San Mateo officials seek more time with red tag ordinance

After councilmembers reviewed in January a possible set of rules — including the formation of an appeals board, a provision prohibiting landlords from retaliating against residents exercising their rights and setting aside city funds to advance relocation payment — city staff revised the proposed ordinance to require landlords found to be in violation of city code to relocate their tenants to a comparable space within 10 miles of their rental unit and provide a stipend when temporary housing accommodations aren’t comparable in size, condition or amenities, Civiletti explained.

The proposed ordinance up for review at the council’s Tuesday meeting also required landlords with tenants displaced by substandard conditions to pay three times the monthly fair market rent as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and up to $1,000 for moving costs and related expenses to those who are permanently displaced. For those whose units will be brought back up to code within 90 days, the proposed ordinance required landlords to cover the actual and reasonable relocation and moving costs incurred by the tenant, according to a staff report.

Civiletti emphasized the requirements included in the proposed ordinance would only be imposed on landlords if rental units are deemed to be unsafe for a number of reasons, including lack of sanitation or hot or cold running water. But the proposed ordinance disappointed many San Mateo landlords like David Style, who felt it was written in an ambiguous, open-ended manner and wondered whether those drafting it had considered its economic impact on the housing community. Though he acknowledged meetings held to discuss the measures, Style noted he was never contacted in the process.

“You can do better than this flawed proposal to address the need for housing in the community,” he said.

Also at issue for many was the formation of a separate appeals board, which several landlords said they felt was a precursor to a rent control board, as well as private right of action clause, which would have afforded any person or organization who believes a property owner or tenant has violated the city’s code the right to file for damages.

But for others, including resident Jordan Grimes, the proposed rules seemed like a reasonable step toward protecting vulnerable tenants and focused only on those landlords who are preying on tenants.

“This is about people who are living in squalid, uninhabitable conditions,” he said. “This is literally about protecting the most vulnerable in our city.”

Councilman Joe Goethals said in response to the feedback offered Tuesday, councilmembers agreed not to create a separate appeals board to deal with disputes and instead assign that responsibility to the City Council. He said they also agreed to limit the private right of action to tenants, which would allow the city to sue a landlord on the tenant’s behalf but prevent action by third parties looking to make money from frivolous lawsuits.

Though he was comfortable moving forward with the ordinance under those changes, Goethals said other councilmembers preferred to study the items at a future study session. Goethals noted he was struck more by what tenant advocates and landlord advocates shared in common than any differences of opinion they espoused, and emphasized the ordinance was focused only on the worst of the worst of landlords.

“They’re two very important constituencies that all agree that we’re facing a housing crisis,” he said. “They just feel strongly that we need more housing for the people who work in San Mateo.”

Mayor Diane Papan said councilmembers also sought more clarity on the rates of the stipends landlords would have pay tenants under the proposed ordinance as well as who would likely determine whether an alternate rental unit is comparable to the one a tenant was forced to vacate. Because they sought more information on several aspects of the ordinance, Papan said they opted to review them again at study session in March.

Papan was optimistic officials would be able to shape the ordinance so it is targeted only at those landlords who are taking advantage of tenants.

“We’re not trying to make it easier for somebody that might be operating a place that isn’t habitable,” she said.

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106