Sonoma County Board of Supervisors pass new tenant protections following hours of debate

Following hours of debate and testimony, the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 in favor of an ordinance intended to strengthen eviction protections for tenants in unincorporated Sonoma County. The ordinance is set to take effect in October. |

A new series of measures aimed at strengthening eviction protections for tenants in unincorporated Sonoma County is set to take effect this fall, after more than a year of contentious debate.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday to adopt an ordinance establishing a series of “just-cause” protections for tenants in unincorporated in Sonoma County.

The vote followed hours of debate in which supervisors revisited discussions about data collection, whether the county needs more analysis of the measures’ potential impacts and whether single family housing should be included in the ordinance — a proposal that has continuously failed to gain majority support.

Despite the lengthy deliberations, the ordinance moved forward with mostly modest adjustments. It applies to tenants in multi-family housing and is set to take effect this October after the board takes a second formal vote.

Sonoma County’s new rules would limit evictions during declared states of emergency, boost relocation benefits for evicted renters, limit evictions for nonpayment of a month’s rent unless a tenant is unable to pay rent more than two times in a year and require evictions be based on certain state requirements — such as, nonpayment, lease violations or criminal offenses — at the start of tenancy.

Landlords of single-family and multi-family dwellings would also be required to notify the county of evictions.

Supervisor Chris Coursey said he wished the board could have done more but called the measure a “good step.”

“Increasing housing security improves health, it improves educational outcomes,” he said. “It should be seen as an economic development measure, because it keeps employees housed, doesn't put them and their families in precarious situations.”

“Just-cause” protections that make up the ordinance restrict when and how landlords can evict tenants. They also build on the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which expires in 2030 unless amended by the state.

Many local jurisdictions, including the county Board of Supervisors, have grappled with building on the law, especially since pandemic-era safeguards expired.

Tuesday’s discussion was marked by starkly differing views, offered both from the dais and in public testimony, which indicated the ordinance’s laborious path forward.

“This board has spent every year that I've served on the board trying to figure out solutions to homelessness, and yet we know that too many folks in our community do not earn adequate wages to continue to afford rent and food and shelter for their families,” said Supervisor Susan Gorin. “I feel like a hamster on a wheel just trying, trying to find the right solutions.”

Supervisor David Rabbitt cast the lone “no” vote, in keeping with his prior “no” vote during a policy development discussion in May. He cited concerns that the county had not fully studied the potential impacts of the ordinance, particularly related to the measure restricting eviction for nonpayment of rent.

He expressed concerns that this particular restriction would be passing the costs on to landlords who would have to cover that delayed revenue.

“This will increase the market rate and the affordable housing rate accordingly, because banks don't want you to be 30 days late, even if all your revenue is 30 days late,” Rabbitt said. “So you have a cash flow problem and you're going to have to pay for that either in higher rates, penalties or something else.”

It echoed concerns raised by some landlords, real estate agents, property managers and the organizations that represent them, that the protections would restrict property owner rights and further add to the patchwork of state and local policies that can be difficult to navigate.

Efren Carrillo, CEO of Gallaher Community Housing and a former Sonoma County supervisor, asked the board to speak with members of the housing development community before moving forward with an ordinance.

Gallaher Community Housing is a nonprofit connected to Sonoma County developer Bill Gallaher. Its project, called Airport Village, stands to be one of the county’s largest housing plans. On Tuesday, Carrillo said the new tenant protections ordinance could affect this proposed development.

“We have 1,464 units right now proposed for the county. Workforce, deed restricted housing that we're analyzing to see if we even decide to move forward with, because this will have an effect on that,” Carrillo said, offering to share the project’s financials with the county. “It just makes it really hard when you're adding yet another layer of what is perceived as government bureaucracy.”

Tenant advocates, however, have pushed back saying the new measures will not affect rent-setting, which undercuts the argument that the new regulations would disincentivize development.

Instead, they contend, high rents in tight rental markets and rapidly changing neighborhoods has displaced tenants, with disproportionate impacts on lower-income residents and communities of color.

Tuesday a low-income renter said he and his family — a wife and son — were driven into debt by moving costs after receiving two eviction notices in one year. The first was a notice to vacate the home they had been living in for over eight years. They received a second notice seven months after moving into a new home.

“All I ask is a safe and stable home in which (my son) can settle and succeed,” he said. “My family’s lives are at stake. These legal exemptions are killing us. I don’t know if I will survive this.”

Under the new ordinance, landlords will have to provide the county with a copy of any eviction notice within three days of notifying tenants. This requirement, set to take effect in January, will apply to landlords of all housing types, including single family homes which are otherwise exempt from the ordinance.

The aim is to begin capturing data on local evictions and serve as a compromise for supervisors Susan Gorin and Chris Coursey who have repeatedly called for a rental registry that would gather data on the broader rental market.

The registry failed to gain traction with a majority of the board largely due to questions about how much it would cost, though no price has been named.

Those objecting to the broader tenant protections have argued the county should not pursue stronger measures given the lacking analysis and data; an argument that has given some county supervisors pause.

In answer to the push for more outreach and analysis, the board indicated support, via a straw vote, to create a working group to collect input from stakeholders on the ordinance and any potential additions or amendments.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct when the ordinance will take effect. The ordinance is expected to take effect in October pending a second formal vote by the Board of Supervisors. Landlords will be required to report eviction notices to the county starting in January.

You can reach Staff Writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MurphReports.