A series of new measures to strengthen eviction protections for renters in unincorporated Sonoma County are set to take effect in January after more than a year of controversial debate.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 on Tuesday to adopt an ordinance that would provide a number of “justified” protections for renters in unincorporated areas of Sonoma County.
The vote followed hours of debate in which supervisors revisited discussions about data collection, whether the county needs more analysis of the potential impacts of the measures and whether single-family homes should be included in the ordinance – a proposal that repeatedly failed to gain a majority.
Despite the lengthy consultations, the regulation progressed with mostly modest adjustments. It applies to tenants in multi-family houses and is due to come into force in January.
The new rules in Sonoma County would limit evictions during the state of emergency, increase relocation assistance for evicted tenants, and limit evictions for nonpayment of one month’s rent unless the tenant is able to pay rent more than twice a year. It would also require evictions to be based on certain state requirements at the start of the tenancy – such as nonpayment, violations of the lease or criminal offenses.
Landlords of single-family and multi-family homes would also be required to report eviction notices to the district.
Supervisor Chris Coursey said he wished the board could have done more, but called the measure a “good step.”
“Improved housing security improves health and educational outcomes,” he said. “It should be viewed as an economic development measure because it ensures workers have housing and does not put them and their families in precarious situations.”
The “justified” protections that make up the ordinance limit when and how landlords can evict tenants. They are also based on the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which expires in 2030 unless amended by the state.
Many local jurisdictions, including county boards of supervisors, have struggled to implement the law, especially since pandemic-era protections expired.
Tuesday’s discussion was marked by sharply differing views, expressed both on the podium and in public statements, suggesting that the regulation will still be a difficult road to travel.
“This committee has spent every year I’ve been on the committee trying to find solutions to homelessness, and yet we know that too many people in our community don’t make enough to continue to pay rent, food and shelter for their families,” said Supervisor Susan Gorin. “I feel like a hamster on a wheel trying to find the right solutions.”
Supervisor David Rabbitt was the only one to cast “no,” echoing his previous no vote during a policy development discussion in May. He raised concerns that the county had not fully studied the potential impacts of the ordinance, particularly around the measure restricting evictions for nonpayment of rent.
He expressed concern that this particular restriction would pass the costs on to landlords, who would then have to make up for the lost income.
“That will raise the market rate and the price of affordable housing accordingly, because the banks don’t want you to be 30 days late, even if all your income is 30 days late,” Rabbitt said. “So you have a cash flow problem and you have to pay for that with either higher interest rates, penalties or something else.”
This reflects concerns among some landlords, real estate agents, property managers and the organizations that represent them, who fear that the protections would limit property owners’ rights and add to a patchwork of state and local regulations that are difficult to navigate.
Efren Carrillo, CEO of Gallaher Community Housing and former Sonoma County Supervisor, asked the board to speak with members of the housing community before moving forward with an ordinance.
Gallaher Community Housing is a nonprofit organization associated with Sonoma County developer Bill Gallaher. Their project, called Airport Village, is one of the county’s largest housing projects. On Tuesday, Carrillo said the new tenant protection ordinance could affect that planned project.
“Currently, there are 1,464 housing units planned for the county. We’re currently analyzing the workforce housing and condominium units to see if we even move forward, because that’s going to impact that,” Carrillo said, offering to share the project’s financials with the county. “It makes it really difficult when you add another layer of what’s perceived as government bureaucracy.”
