Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Eviction Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County board gives first reading to just‑cause eviction ordinance, adds two months relocation assistance
Summary
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 7 gave unanimous first‑reading approval to a just‑cause eviction ordinance that adds protections for some unincorporated county renters, expands covered housing types in limited cases and increases relocation assistance to two months; staff will return with a 12‑month enforcement review and a second reading is scheduled for Feb. 4.
Alameda County supervisors gave unanimous first‑reading approval Jan. 7 to a new just‑cause eviction ordinance that applies to rental units in the unincorporated county and makes several local changes to state law. The board adopted the ordinance on first reading as amended to provide two months of relocation assistance and to require a county review 12 months after adoption.
The ordinance, read into the record by the clerk, adds chapter 3.7 to the Alameda County Ordinance Code and incorporates Civil Code section 1946.2 (with specified exclusions), while keeping most provisions aligned with state law, staff said. County staff told the board the draft includes 15 enumerated just causes and — unlike the state law — would include single‑family homes owned by landlords who own five or more units in the unincorporated county.
Why it matters: County staff and several supervisors framed the measure as a first step to expand tenant protections in the unincorporated areas while preserving funding eligibility for transit‑oriented community grants. Tenant advocates said the draft remains weaker than protections in some Bay Area cities and urged stronger relocation payments and day‑one protections; landlord groups cautioned that overly aggressive local rules can reduce housing supply.
What was changed: Staff briefed the board on earlier drafts and stakeholder meetings. The presented draft reduced a previously discussed relocation‑payment cap from $28,000 to $10,000 and initially set relocation assistance at one month; during debate a supervisor moved to amend the ordinance to provide two months of relocation assistance and to bring the ordinance back for a progress and enforcement update in 12 months. County counsel and staff advised that adding a means test (income‑based eligibility) would require objective criteria in the ordinance language and could necessitate re‑noticing, so the board opted to increase the relocation assistance now and direct staff to return with potential means‑test language at a later date if desired.
Public comment and stakeholder views were mixed. Tenant advocates said the county’s proposal lagged protections in cities such as San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, which provide earlier and larger relocation payments and broader coverage for protected classes; landlord groups urged monitoring and cautioned against measures that could impede housing supply. Several speakers urged stronger enforcement mechanisms, a rental registry and targeted inspections to address ‘‘bad actor’’ landlords.
Vote and next steps: The board’s motion to waive full first reading and adopt the ordinance as amended passed 5‑0 (Supervisors Halbert, Marquez, Tam, Fortunato Bass and President Miley voting aye). Staff said the second reading and public hearing will be scheduled at a future regular meeting (staff indicated Feb. 4 as the likely date). The ordinance directs the Community Development Agency director to present a comprehensive review no later than 12 months following adoption.
