Redwood City restarts tenant protection work

The right-of-return policy was a point of emphasis at the meeting, with the request for no rent increase following substantial home improvements made by the landlord raising concerns over how to incentivize such improvement. Such a policy would extend beyond approved tenant protections at the state level. 

The city’s antidisplacement strategy is focused on preserving existing affordable housing, protecting housing options and producing housing. While progress on the latter has made Redwood City known for its lofty housing goals, Councilmember Chris Sturken said more priority needs to be made on the former two aspects of the strategy. 

“We can’t rely on development alone to solve our housing criss and avoid displacement in Redwood City,” Sturken said. “Residents can’t wait for those units to be built, they are already being displaced now.”

Sturken largely supported the strong right-to-return protections, while Councilmember Isabella Chu felt without rent increases, landlords will not likely feel inclined to make improvements. Chu added that state policies should also be the guideline for how the city plans to move forward. 

“The state is doing a lot,” Chu said. “I think, in general, it’s much too parsimonious in so far as it’s reasonable and possible, that we can look to the state to sort of set the bar on those.” 

Rhovy Lyn Antonio, senior vice president, Local Public Affairs, for the California Apartment Association, said during public comment that Redwood City should be wary of overregulating housing policies. 

“The next city is one exit away,” Antonio said. “You don’t want to dissuade people from wanting to invest here and providing housing in Redwood City by making it too regulatory and being too fixated on policy, a policy that is attempting to be a solution looking for a problem.” 

The details for the tenant protections ordinance will be ongoing, with specifics to still be sifted over. Next steps approved by the City Council is for focus group work on the right-to-return issue that will be brought this spring. A drafted ordinance will likely be considered by the summer or fall. 

Many leaders from Faith In Action, a local organization that led the citizen-led ballot initiative for rent control, said during public comment they were frustrated with yet another focus group.

Sturken proposed shifting the focus of another focus group — which was budgeted to cost $16,000 — and rather to direct staff to research more about the financial incentivize for landlord improvements. 

Sturken’s motion for this amendment failed, but he maintained the need for further research on the right-to-return policies. 

“State law is just the floor, not the ceiling,” Sturken said. “State law is designed so that local jurisdictions can adopt more stringent policies if they so choose.” 

Another aspect of the antidisplacement strategy includes work on making sure mobile home parks remain viable and protected. 

The timeline from a planned Mobile Home Ordinance and Mobile Home Needs Assessment is now delayed to be revisited during the 2028-29 budget process. The delay was approved to prioritize other protections and because progress has been made on protecting mobile home residents both statewide and within the city, where all mobile home parks have been rezoned to a specific category. 

An effort launched during the city’s paused work on tenant protections was the Project Sentinel Redwood City tenant and landlord counseling services project, which offers dispute resolution services to residents. City staff said there has been more than 100 disputes addressed in just six months, and the service will continue to avoid illegal evacuation orders. 

The rent control ballot initiative that initially halted the city’s progress on its antidisplacement strategy failed to meet November ballot qualifications after review of signatures by the County Elections Office determined many were not registered voters within the city’s jurisdiction. The measure, dubbed the Fair and Affordable Housing Ordinance, sought to cap raises in rent by 5% each year at most and strengthen protections to prevent unjust evictions of tenants.