Salinas council delays final action on rent‑ordinance referendum, gives stakeholders two weeks to continue talks

The Salinas City Council on Sept. 9 voted to postpone a final determination on a citizens’ referendum that challenges the council’s repeal of rent‑related ordinances. Instead of immediately sending the question to voters or unilaterally repealing the repeal ordinance, the council gave two weeks for the stakeholder groups who have been meeting to continue negotiating and return with an update at a Sept. 23 meeting.

Background and legal choices: the action before the council stemmed from a referendum petition filed by Protect Salinas Renters that qualified after the Monterey County Registrar certified signatures. The referendum challenges the council’s earlier action to repeal a so‑called “repeal ordinance” that had suspended four rent‑related ordinances the council had adopted earlier in the year. The city clerk reminded the council that, under the Elections Code and the city’s processes, council options were to (a) repeal the repeal ordinance, thereby leaving the four rent ordinances in force; or (b) submit the repeal ordinance to the voters at a regular municipal election or a special election in accordance with legal timelines.

Cost estimates and timing: the city clerk presented cost estimates prepared for the council. A consolidated November 2026 general election would be the least expensive route for a public vote, estimated at about $494,000–$706,350 based on the city’s 70,635 registered voters. By contrast, a standalone special election would cost substantially more—between roughly $1.13 million and $1.70 million—because it would not share consolidated county election infrastructure. Several council members voiced concern about spending that level of city funds, given other budget priorities.

Public testimony and cross‑pollinated negotiation: more than 100 speakers participated in public comment. Protect Salinas Renters organizers and allied community groups urged the council to “repeal the repeal” and keep the rent‑stabilization, tenant anti‑harassment, rental‑registration and just‑cause eviction ordinances in place. Speakers described housing displacement, high rents and the importance of tenant protections; several youth and nonprofit leaders urged the council to prioritize stability for renters.

The Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce and a separate landlord/property‑management coalition also addressed the council. Chamber representatives and many property owners said the ordinances hurt housing providers, may suppress investment, and in many cases impose burdensome administrative requirements. A small‑owner coalition asked that any changes be done through a public, collaborative process; the Chamber offered to convene landlord and renter representatives for talks. The council appointed the Chamber and a tenant‑led group as conveners to begin discussions earlier in September; the council asked those groups to continue their work and report progress.

Council action and next steps: after extended debate, the council voted to continue consideration of whether to repeal the repeal ordinance or to submit it to the voters until the Sept. 23 council meeting. On that date the council must take a final legislative action — either formally repealing the repeal ordinance (which could be done immediately if unanimous) or formally ordering the matter to the voters. The city attorney reminded the council that a repeal ordinance would not take effect until 30 days after adoption. The attorney also noted limits in the Elections Code and case law, including a 12‑month restriction on council‑initiated repeals of the same measure; that restriction means the council could not simply pass another repeal within the coming year.

What’s at stake: the referendum centers on four interlocking ordinances the council adopted earlier in the year: rent stabilization, a residential rental registry, tenant protection/just‑cause eviction and a tenant anti‑harassment rule. If the referendum is submitted and voters reject the repeal ordinance, the original four ordinances would remain in effect; if voters approve the repeal ordinance, the four ordinances would not take effect. The public debate has also highlighted tension between rapid ballot resolution and the city’s desire for a negotiated, locally driven compromise.

Why the council delayed: members who voted for the two‑week delay said they wanted to provide the community a final, practical chance to reach negotiated adjustments without the immediate expense of a special election—and because some stakeholders had already begun structured conversations. Other council members said they supported placing the question on the ballot so the full electorate could decide. The delay does not remove the referendum option; it simply postpones the council’s formal decision for two weeks to allow further stakeholder work.

Costs, transparency and next meeting: the city clerk’s office reminded the council that any special election held before fiscal year close could strain the city’s contingency funds. The clerk also noted that 7,000+ signatures had been confirmed by the county registrar. The council asked staff to prepare for both paths – a repeal ordinance to adopt or materials to place the repeal before voters – and to return Sept. 23 with the stakeholders’ update and any proposed scheduling, ballot‑language or budget recommendations.

Speakers and documents: the petition and the county verification certificate are part of the public record. The city clerk and city attorney provided the council with options, cost ranges, and a staff‑prepared draft ordinance that would repeal the repeal ordinance if the council chooses that path.