Tenant Protection and Anti-Displacement Policy Alternatives Housing Element-Related Policies
Policy Problem Potential Benefits Potential Costs
Relocation assistance for
tenants with tenure less
than one year
Corresponding Housing
Element policy: H.3.4(a)
Jurisdictions with a
relocation assistance policy:
• East Palo Alto
• Menlo Park
• Mountain View
• Palo Alto
• Redwood City
• San Carlos
• South San Francisco
AB 1482 requires at least
one month of relocation
assistance for no-fault
evictions, but this only
applies to tenants in their
units one year or longer.
• All tenants receive
some relocation
benefit, regardless of
tenure
• Some cost to property
owners
Increased documentation
requirements for
substantial remodel
evictions
Corresponding Housing
Element policy: H.3.4(b)
Not recommended – Senate Bill 567 requires owners to provide information on work to be performed, copies of permits of work done, and option to tenant to provide contact information if they wish to reoccupy the unit. Tenant has right to reoccupy property if work not commenced or completed.
Right to Return for tenants
displaced due to demolition
or substantial remodels
Corresponding Housing
Element policy: H.3.4(b)
Jurisdictions with this
policy:
• East Palo Alto
• Foster City
• San Carlos
There is no right to return
for tenants evicted due to
demolition or substantial
remodels under AB 1482
or under Municipal Code.
• Can prevent
permanent
displacement
• Potentially
cumbersome to
implement
• Tenant temporarily
displaced for duration
of remodel work or
construction
• New rent may be
cost-prohibitive to the
tenant, preventing a
return
Strengthened enforcement
penalty structure for unsafe
or substandard units
Corresponding Housing
Element policy: H.3.4(c)
The City’s current Tenant
Relocation Ordinance
provides for relocation
assistance to tenants
displaced by code
enforcement activities,
but the amounts have
• May increase
reporting on
substandard
conditions and lead to
greater habitability
overall
• More staff time
Jurisdictions with a
substandard units policy:
• East Palo Alto
• San Carlos
• South San Francisco
• Woodside
been shown to be
insufficient, especially in
cases of permanent
displacement, to enable
residents to relocate
within San Mateo.
• May better support
tenants who must
relocate permanently
to stay in San Mateo
or vicinity
Rent Registry
Corresponding Housing
Element policy: H.3.6
Jurisdictions with a rental
registry:
• East Palo Alto
• Foster City (limited to
BMR units and in
development)
• Half Moon Bay
• Palo Alto
There is currently a lack of
data on the rental market
specific to San Mateo,
which can limit housing
policy decisions.
• Accuracy in rental
trends in San Mateo
• Can assist in making
housing-related policy
decisions
• Utilizes significant
staff time
• High cost of program
rollout
• Costly to manage
software
• Potential for low
participation from
either property
owners or tenants
Other Alternatives (from public input and stakeholder meetings) Policy Problem Potential Benefits Potential Costs
Emergency Rental
Assistance Fund
Jurisdictions with a fund:
• Brisbane
• Colma
• Daly City
• East Palo Alto
• Half Moon Bay
• Redwood City
• San Mateo County
• South San Francisco
• Most eviction cases
are related to
nonpayment of rent.
• Timely rent payments
reduce likelihood of
eviction
• Benefit to both tenant
and property owner
• Requires ongoing
funding source
• Would require fund
administrator
(through RFP process)
and reporting
• Limited funds
Right to Return for tenants
displaced due to demolition
or substantial remodels,
with return at a rent
increased by a
prescribed/limited amount
• A right to return may
be less effective if
rent of
remodeled/newly
constructed unit is
cost-prohibitive to
tenant.
• Return to unit
potentially more
financially feasible for
tenant
• Potentially
cumbersome to
implement
• Potentially high cost
to property owners
Limit on no-fault evictions
during the school year
• Evictions during the
school year can
significantly disrupt,
and have a harmful
effect, on the
• Avoids potential harm
to a student’s
academic life caused
by an eviction.
• Potentially difficult to
implement
academic life of
school-aged children.
Relocation Assistance Policy Alternatives
Alternative Potential Benefits Potential Costs
Relocation Alternative: One month of relocation
assistance for all tenants, regardless of tenure
• Benefit extended to
all tenants
• Cost incurred by
property owners,
but amount may be
insufficient to
support tenant in
relocation
Relocation Alternative: One month of relocation
assistance for tenants in their units for prescribed
timeframe, e.g., 3, 6, 9 , or 11 months
• Benefit extended to
tenants in targeted
fashion
• Amount may be
insufficient to
support tenant in
relocation
Relocation Alternative: More than one month of
relocation assistance (e.g., 3 months of HUD Fair
Market Rent) for tenants in their units for prescribed
timeframe, or all tenants, regardless of tenure
• May allow tenants to
successfully relocate
within the city or
vicinity
• Consistent with City
Tenant Relocation
Ordinance (Chapter
7.50)
• High/potentially
prohibitive cost to
property owners
Rent Registry Policy Alternatives
Rent Registry • Most detailed and
accurate data on San
Mateo housing
• High set-up and
maintenance costs
• Significant staff time
• Difficult to achieve
full compliance
Expanded version of existing City system for tracking
rental properties (through Business License Tax)
• Builds on an existing
City platform
• Could provide more
accurate data on
rental housing rates
• Data collection
limited, compared to
rent registry
• Additional cost to
City for set-up,
implementation, and
maintenance