As far back as 2018, discussions began in Alameda County about increasing tenant protections for unincorporated parts of the county. Marathon meetings and a deluge of public comments dragged on for years with no clear consensus on balancing the needs of tenants and the hardships of landlords, many of whom are small mom-and-pop operators and minorities at risk of losing generational wealth. 

District 5 Supervisor and Board President Nate Miley spearheaded stakeholder meetings and returned to the Board with revised versions of a proposed ordinance and on January 7, 2025, you could tell Miley was fatigued by these protracted discussions. Granted, there was a global health crisis that led to a crippling three-year eviction moratorium and Board members had to be reshuffled after the two tragic deaths of their colleagues, but patience was wearing thin.

With revisions to the original ordinance drafted, the Board approved on its first reading the implementation of “just cause” eviction protections for tenants in Unincorporated parts of Alameda County. Although the ordinance references several sections of statewide law in the County Code to ensure consistency and enforceability, Alameda County Supervisors made several additional changes of their own above and beyond what was enacted by Sacramento lawmakers.

 

It’s instructive to review state law before contrasting it with Unincorporated Alameda County’s new regulatory regime. 

Statewide eviction controls began with the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) and tenant protections were later strengthened by the Homelessness Prevention Act (SB 567).

Notably, the legislation exempts a variety of housing types.

Under state law, owners have a host of requirements when they seek to evict for no-fault reasons such as owner move-in evictions, withdrawal from the rental market, or the intent to demolish or substantially remodel. When a tenant has been residing in the rental unit for more than 12 months, they are entitled to 60 days’ notice and relocation payments equal to one month’s rent which can be paid directly to the tenant or a waiver of the final month’s rent due.

Under the statewide framework, eviction notices are not required to be filed with a local agency.

This abundance of protections already in place wasn’t enough for tenants’ advocates like My Eden Voice. Those in the tenant’s camp came up with a wish list of additional safeguards. Let’s see what the Board of Supervisors agreed to in an exercise in compromise and democracy.

Outgoing tenants evicted through no fault of their own will be entitled to two months of current rent. 

The final iteration of the ordinance lowered the maximum relocation payment from $28,000 to $10,000, which was not generous enough for tenants’ advocates. A community organizer for My Eden Voice pointed out that other jurisdictions like San Francisco, Berkeley, and Santa Monica have significantly higher relocation amounts. The counternarrative was that those cities with the most rigorous tenant protections also have the highest rents and give developers little incentive to build.

In the January 7 meeting, there were calls for some sort of means test so that relocation payments only go to impoverished households most in need, perhaps using a percentage of the Area Medium Income (AMI) as a metric. The idea is tenants who are displaced through a no-fault eviction should receive a standard relocation payment of one month’s rent and those with financial hardship could prove that they need a payment of two month’s rent as an extra cushion in moving to new surroundings. We expect the Board to revisit a means test later on.

One astute caller, Chris Moore of the East Bay Rental Housing Association, noted that by the County’s own estimates, 50% of residents were “rent burdened,” while the increased relocation expenses landlords have to incur apply to 100% of housing stock subject to the ordinance. We find this to be unfair and wholeheartedly agree with a means test.

It’s fundamentally unfair for struggling landlords to pay thousands of dollars to millionaire tenants. Funds should be reserved for tenants with a genuine need, and we can draw a parallel with eviction moratoriums during the pandemic. Countless households with the ability to pay rent chose not to do so, often skipping rent for months or years on end while coming home from work in a shiny new Tesla. The Board was receptive to a means test but kicked the can down the road, agreeing to revisit the subject later on.

 

Evictions now to be reported to the Community Development Agency

Housing providers in unincorporated parts of Alameda County will now have a new administrative burden by being required to report evictions to the Alameda County Community Development Agency to track eviction activity.

In eviction proceedings,  there are of course filings with the court and the tenant must be served notice. Now, the county wants to be put on notice, as well. An official says that the county is receiving a courthouse-compiled feed of eviction filings on a quarterly basis but that this system is not good enough.

When statewide eviction controls went into effect in 2020, we thought we would be investing a lot of time in educating our community about the law but then COVID hit and we were forced to pivot to a myriad of eviction moratoriums. One of the questions we fielded pre-COVID was how the state law would be enforced and our answer is there is no statewide rent board; grievances will be aired out in the courts when landlords attempt to evict their tenants. Aided by no shortage of free legal representation, tenants have several potential defenses in an eviction action that a judge or jury will decide on.

Yet state law doesn’t require landlords to divulge information on evictions to local agencies. Alameda County has set a precedent in this respect and we can find little purpose for policymakers to have this information other than for tenants’ advocates to falsely raise alarms that there is an eviction crisis to advance their agenda.

Keep in mind that knowing of a 3-day notice or an unlawful detainer action being commenced tells you nothing about the outcome of the case. 98% of cases settle, in large part because housing providers are pressured to do so because of the high costs of litigation.

 

Right of return reduction to one year from five

All tenants displaced because of a no-fault eviction must be given the first right of refusal to return to the unit if the unit is returned to the rental market by the landlord or successor landlord within one year of the displacement of the tenant.

We are talking about owner move-in evictions and substantial remodels, with lawmakers having a deep-rooted distrust of each.

With reports of owners purporting to move in, only to re-rent the unit at a higher price or sell the building, owner move-in evictions have been put under scrutiny. While some locales like San Francisco have put safeguards in place to ensure transparency and verify that the owner acted in good faith by maintaining the unit as their primary place of residence, there is no such oversight on the state level. Instead, complaints are tenant-driven.

When owners do not fulfill their statutory obligations, the consequences may come in the form of a costly lawsuit by a disgruntled tenant who snoops around and discovers that their previous landlord had an ulterior motive.

---

RELATED
Investigative Unit: San Francisco Landlords May Have Wrongfully Evicted Hundreds of Tenants »

---

 

Single-family homeowners with 5+ rental units will not be exempted

While state law exempts a variety of properties from tenant protections, Alameda County lawmakers have ostracized larger landlords. Owners of single-family homes who would otherwise be exempt from statewide eviction controls will have this exemption stripped if they own five or more units.

District 1 Supervisor David Haubert was curious as to how this rule would be enforced. A landlord owning five different properties, for example, can conceivably put five different properties into an LLC and effectively mask who owns what. People put in charge of implementing the ordinance conceded in the January 7 meeting that identifying owners with five or more units will be challenging.

Parting thoughts and a bit of our soliloquy

We are encouraged that after years of soul-searching and debate, there is a sense of clarity in what the regulatory regime will look like in Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview, San Lorenzo, and Sunol.

This saga has been an exercise in compromise and democracy, with neither the landlord nor tenant camp getting all they wanted. We thank our industry partners for their tireless efforts in advocating for rental housing providers and negotiating with lawmakers and a rather stubborn group of tenants’ advocates who have not been all that willing to have a constructive dialogue.

In whatever shape or form, strengthened tenant protections in Alameda County were inevitable. There were required notices to be sent to tenants in buildings with three or more units that they could participate in mediation when disputes arise and an influx of governmental funding for attorneys representing tenants. With the first reading of the ordinance being passed, the momentum continues. It’s been throttled a bit, but the momentum continues.

This is part of a larger movement for new safeguards for renters in areas not traditionally associated with tenant activism. After spending seven figures to defeat a ballot measure that would repeal Costa-Hawkins (Prop 33), landlords and their advocates cannot be celebratory. We have said that if big, bold measures designed to assault the rights of owners cannot pass in the statehouse or at the ballot box, the fight would be taken to the local level and that is what happening.

When we first began our legal careers three decades ago, there were only three rent and eviction control ordinances. Today, they have mushroomed into many more and we will soon have another one to contend with. Of course, you can rely on the guidance of Bornstein Law to make sense of it all, cauterize risk, and optimize your real estate business.