiver of the last months’ rent. Lower-income tenants can receive greater assistance, up to three or four months of fair market rents in the area. 

The City Council approved a $127 fee — inflicted upon landlords — to process a tenant’s request for rental assistance. The fee was determined based on staff time of approximately half an hour and the cost to send certified mail. 

Councilmember Chris Sturken tried to ground the fees and regulations under consideration within the context of the value of the ordinance itself. While he acknowledged the cost may be significant to landlords, the intention of the ordinance is to protect tenants and “keep people housed.” 

“I want to emphasize that this will deter displacement,” Sturken said. “This is important and valuable to tenants in the city.” 

Councilmembers proposed opportunities to support landlords and encourage the pursuit of remodels, including an option for the city to offer low-interest loans, which was favored by Chu, Sturken and Councilmember Diane Howard. 

Chu emphasized that the interest on a loan a landlord may need to pursue a remodel in the first place should be considered into the rent adjustments — something that is not currently included in the calculations. 

“Interest is a huge cost when you’re making repairs and many small landlords don’t have a lot of capital lying around,” Chu said. “They tend to be property rich and cash poor.” 

Mayor Elmer Martínez Saballos said the fees and regulations align with the goals of the Tenant Protection Ordinance and it remains a worthy endeavor for the city. With the ordinance in effect for less than six months, councilmembers agreed that keeping an eye on its success and return on investment will be key. 

“This policy isn’t perfect but it’s such a solid evolution in the work that’s happening,” Martínez Saballos said.