Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Just Cause topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears widely divided testimony on proposed Just Cause eviction protections; item continued for deliberation
Summary
After a presentation on changes to the county’s draft Just Cause ordinance, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors closed public comment and continued deliberation to Nov. 12. The draft extends some protections beyond state law, drew both strong tenant support and landlord opposition, and will be revised before final action.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 22 heard a lengthy presentation and hours of public comment on a proposed Just Cause eviction protections ordinance for unincorporated areas, then closed public comment and continued board deliberations to Nov. 12.
Staff told the board the most significant changes since the prior draft: inclusion of single-family homes when the owner holds five or more rental units in the unincorporated county; alignment of qualifying tenancy periods with state law (12 months for most tenancies, 24 months in some multi-tenant situations); and reducing recommended relocation assistance for no-fault evictions from three months to two months (state law remains one month). Deputy Housing Director Jennifer Pierce described the changes and said the board requested the adjustments at the September meeting.
County counsel advised the board that a recent California Court of Appeal decision (San Francisco Apartment Association v. City & County of San Francisco) precludes adding an additional pre-eviction warning notice beyond what state law requires. As County Counsel explained, that case concluded some additional procedural notice requirements in a local ordinance were preempted by state law governing eviction procedure.
Public response was extensive and sharply divided. Tenant-advocacy groups and residents urged immediate passage, saying just cause will reduce displacements and stabilize households. Samantha Beckett of Centro Legal told the board: “This ordinance is a necessary first step in providing stronger renter protections,” stressing expanded coverage and relocation assistance. Tenant organizers from southern and central parts of the county recounted local eviction cases and urged supervisors to pass the ordinance.
Landlord- and real-estate groups warned of unintended consequences. David Stark of the Bay East Association of Realtors said the proposal “does not reflect a balanced approach” and warned of administrative burdens and possible market impacts for small owners. Other housing-provider speakers called for clarifications on operational details such as the right-of-return after renovations, the definition of relocation payments, the form and timing of notices, and the practicalities of enforcement.
Board action and next steps: After receiving public testimony, the board closed public comment on item 62 and voted to continue the item to Nov. 12 for deliberation only; public comment was not reopened at that continuation. Staff will return with answers to legal and operational questions raised during testimony and with draft language or board letters addressing follow‑up items such as housing-counselor services, enforcement approaches and registry/business-licensing options to identify larger owners.
All quotations and attributions are taken verbatim from the Oct. 22 meeting transcript.
