Berkeley council votes to send amended tenant-protection measure to November ballot

Berkeley’s City Council voted Aug. 5 to send an amended tenant-protection measure to the Nov. 5 ballot after a Rent Board presentation and more than three hours of public comment. The measure, advanced by Mayor Aragon and Council Member Hahn as a compromise to Council Member Luna Parra’s original proposal, passed on a voice and roll-call vote after late amendments to the ordinance’s language.

The amended measure would put a revised Berkeley Tenant Protection and Right to Organize Act before voters rather than making immediate changes to local law. Supporters said the measure expands tenant protections — including limiting evictions for nonpayment until the arrears reach an objective threshold, strengthening just-cause eviction standards, and creating an enforceable tenant right to organize — while opponents warned of unintended consequences for small landlords and the city’s supply of “missing middle” housing.

Rent Board General Counsel Matt Brown summarized the board’s proposals for expanded coverage, increased just‑cause protections, an enforceable tenant-organizing mechanism, and a reworked exemption scheme. Brown said the board sought to bring some government‑owned and government‑subsidized units under the Rent Ordinance where local law allows and to modernize utility billing and registration requirements.

Council Member Luna Parra, the ordinance’s sponsor, said she backed the amended 1B compromise to place tenant protections on the ballot. "I recognize the urgency to protect and strengthen tenants’ rights," Luna Parra said, adding she was prepared to accept changes to build broader support.

Public comment was sharply divided. Tenant advocates and union members urged passage. "We have to start prioritizing people over profit," said Dominique Walker, a rent board commissioner and longtime tenant advocate. Several speakers described seniors facing substantial rent increases, residents of subsidized properties seeking local enforcement options, and students and graduate workers asking for organizing protections. Property owners and small‑owner landlords warned the rules would discourage the rental of accessory units and golden duplexes, and described steep cost increases for repairs and insurance; one speaker, Linda Loney, said rising operating costs made it difficult to continue providing affordable units.

Key changes and additions in the council’s amended version included retaining the existing "golden duplex" exemption for owner‑occupied two‑unit properties, narrowing the automatic tenant right‑to‑organize to larger properties (10+ units) or 1–9 unit properties managed by a property manager, restoring Rent Board language to allow coverage of some government‑owned or -subsidized units where legally permitted, and adding a new municipal Housing Retention Program provision that sets a target of at least $1,100,000 in funding from existing sources. The council also approved an amendment during the meeting to cap the annual general adjustment (AGA) at a maximum of 5% per year (the motion adopted a 0%–5% range for the AGA). Language was also added to let the Rent Board authorize technologies or mechanisms “functionally similar” to separate metering for utilities.

On eviction procedure, the adopted language uses an objective published benchmark (consistent with practices used in other California cities) to determine when nonpayment can be deemed sufficient to trigger a shortened notice period; the council discussed substituting a tenant’s most recent lawful periodic rent as a simpler operative standard in one amendment debate. The measure retains a process allowing landlords to petition for an upward rent adjustment when they can demonstrate a lack of reasonable return, including for capital improvements.

Council action: the motion to place Item 1B on the Nov. 5 ballot passed 5–0 with 2 abstentions (the clerk recorded five affirmative votes and two abstentions). The council designated authors to work with Rent Board staff on final drafting and directed the city clerk and city attorney to make non‑substantive clarifying edits before submitting the text to the registrar of voters.

What happens next: Because the council sent the amended measure to the ballot rather than enacting it, Berkeley voters will decide in the Nov. 5 election between this pro‑tenant, majority‑council‑backed measure and any competing measures that qualify. Council members said the change is intended to give voters a clear choice and to address immediate concerns voiced by tenants and property owners.

The council meeting record shows broad community engagement and sharp disagreement about the right policy balance: tenant advocates urged protections for seniors and low‑income renters, while many small property owners urged more careful study of financial impacts and a more deliberative process. The council’s adopted motion included direction for minor, non‑substantive edits to ensure legal clarity before the city submits the measure for printing and ballot placement.