Vallejo City Council
September 29, 2026

13 maintenance costs and can lead to deteriorating housing quality. As a result, most brokers interviewed opined that rent stabilization policies have negative impacts on property values.

Additionally, one broker spoke about a colleague’s experience in the City of Concord in which several properties fell out of escrow following the adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance in April 2024. This was corroborated by other brokers who stated that rent control policies may deter buyers from purchasing rental properties in jurisdictions with these policies. Most brokers interviewed stated that if Costa-Hawkins is repealed, it may lead to buyers purchasing multi-family residential properties in other states.

There is general concern that rent stabilization ordinances may harm small “mom-and-pop” property owners by reducing potential returns on multi-family residential properties. As a result, it is important to understand the types of property owners in San Pablo and nearby jurisdictions with rent stabilization policies. Figure 2 provides a comparison of multi-family residential asset value by owner origin across nearby jurisdictions with rent stabilization policies, in addition to San Pablo.

Figure 2: Multi-Family Asset Value by Owner Origin by Jurisdiction Source: CoStar
San Pablo's multi-family real estate ownership landscape is significantly influenced by national owners, with 88% of real estate asset value owned by entities headquartered outside the metropolitan area. In contrast, only 12% are local owners, the lowest among the jurisdictions researched. By contrast, the City of Richmond’s real estate market consists of 27% local owners and 73% national owners. This suggests that San Pablo’s housing market is unique from other jurisdictions who have implemented rent stabilization ordinances, where local owners constitute a greater portion of the real estate market. National owners may have a greater ability to absorb 12%
27% 23%
36%
88%
73%
75%
60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
San Pablo Richmond Alameda Berkeley
Local National Foreign

14 rising operating costs with a larger real estate portfolio. Furthermore, national owners may also have a greater ability to navigate and afford fair return rent increase petitions on a regular basis compared to a local owner with a smaller portfolio.

ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS AND GOALS Housing Characteristics
Located in western Contra Costa County, San Pablo encompasses 2.6 square miles and has a total population of approximately 31,100 residents.12 San Pablo is accessible through Interstate 80, which connects the City to nearby metropolitan areas such as San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland.

Table 2 provides a demographic overview of the City of San Pablo and Contra Costa County.

Table 2: Demographic Overview of San Pablo and County
Source: California Department of Finance (“DOF”) (2024), U.S. Census Bureau 5-Year Estimates (2022), ESRI (2023) Renter-occupied households make up approximately 58% of housing units in San Pablo, which is nearly double the rate of renter-occupied housing units in Contra Costa County (31%). In addition to lower rates of home ownership when compared to the County, approximately 56% of renter households are rent-burdened, which means that gross rent exceeds 30% of household income.

The City’s housing supply includes approximately 10,100 housing units with a mix of housing types. Costa-Hawkins exempts most single-family residences from local rent restrictions. To accurately evaluate the scale and associated cost of rent stabilization programs, housing types must be examined to gain a high-level understanding of the number of potentially covered and exempt units.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of housing types in San Pablo. 12 As of January 1, 2024 (Source: California Department of Finance) 2024
Population
Total Number
of Housing
Units
Average
Household
Size
Percentage of
RenterOccupied
Households
Percentage of
RentBurdened
Households
Poverty Rate
City of San
Pablo 31,088 10,161 3.33 57.6% 55.9% 11.8%
Contra Costa
County 1,146,626 430,051 2.84 31.2% 53.7% 8.7%
Percentage
Difference 189.4% 190.9% 15.9% 59.5% 4.0% 30.2%

15 Table 3: Housing Types (City of San Pablo)
Number of Housing Units Percentage of Total
Single-Family
Dwelling Units
5,650 55.6%
Multi-Family
Dwelling Units1
4,055 39.9%
Mobile Homes 405 4.0%
Boat, RV, Van,
etc. 51 0.5%
Total 10,161
1Multi-family dwelling units refer to residential buildings with more than one dwelling unit.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 5-Year Estimates (2022)
The majority of housing units in San Pablo are single-family residences, which make up over 55% of housing units, while multi-family housing makes up approximately 40% of housing units. A small proportion, or 4%, of housing units are mobile home spaces in San Pablo.

Year-built dates also affect the number of rental units subject to rent stabilization. Mentioned previously, Costa-Hawkins limits rental regulations on units constructed after 1995; however, the proposed Ordinance states that if Costa-Hawkins is repealed or amended, by operation of law, new Rental Units would be exempt only for the first 10 years after the completion of their construction (proposed Ordinance Section 8.05.040(A)).

Table 4 provides an overview of housing units in the City by year-built date.

Table 4: Housing Units by Year-Built Date (City of San Pablo) Number of Housing Units Percentage of Total1
Built 2000 or later 1,004 13.2%
Built 1990 to 1999 836 8.2%
Built 1990 or
before 7,985 78.7%
Total 10,161
1Total may not add due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 5-Year Estimates (2022)
The vast majority, approximately 79%, of housing units in San Pablo were built prior to the year 1990. Approximately 8% of housing units were built between 1990 and 2000, while the remaining housing units, around 13%, were built in 2000 or later. The U.S. Census Bureau does not provide the number of housing units constructed between 1995 and 2000. In order to determine the number of rental units exempt from the proposed Ordinance under Costa-Hawkins, the City will need to identify units constructed after 1995 using building permit or assessment roll data in conjunction with a rental registry.

16 Income Levels and Affordability
Figure 3 provides median incomes in the City and County from 2020-2024.

Figure 3: Median Income in the City and County (2020-2024) Note: Median income data for the City of San Pablo in 2022 and 2023 was unavailable at the time of this report.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 5-Year Estimates (2022), California Department of Housing and Community Development
As noted in the City’s 2023-31 Housing Element, nearly 21% of households in the City make less than 50% of the Area Median Income (“AMI”) (or very low income) and 29% of households in the City make less than 30% of AMI (extremely low income). In 2022, the median income in the City of San Pablo was $72,552, which is approximately 65% lower than the County’s median income in the same year.

Two-bedroom market rents in the City have increased by almost 13% from 2020 to 2024, while the CPI increased by approximately 18% in the same period. This means that the change in market rents was approximately 72% of the change in the CPI.

Figure 4 shows a comparison of the proposed rent increase limit against other prevalent rent increase limits implemented throughout the state.
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
San Pablo Median Income Contra Costa County Median Income

17 Figure 4: Comparison of Allowable Rent Increase Limits (2020-2024) Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
Additionally, aside from a spike in HCD rent limits in 2022, allowable rent increases under AB1482 have consistently been the highest allowable rent increase limits. Some jurisdictions with rent stabilization ordinances apply a 100% change in the CPI rent increase limit, which are 5% lower than what is permitted under AB1482. Lastly, a 60% change in the CPI rent increase limit, which is provided in the proposed Ordinance, has resulted in the lowest rent increase limits.

Figure 5 illustrates how HCD rent limits compare to market rents in the City of San Pablo.

Figure 5: Market Rents vs. HCD Rent Limits (2020-2024)
Source: HCD Income Limits, CoStar
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
AB1482 Change 100% CPI Change 60% CPI Change (Proposed Initiative) $0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
San Pablo 2-Bedroom Market Rent HCD 2-Bedroom 80% AMI Limit HCD 2-Bedroom 50% AMI Limit

18 HCD rent limits for households that fall under the 80% AMI limit (low income) have exceeded market rents in the City in recent years while 50% AMI rent limits have consistently been under market rents. It is worth noting that HCD income limits are based on median income for the County as a whole, which are significantly higher than the median income in the City of San Pablo. Nearly half of households in the City may qualify under very low income limits based on the high proportion of extremely low and very low Income households in the City.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Element Goals San Pablo has a total of 10,161 housing units based on U.S. Census Bureau 5-Year Estimates for 2022. According to the 2023-2031 San Pablo Housing Element, there are currently a total of 568 deed-restricted affordable housing units in the City of San Pablo. These figures will increase in the future with new development.

Every eight years, each California jurisdiction is allocated a specific number of housing units through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”), a metric the State’s Housing and Community Development Department (“HCD”) uses to identify each jurisdiction’s housing production goals to meet demand from population growth. According to the 2021-2029 6th Cycle RHNA, San Pablo’s share of necessary new housing is 746 units, including 173 units affordable to very low income households, 100 units affordable to low income, 132 units affordable to moderate income, and 341 units affordable to above-moderate (“market-rate”) income households.

The implementation of a rent stabilization program would not contribute towards the City’s RHNA allocation since it does not result in the development of new deed-restricted affordable housing units. However, rent stabilization could support other goals in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element such as:
• Housing Goal #2. Take action to address affordability and housing security for all income groups and family types in San Pablo.
o Policy 2-1: Continue to promote and support the development of affordable housing units for lower income households and strive for the provision of housing that is affordable to, and meets the needs of, current and future residents of San Pablo.
• Housing Goal #3. Equal housing opportunity for all residents of San Pablo, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, or ability. o Policy 3-2: Collaborative Fair Housing Efforts. Work collaboratively with local nonprofit, public and private sector partners to raise awareness and achieve implementation of fair housing practices.
• Housing Goal #6: Strengthen local government institutional capacity, provide information to the community and monitor accomplishments to respond effectively to housing needs. o Policy 6-1: The City recognizes that housing that is safe, healthy, and affordable is an important City priority, and the City will take a proactive leadership role in

19 following through on identified Housing Element implementation actions in a timely manner.
o Policy 6-3: The City will provide outreach and information to the community on the availability of programs to address individual housing needs, and will actively involve the community through information, outreach, and review.

Figure 6 displays the City’s progress in the 5th Cycle RHNA, which concluded on January 31, 2023.

Figure 6: 5th Cycle RHNA Progress (City of San Pablo)
Source: HCD
The City of San Pablo’s progress in the 5th Cycle RHNA demonstrates that the City achieved, or was close to achieving, its housing unit allocation for three of four income levels. The City had the lowest attainment rate for the above moderate income category, in which the City attained approximately 20% of its 5th Cycle RHNA allocation.

Figure 7 displays the City’s progress in the 6th Cycle RHNA, which began on January 31, 2023.

20 Figure 7: 6th Cycle RHNA Progress (City of San Pablo) Source: HCD
The City of San Pablo’s 6th Cycle RHNA concludes on January 31st, 2031. At the time of this report, the City has achieved over 50% of its low income RHNA allocation. However, the City has attained less than 10% for each of the remaining three income levels.

Costa-Hawkins prohibits rental regulations on units constructed after 1995. This exempts new developments from local rent restrictions and allows housing developers to set rental prices based on current market conditions. As a result, the Ordinance would not affect the development of new housing units in the City if Costa-Hawkins remains in place. If Costa-Hawkins is repealed, new studies will need to be conducted about impacts of rent stabilization on new development without exemptions for new construction, single-family homes, condominiums, and the ability to reset rents to market rates upon vacancy.

21 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PEER JURISDICTIONS
In California, over 25 jurisdictions have enacted citywide rent stabilization or just cause eviction policies. In May 2024, RSG researched and interviewed representatives from two California jurisdictions (Concord and East Palo Alto) that have rent stabilization and just cause eviction programs. The goal was to understand their program components, administrative structure and resources, program budgeting factors, and best practices, which will help the City estimate the fiscal impact of the proposed Ordinance. RSG also leveraged our database and prior interviews with representatives from four additional local jurisdictions (Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, and Richmond). We selected these jurisdictions because they represent a mix of new and longstanding programs, are primarily voter-approved initiatives, are located in the Bay Area, and have well-established programs with readily accessible information. For this report, we reference Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, Richmond, and East Palo Alto as the sample jurisdictions. We also include information from an interview with Concord, who adopted a rent stabilization ordinance in April 2024 and is in the implementation process. Table 5 provides an overview of the sample jurisdictions.

Table 5: Overview of Sample Jurisdictions
Source: City Ordinances and US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022) The rent stabilization programs in these sample jurisdictions are unique and contain differing provisions and complexities. These variations reflect the diverse needs and priorities of each community. For instance, some jurisdictions have implemented more intricate systems with multiple layers of regulation and oversight, while others have adopted simpler, more streamlined approaches. This diversity in program design allows us to compare a wide range of administrative practices with the proposed Ordinance in San Pablo. Table 6 provides an overview of the general provisions contained in each sample jurisdiction ordinance.

Jurisdiction Approved By Year
Adopted Population Rental Units % Rent Burdened
Poverty
Rate
San Pablo Voter
Proposed N/A 31,088 ~5,608 56% 11.8%
Alameda Voter 2016 34,391 16,579 42% 7.1%
Berkeley Voter 1980 54,438 25,000 52% 17.7%
Hayward City Council 2019 53,997 11,580 51% 9.6%
Richmond Voter 2016 40,950 18,000 56% 14.3%
East Palo Alto Voter 2010 8,270 2,500 56% 12.2%

22 Table 6: Comparison of Ordinance Provisions
San Pablo Alameda Berkeley Hayward Richmond East Palo
Alto

1. Rent Stabilization Provisions
Limits allowable rent increase X X X X X X
Includes Rent Banking provisions X X X

2. Eviction Protection Provisions
Defines just cause reasons for eviction X X X X X X
Implements enhanced noticing
requirements X X X X X X
Permanent relocation assistance
provisions for no-fault evictions X X X X
X
(separate
ordinance)
X
(separate
ordinance)
Requires short-term relocation to tenants
temporarily displaced X X X X
X
(separate
ordinance)
X
(separate
ordinance)
Implements Ellis Act regulations for
withdrawal from rental market X
X
(separate
resolution)
X
(separate
ordinance)
X
Regulates buyout agreements
X X
X
(separate
ordinance)
Additional requirements when completing
substantial rehabilitation X X

3. Registration and Compliance
Annual Program Fee required X X X X X X
Implements Rental Registry / Annual
reporting is required X X X X X
Imposes Administrative Penalties X X X X X

4. Petitions and Petition Process
Landlord and Tenant Petition and hearing
process

X X X X X X
Establishes a Rent Stabilization Board X X X

5. Enhanced Tenant Protections
Anti-Harassment / Retaliation provisions

X X X X
X
(separate
ordinance)
X
Includes provisions about the right for
tenants to organize X
RSG has analyzed the administrative components of these rent stabilization programs to inform the potential impacts of establishing and maintaining such a program in San Pablo. Our analysis includes an in-depth look at the structures and resources necessary for effective program administration as it relates to the following categories:

1. Rent Stabilization Provisions

2. Eviction Protection Provisions

3. Registration and Compliance

4. Petitions and Petition Process

5. Enhanced Tenant Protections
By leveraging the experiences of sample jurisdictions, we can anticipate the administrative demands and financial considerations to better understand the impacts of the proposed

23 Ordinance in San Pablo. Notably, the Ordinance proposed by the Initiative may require a higher level of oversight and regulation compared to the sample jurisdictions that we researched. As shown in Table 6, it has more comprehensive measures designed to regulate landlord-tenant relationships, resulting in more provisions requiring administration. Consequently, San Pablo's higher level of oversight could require added staff to handle specific administrative procedures compared to jurisdictions with less provisions. From a fiscal impact perspective, implementing and managing the increased regulatory framework will likely necessitate substantial resources, as further detailed in later sections.

Rent Stabilization Provisions
Rent stabilization provisions form the foundation of local rent stabilization programs. Typically, a jurisdiction implements a “rent limit” or maximum percentage by which landlords are allowed to increase tenants' rents, usually within a 12-month period. Some jurisdictions explicitly cap and floor their rent increase limits, ensuring that the rent increase limit does not exceed or fall below a specified percentage. Additionally, some jurisdictions include rent banking provisions that allow landlords to defer rent increases and apply them in the future. Table 7 summarizes the rent limit provisions in the proposed Ordinance compared to each of the sample jurisdictions.

24 Table 7: Comparison of Rent Stabilization Provisions Jurisdiction Rent Increase
Limit
Minimum
Rent
Increase
Maximum
Rent
Increase
Banking Limits
San Pablo
(Proposed)
60% of change
in CPI 0% 3% None stated
Alameda 70% of change
in CPI 1% 5%
Regardless of how much they have banked,
a landlord can never impose a rent increase
of more than the allowable rent increase
percentage for that year plus 3.0% (not to
exceed a total of 8%)
Can only impose banked increases up to 3
times during any tenancy and not more than
once in a 24-month period
Banked increases are not transferrable to a
successor landlord
Berkeley 65% of change
in CPI 0% 7%
Banked increases are permitted without
limitations until the amount charged for rent
reaches the rent ceiling
Hayward 5% N/A N/A
Banked rent increase + current year’s
allowable increase cannot exceed 10%
Unused banked amounts expire after 10
years
Banked increases are transferrable to a
successor landlord
Richmond 60% of change
in CPI 0% 3%
Landlords may bank no more than 5% plus
the current year’s allowable increase (3% or
less) - not to exceed 8%
Banked increases are transferrable to a
successor landlord
East Palo
Alto
80% of change
in CPI 0% 10% None Stated
Rent Increase Limits
Rent increase limits—sometimes referred to as “annual general adjustments”—vary by jurisdiction but are typically tied to a certain percentage of the change in the CPI for the jurisdiction's region or are established as a flat rate. The Ordinance proposes a rent increase limit of 60% of change in CPI, not to exceed 3%. The proposed rent increase limit aligns with Richmond, representing the most restrictive of the sample jurisdictions surveyed.

25 All but one of the sample jurisdictions (Hayward) tie their rent increase limit or annual general adjustment to a percentage of the change in CPI for the preceding twelve-month period. All five jurisdictions have maximum amounts for their rent increase limits, which range from 3 to 10%.

Four of the five jurisdictions have minimum amounts for their rent increase limits which range from 0 to 1%. This “floor” acts as a safeguard to prevent rents from falling below a certain level.

Rent Banking
Some jurisdictions allow rent banking, which allow landlords to accrue rent increases they chose not to implement in prior years to the future. When rent banking is allowed, landlords can add a portion of what they "banked" to a subsequent year’s rent increase. Some jurisdictions include noticing requirements when applying banked amounts. Others do not allow banking at all. When rent banking is allowed, ordinance may establish certain limits to prevent large and sudden rent increases for tenants. A majority (four) of the sample jurisdictions allow for rent banking and contain regulations on banking rents. The proposed Ordinance in San Pablo is silent on rent banking.

Administrative Considerations
Implementing rent increase limits involves a comprehensive set of administrative tasks. Initially, staff will need to educate landlords and tenants about the new regulations, provide guidance on allowable rent increases, and monitor compliance. This educational phase is crucial for ensuring that all parties understand their rights and responsibilities pursuant to the rent limit policies, which may involve conducting workshops, distributing informational materials, and offering one-on-one assistance.

Ongoing tasks include calculating annual allowable rent limits by reviewing market trends, assessing inflation rates or economic indicators, and applying the designated formula or percentage. Staff must communicate these limits clearly to landlords and tenants for accurate and fair implementation across all rental units.

Additionally, staff will collect and analyze data on rent levels using tools like surveys, rental market reports, and database analysis. This data collection effort is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of rent limits, monitoring changes in rental prices, and identifying any areas of concern or potential non-compliance.

Eviction Protection Provisions
Rent stabilization ordinances are often supplemented by eviction protection provisions designed to enhance tenant safeguards and prevent arbitrary evictions. These provisions specify the allowable grounds for a property owner to evict a tenant, categorizing them into at-fault and nofault reasons. Additionally, these ordinances frequently mandate relocation assistance to help tenants displaced through no fault of their own in securing new housing. Enhanced eviction protections may also include stricter notice requirements, regulation of evictions under the Ellis Act, and oversight of tenant buyout agreements to ensure fair treatment and transparency. These measures collectively aim to provide a more secure and stable housing environment for tenants.

26 Just Cause Reasons for Eviction
Just cause reasons for eviction are specific grounds that a landlord must cite to legally evict a tenant. The Tenant Protection Act of 2019, also known as AB 1482, outlines these just cause reasons, separating them into two main categories: at-fault and no-fault evictions. At-fault evictions occur due to the tenant’s actions or behaviors that violate the terms of the lease or rental agreement. Common at-fault reasons include failure to pay rent or breaching significant lease terms. No-fault evictions occur for reasons unrelated to the tenant’s behavior. Examples of a nofault eviction are situations where the property owner, or their immediate family member, intends to move into the rental unit as their primary residence or if significant repairs or renovations are necessary and cannot be completed while the tenant remains in the unit.

All five of the sample jurisdictions—Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, Richmond, and East Palo Alto— include provisions in their ordinances that define just cause reasons for eviction at varying levels of specificity. These jurisdictions tailor their just cause eviction rules to reflect local housing needs and policy goals. The proposed Ordinance in San Pablo defines at-fault and no-fault reasons for eviction and introduces additional protections, including requirements for landlords to provide tenants with an opportunity to rectify any lease violations before proceeding with an eviction.

Additionally, specific safeguards are proposed for elderly, disabled, and terminally ill tenants to prevent their displacement. The Ordinance also includes protections for educators and students to avoid evictions during the academic year, as well as protections for families when additional household members are added.

Noticing Requirements
All five of the sample jurisdictions incorporate additional noticing requirements at varying levels to enhance tenant protections when serving an eviction notice. These requirements may mandate that eviction notices include specific language outlining the reasons for eviction in clear and understandable terms, and that notices inform tenants of their rights under the local rent stabilization ordinance, such as the right to dispute the eviction or seek legal assistance.

Furthermore, landlords may be required to provide a copy of the eviction notice to the City or relevant housing authority after service to a tenant. This allows for program oversight into the eviction process and can help to monitor eviction activities, verify compliance with rent stabilization regulations, and offer support to affected tenants.

The Ordinance proposed by the Initiative requires landlords to state the cause for termination and ensure that any notice of eviction includes specific language regarding the status of the rental unit and the local laws governing the unit. Furthermore, the Ordinance requires that any notice of termination of tenancy be provided to the City within three days of service to the tenant. Under the proposed Initiative, failure to comply with any part of the Ordinance can be used by the tenant as an affirmative defense in an eviction action brought by the landlord to recover possession of the rental unit.

Additionally, a unique aspect of San Pablo’s proposed Ordinance is the requirement for landlords to obtain approval of a Tenant Safety Plan before undertaking repairs, construction, or substantial renovation of occupied rental properties. This measure aims to mitigate temporary untenantable

27 conditions. The Tenant Safety Plan must include details such as the identities of the landlord, tenants, and contractors involved, point of contact information, a description of the scope of the work, the impact of the renovation on the habitability and personal property of the affected tenants, and appropriate mitigation measures. Program staff must review the Tenant Safety Plan within five working days of its submission, and after approval, a copy must be provided to the affected tenants along with a Notice of Substantial Renovation.

Relocation Assistance
Relocation assistance refers to guidelines and provisions established by a local jurisdiction requiring landlords to pay a defined amount to support tenants who are being evicted at no fault of their own. Relocation assistance payment amounts vary widely by jurisdiction and tenant qualifications, such as age or disability, and are intended to support tenants in finding new housing accommodations. Table 8 provides a summary of relocation assistance in each of the jurisdictions that were interviewed.

28 Table 8: Comparison of Relocation Assistance
Jurisdiction Permanent Relocation Temporary Relocation
San Pablo
(Proposed)
Amount would be equal to four times the
monthly Fair Market Rent for the rental
unit being vacated, per tenant household,
or $8,000, whichever is more. Additional
$4,000 if any tenant is 62+, disabled, or
terminally ill
Amounts would be $150 per household
for hotel expenses, $30 per day per
person for meal expenses
Alameda
Amount ranges from $6,004 for studio
apartments to $15,900 for qualified
tenants living in 4+ bedroom units
Amounts are $228 per household for
hotel expenses, $66 per day per
person for meal expenses, $1 per day
per household for laundry expenses,
$36 per day per cat and $67 per day
per dog
Berkeley
Amount ranges from $18,011 for eligible
households and an additional $6,003 for
qualifying households
Amounts increase annually in accordance
with the CPI adjustment
Amounts are $120 to $166 per day up
to three people, and $15 for each
additional person per day. Per diem
rates for cats and dogs are $20 and
$50, respectively, per day per pet
Hayward One month of rent, or waiver of the final
month of rent
Amounts are $161 per day per
household for hotel/motel, $32 per day
per person for meal expenses, $1 per
day per household for laundry, $31 per
day per cat and $56 per day per dog
Richmond
Amount ranges from $4,177.01 to
$20,147.05 depending on bedroom count,
qualified status, and reason for
termination of tenancy
Amounts are $178.24 per day per
household for hotel/motel, $35.88 per
day per person for meal expenses,
$1.19 per day per household for
laundry, $34.69 per day per cat and
$62.21 per day per dog
East Palo Alto
Relocation assistance is not established
specifically in the RSO. However, other
Housing policies require landlords to pay
to tenants residing on property for less
than two years an amount of $7,500 OR
residing on property for two years or
longer an amount of $10,000
Additional qualified tenants are entitled to
an additional $2,500
Relocation assistance is not
established specifically in the RSO.

However, other Housing policies
require landlords to waive or pay
Tenant’s rent during the period of
temporary relocation, pay actual costs
of moving and storage, and pay the
actual costs for daily boarding of all
pets lawfully occupying the unit.

29 All five jurisdictions interviewed require landlords to provide permanent relocation assistance in the event of no-fault terminations such as owner move-in or withdrawal from the rental market.

The range of relocation assistance across these jurisdictions spans from one month's rent in Hayward to over $20,000 in Richmond, contingent upon factors such as bedroom size and special circumstances.

All five jurisdictions also require that landlords provide temporary relocation assistance to tenants when they are required to temporarily leave their residences for reasons such as temporary displacement due to code compliance or government order. Temporary relocation assistance amounts vary and are often based on actual and reasonable temporary housing expenses.

Provisions are often included that require landlords to allow tenants to move back in once repairs are complete.

It is important to note that in some jurisdictions, relocation assistance requirements are established through separate ordinances, distinct from the rent stabilization ordinance, and may be administered by different housing staff. This is the case in two of the five jurisdictions studied (Richmond and East Palo Alto).

Withdrawal from Rental Market
The Ellis Act (1985) allows landlords to exit the rental housing market and withdraw their units from rental use, permitting eviction of all tenants for purposes like converting units into condominiums or other ownership forms. Under the Ellis Act, local entities may impose various restrictions on landlords going out of business, such as requiring a notice of intent to withdraw, providing information about tenancies, offering relocation assistance, and imposing limits on future rental use of the property, including offering units to displaced tenants at former rental rates within specific timeframes. Three of the five sample jurisdictions include provisions in their ordinance or have a separate ordinance that regulates the withdrawal of rental units from the housing market.

The proposed Ordinance in San Pablo would implement regulations for landlords who wish to exit the rental business or demolish rental units. Landlords would be required to notify the City of their intent to withdraw or demolish and record a memorandum summarizing these provisions with the County Recorder. Landlords must provide tenants with a minimum 120-day notice of termination, or a one-year notice if the tenant is 62 or older, or disabled, along with other noticing requirements.

If landlords re-rent the units after withdrawal, they would be liable to any displaced tenants and must offer the unit back to the tenant who was displaced. The rent that can be charged if the unit is re-rented to the displaced tenant would also be regulated. Additionally, the City would be responsible for maintaining a register of all units withdrawn from rent or lease and recording the applicable rent at the time of withdrawal.

Buyout Agreements
Some cities with rent stabilization ordinances include guidelines or provisions for tenant buyout agreements, where a landlord offers a financial incentive for a tenant to voluntarily vacate a rental unit. Among the sample jurisdictions surveyed, two of the five include provisions in their ordinance

30 or have a separate ordinance that regulates buyout agreements to ensure that tenants are wellinformed about their rights in these situations. These provisions often require landlords to provide a written disclosure document outlining tenants' rights before making an offer and may specify the timeframe within which the tenant can rescind the agreement, typically ranging from 25 to 45 days.

The proposed Ordinance in San Pablo would require landlords to use a City-authorized form for written disclosures related to buyout agreements, informing tenants of their rights and their opportunity to rescind the agreement within 30 days after signing. Additionally, the City would be responsible for maintaining confidential records of buyout agreements and collecting and publishing data on all filed buyout agreements.

Administrative Considerations
Implementing robust eviction protection provisions such as those included in the proposed Ordinance may require a high level of staff oversight. Staff will collect and review eviction notices submitted by landlords to ensure they comply with the ordinance, verifying that all required documentation is included and that the reasons for eviction meet the criteria set forth in the Ordinance. Additionally, staff will review and approve Tenant Safety Plans within five working days, requiring a thorough understanding of the requirements and the ability to assess the adequacy of submitted plans. Maintaining and analyzing records for withdrawals from the rental market and tenant buyout agreements will also be a key responsibility, involving data entry into a secure database, monitoring trends, and generating reports to identify potential issues or patterns of non-compliance.

These tasks involve extensive education and outreach efforts. Staff will develop and distribute informational materials to landlords and tenants, conduct workshops and training sessions, and provide ongoing support to ensure all parties understand their rights and responsibilities under the new regulations. Tracking and documentation will be critical, necessitating the establishment and maintenance of comprehensive records of all eviction notices, Tenant Safety Plans, market withdrawals, and buyout agreements. Tenant support services will also be significant, with staff assisting tenants facing eviction in understanding their rights, navigating the process, and accessing available resources. Finally, compliance and enforcement efforts will involve regular audits of landlord submissions, investigating complaints, and taking necessary enforcement actions to address non-compliance, potentially including issuing warnings, fines, or other penalties, and coordinating with the City Attorney’s Office for legal action if necessary.

Registration and Compliance
To achieve the intended goals of a rent stabilization policy, it is essential to establish clear procedures to monitor and enforce compliance. Effective compliance tools are crucial for ensuring that landlords and tenants adhere to a policy's provisions. Compliance tools may include the implementation of a rental registry and a rental registry fee and imposing administrative penalties and fines.

31 Annual Registration and Fee
A rental registry is a centralized database that contains information about rental properties within a particular jurisdiction. The registry typically includes details about the properties, landlords, and current tenancies. The primary purpose of a rental registry is to provide transparency, facilitate effective regulation, and ensure compliance with local housing laws. Typically, landlords incur a fee when enrolling their unit(s) in a rental registry software system. The rental registry fee is collected to cover costs associated with administering the program, including maintaining the registry, administering the program, responding to inquiries, processing petitions, coordinating public awareness efforts, and conducting compliance and enforcement activities. Table 9 provides a summary of rental registries and fees in each of the jurisdictions that were interviewed.

32 Table 9: Comparison of Rental Registry and Fee
Jurisdiction Fee Pass Through Fee Penalties for Nonpayment San Pablo
(Proposed)
Controlled Rental
Unit: $120/unit
Partially Exempt:
$84/unit
Not allowed
Tenant may withhold all or a
portion of the Rent for the Rental
Unit until such time as the Rental
Housing Fee is paid or proper
notice is filed
Complete defense to an unlawful
detainer
Alameda
Fully Covered:
$162/unit
Partially
Covered:
$109/unit
50% pass through to tenants
Cannot increase rent
10% late penalty with additional
10% added each successive
month up to 60%
Berkeley
Fully Covered:
$290/unit
Partially
Covered:
$178/unit
Not allowed
Cannot increase rent or evict
tenant
100% penalty
Hayward
Covered Rental
Units: $66/unit
Non-Covered
Rental Units:
$32/unit
50% pass through to tenants Cannot increase rent
Richmond
Fully Covered:
$220/unit
Partially Covered
& Subsidized
Units: $125/unit
Not allowed
Late penalties ranging from 10%
- 50% depending on length of
time past-due
Tenant may withhold all or a
portion of the Rent for the Rental
Unit until such time as the Rental
Housing Fee is paid or proper
notice is filed
Complete defense to an unlawful
detainer
East Palo Alto
Fully Covered:
$234/unit Not allowed
Late penalties ranging from 15%
- 100% depending on length of
time past-due
Cannot increase rent

33 Each of the five jurisdictions surveyed require landlords to register their rental units on an annual basis. All but one jurisdiction (East Palo Alto) implemented a rental registry for this annual requirement. The City of East Palo Alto indicated that they keep manual records and are in the process of establishing a rental registry, noting that they recommend avoiding manual record keeping if possible due to the administrative burden on staff.

The proposed Ordinance does not specifically mandate the establishment of a rental registry.

However, several provisions of the Ordinance suggest that the City may need to develop a centralized database to collect fees and maintain records. For instance, the proposed Ordinance requires the Program to:
• Maintain a register of all Rental Units withdrawn from rent or lease, along with the rent applicable to each unit at the time of withdrawal.
• Collect data from filed Buyout Agreements, including the compensation paid for the Buyout Agreement and the neighborhood of the affected Rental Unit, and make that data public without revealing personally identifying information.
• Collect and maintain a database of unlawful detainer filings and termination, rent increase, and change in terms notices received.
• Charge and collect the Rental Housing Fee, including penalties for late payments.

Each of the five jurisdictions also impose fees for registering residential rental properties, with fee amounts varying from $32 to $290 annually per unit. Some jurisdictions establish separate registration fees for fully and partially covered units and/or make certain units exempt from paying a registration fee, such as units with rent-subsidized tenants. Generally, a fully covered unit refers to rental units where both rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections apply, and partially covered units refer to units where only the just cause eviction protections apply. Four of the five jurisdictions charge fees depending on whether the property is fully covered or partially covered. Two of the jurisdictions allow landlords to pass through up to 50% of the registration fee to tenants as a rent surcharge prorated over 12 months to balance the interests of landlords and tenants since registration benefits both parties.

The proposed Ordinance requires an annual Rental Housing Fee to cover the costs to administer, enforce, and enact the Ordinance, which will be determined by the City Council after the Program provides a recommendation. Until the fee is established by the City Council, the Ordinance calls for a fee amount of $120 per Controlled Rental Unit per year and $84 for Units that are partially exempt, with no mention of an allowable pass-through cost to tenants.

Administrative Penalties and Fines
To discourage noncompliance with the law, jurisdictions may grant authorities the power to impose punitive measures on landlords and their representatives in the event of violations. These measures, comprised of administrative fines and penalties, are managed by the department overseeing the program and are categorized as either civil or judicial penalties, with the latter

34 involving court proceedings and often requiring legal representation. It is important to note that jurisdictions typically offer appeal mechanisms, allowing those issued citations or suspected of violations to contest the allegations and seek a fair resolution. Table 10 provides a summary of administrative penalties and fines in the Ordinance and comparison jurisdictions.

Table 10: Comparison of Administrative Penalties and Fines Jurisdiction Type(s) of Penalties Limits on Penalties
San Pablo
(Proposed)
Damages for relocation payments,
wrongful eviction, excess rent,
harassment
Damages not less than three times actual
damages
Additional fines ranging from $1,000 -
$5,000 for harassment damages
Alameda
Fines
Misdemeanor and/or jail time
Public nuisance designation
$250 to $1,000 depending on number of
offenses in a year
Misdemeanor may include fine up to
$1,000, jail time not to exceed six (6)
months
Designation may apply to any rental
business
Berkeley
Tenant may file suit for damages
with the city

Misdemeanor and/or jail time
$750 in addition to any damages
$500 fine and/or 90 days in jail for the first
offense and $1,000 fine and/or six (6)
months jail time
Hayward
Administrative citation
Misdemeanor and/or jail time
Liable for tenant damages and attorneys’
fees
Liable for civil penalty that is the greater of
$500 or three times the amount of money
more than the maximum rent
$100 to $500 depending on number of
offenses in a year. After four offenses,
misdemeanor and fine of no more than
$1,000 and/or six (6) months jail time
Richmond Administrative hearing
All rent received, demanded, retained, or
accepted more than the maximum allowable
rent plus damages and being found guilty of
a misdemeanor
East Palo Alto None stated None stated

35 Four of the five jurisdictions surveyed have some type of administrative hearing or direct citation, with maximum fines per violation ranging from $500 to $1,000. Some jurisdictions implement penalties and fines based on the existing administrative citation process set forth in the municipal code, while others adopt tailored fines for violations of the ordinance. These jurisdictions emphasize that robust penalties provide authorities with effective enforcement tools to address violations swiftly and decisively, and to help protect the rights and interests of the community.

The proposed Ordinance includes robust remedies for non-compliance, including damages for relocation payments, wrongful eviction, excess rent, and harassment in an amount equal to at least three times actual damages.

Administrative Considerations
Implementing a rental registry and collecting an annual fee requires careful administrative planning and coordination. Initially, staff will develop and set up a secure database to manage rental registry data and create both online and physical forms for landlord registration. The creation of a rental registry may be contracted out to a third party but will require staff oversight and collaboration. Staff will also conduct outreach and education for landlords, providing guidance on registration requirements, processing applications, verifying submitted information, and addressing any discrepancies.

Ongoing responsibilities include maintaining accurate and up-to-date records by entering and updating rental unit information, including changes in tenancy and ownership. To achieve high compliance rates, staff will develop and implement enforcement procedures, such as issuing notices of non-compliance and taking necessary enforcement actions. Additionally, staff will handle the fee collection process, which involves generating and distributing invoices, receiving and processing payments, and issuing receipts to landlords.

Implementing these administrative structures may require coordination with other City departments, such as Finance, IT, and the City Attorney’s Office. The Finance Department may assist with streamlining the fee collection process with other fees collected at the City. The IT Department will be needed to implement robust IT infrastructure and security measures for data collection. Lastly, close coordination with the City Attorney’s Office is essential to ensure that enforcement mechanisms are implemented, and the Program operates in compliance with the Ordinance.

Petitions and Petition Process
Petitions in rent stabilization programs serve as a formal mechanism through which landlords and tenants can seek redress or request adjustments based on specific circumstances. In rent stabilization programs that impose rent increase limits that are more restrictive than the limits set by State law, petitions are a required component of due process, ensuring that legal and procedural rights are upheld, conflicts are addressed fairly, and decisions are based on thorough evaluations of relevant factors. Each type of petition plays a vital role in maintaining a balanced relationship between tenants and landlords and promoting stability and fairness within the rental market. Table 11 provides a summary of petition types and fees in the Proposed Ordinance compared to each of the jurisdictions studied.

36 Table 11: Comparison of Petition Provisions
Jurisdiction
Tenant
Petitions
Received in
the Past
Year
Capital
Improvement
Petitions
Received in
the Past Year
Fair
Return
Petitions
Received
in the
Past Year
Separate
Petition
Fee
Party
Conducting
Hearing
Party
Overseeing
Appeals
San Pablo
(Proposed) N/A N/A N/A None Hearing Examiner
City
Council
Alameda1 18 2 1 None Hearing
Officer
Court of
appropriate
jurisdiction
Berkeley 100-130 0 0 None Hearing
Examiner Board
Hayward 31 24 0 None Rent Review
Officer
Court of
appropriate
jurisdiction
Richmond 228 50 None Hearing
Examiner Board
East Palo
Alto 7 N/A 0
$25 per
application,
may waive
for tenant if
qualified
Hearing
Examiner Board
1The City of Alameda received one additional type of Petition in the past year.

Petition Types and Fee
Generally, there are three types of petitions that a jurisdiction may include in their program: 1) fair return petitions, 2) tenant petitions, and 3) capital improvement petitions. Some jurisdictions include additional types of petitions depending on the community need. Depending on the type of petition, they may be submitted by the tenant or the landlord to a program administrator or decision-making body for consideration and approval.
1) Fair Return Petitions
A landlord is entitled under the law to receive a fair return on their rental property. If a landlord believes that the maximum allowable rent increase under the ordinance does not constitute a fair return, they have the right to file a fair return petition requesting an increase greater than what the ordinance provides. This is a legal requirement and as such, the proposed Ordinance and all comparison jurisdictions have a fair return petition available to landlords.
2) Tenant Petitions
All five jurisdictions have provisions in their ordinance that allow a tenant to file a petition asserting various types of claims against a landlord. Examples include requesting a rent decrease due to a substantial decrease in housing services, failure to repair or maintain a unit, or rent increases in excess of the allowable amount.

37 3) Capital Improvement Petitions
Four of the five jurisdictions studied allow for a petition to request a capital improvement pass-through to the current tenants. A capital improvement is one that materially adds to the value of the property (this is often detailed as a specific amount in the ordinance) or appreciably prolongs its useful life or adapts it to new uses. The improvement is typically amortized over the useful life. As such, these rent increases are temporary. In general, a capital improvement petition would allow a landlord to recover the cost of capital improvements when the improvements benefit the units in question and the improvements were not necessitated by the current landlord’s neglect or failure to maintain the property.

Examples of capital improvements include new windows, a roof replacement, and exterior painting to the entire building.
4) Other
Although less common, some jurisdictions have developed additional petitions to allow for tailoring policies to community needs. Examples include petitions to determine exempt status, petitions for a rent increase for additional occupants, and petitions to determine occupancy status.

In some programs, a petition fee is required by the governing authority or agency overseeing the petition process. The purpose of the fee is to cover administrative costs associated with processing the petition, conducting analysis, and organizing hearings or other proceedings. This fee is typically levied on landlords or tenants who wish to file a petition related to rent stabilization.

The specific purpose and amount of the petition fee can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the provisions of the ordinance. Only one of the comparison jurisdictions, East Palo Alto, imposes a petition fee of $25, however, a low income waiver is available for tenants that may be unable to pay the associated fee. The proposed Ordinance does not implement a fee to submit or process petitions.

Petition Review and Hearings
Petitions are submitted to provide a ruling or decision over disputed matters, which typically takes place during a hearing. Hearings are formal procedures where landlords and tenants present evidence and testimony before a hearing officer, board, or designated arbitrator. The party who files the petition bears the burden of proof of all relevant factors in the petition.

It can take several months from the time a petition is submitted to reach a decision from a hearing officer. The duration is attributed to the time needed to review the submitted petition and supporting documents, obtain any necessary additional documentation, provide noticing, schedule a hearing with both parties and/or their representatives, and if applicable, administer appeals of decisions. The general steps involved in the hearing process are as follows:

1. Landlord or tenant submits a petition

2. Staff reviews petition for completeness

3. Notice of and scheduling for the hearing is provided to all parties

4. Petitioner and responding party gather and submit evidence

5. Hearing takes place

6. Petition authority makes a legally binding decision

38 7. Appeals process (if applicable)
Petition authority refers to a designated entity or governing body responsible for overseeing and managing the process of receiving, reviewing, and addressing petitions related to rent stabilization. Program staff, an elected or appointed board, a third-party hearing officer/examiner, or some combination of these typically serve the function of petition authorities. The primary role of a petition authority is to provide a formal ruling on submitted petitions regarding rent stabilization matters. The petition authority typically has the responsibility to review and evaluate each petition, ensuring they comply with the established guidelines and requirements, as well as to conduct hearings on contested matters and provide a determination to resolve the dispute. All five of the jurisdictions interviewed designate a hearing officer or examiner to make decisions on petitions, which is in alignment with the proposed Ordinance.

Appeals
Appeals allow a landlord or tenant to challenge a decision on a petition. While any decision may be appealed in a court, specific ordinances may permit an appeal to a hearing officer, board, or arbitrator. Conversely, in some cases, the initial ruling is deemed final within the City’s jurisdiction, requiring an appeal to be escalated to a court of local jurisdiction for further review.

Among the five jurisdictions examined, three permit the appeal of a petition decision within their respective programs, which is entrusted, either entirely or partially, to their rent board or commission. The formation of a board or commission allows city councils to maintain a more hands-off role while fostering community involvement and garnering support. Rent stabilization boards offer a forum for diverse stakeholder representation, including landlords, tenants, and other community members without financial interests in real estate. These boards are typically supported by dedicated program staff to carry out their various duties. In lieu of a board hearing appeals to the hearing examiner’s decisions, the proposed Ordinance states that appeals will be heard by the City Council to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the hearing examiner.

Administrative Considerations
When implementing a rent stabilization program, city staff will need to handle a range of administrative tasks to ensure the smooth processing of petitions, hearings, and appeals. At the onset, staff will create standardized petition forms and enact rules and regulations to govern the hearing and appeals process. This foundational work ensures clarity and consistency for all parties involved. Additionally, a qualified hearing officer will be identified to preside over the hearings, ensuring impartiality and adherence to legal standards. The hearing officer is typically an attorney from a law firm contracted by the City for that specific purpose.

Once the program becomes operational, staff will be responsible for reviewing petitions submitted by tenants or landlords and verifying all required documentation and evidence. This process involves checking the completeness and accuracy of petitions, serving as a point of contact for the petitioner and responding party, and preparing documentation for further action. Staff will assist with scheduling hearings, coordinating dates, times, and venues, and notifying all involved parties. Additionally, staff will prepare and distribute hearing notices, including detailed information about the hearing procedures, the issues at stake, and any pre-hearing requirements. Staff may

39 also need to prepare detailed reports that summarize the petitioner's claims and analyze the relevant evidence. The City may contract out petition review and analysis to a third-party consultant if needed, however staff will need to provide oversight and collaboration.

During the hearings, staff will support the hearing officer by managing logistics, recording proceedings, and handling any administrative tasks that arise. They will compile and organize all submitted evidence, testimonies, and relevant documents into a comprehensive case record. In cases where appeals arise, staff may assist with reviewing the appeal submissions for compliance with procedural requirements, preparing the appeal case files, and coordinating the scheduling of appeal hearings before the City Council. Throughout the process, staff must maintain meticulous records, provide regular updates to involved parties, and ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and city policies.

Enhanced Tenant Protections
In addition to tenant protections previously detailed that are commonly included in rent stabilization ordinances, some jurisdictions incorporate additional tenant protections into their ordinances. Enhanced tenant protections may include granting tenants the right to organize and implementing robust anti-harassment measures.

Right to Organize
The right to organize in the context of tenant protections refers to the ability of tenants to gather to act on shared collective interests as tenants. This may include, but is not limited to, engaging with other tenants for the purpose of mutual aid and protection, convening meetings in a space accessible to tenants, informing other tenants of their rights, and advocating for government action or legislation addressing tenant issues.

The proposed Ordinance includes provisions regarding a landlord’s non-interference in organizing activities, the right for tenants to establish a tenant association, a requirement for landlords and tenant associations to confer in good faith, the right to tenant representation, and establishes a requirement for landlords, at the request of a tenant association, to attend association meetings once per calendar quarter. It should be noted that none of the sample jurisdictions include provisions regarding a tenant’s right to organize.

Anti-Harassment / Retaliation provisions
Anti-harassment and retaliation protections refer to provisions that prevent landlords from engaging in harassing and retaliatory behaviors towards tenants. California state law includes a number of anti-harassment and retaliation provisions, most notably Civil Code Section 1942.5, which prohibits a landlord from raising rent, reducing housing services, forcing a tenant to move out involuntarily, or attempting to evict a tenant because the tenant has exercised any legal rights, such as raising habitability concerns or being involved in a tenants’ rights organization. 13 However,
13 California state law also provides additional tenant protections, including but not limited to, outlining only specific reasons a landlord may enter a dwelling unit, establishing the requirement for landlords to provide reasonable notice in writing of the intent to enter the dwelling unit, preventing the interruption or termination of utility services, prohibiting landlords from preventing the tenant to gain reasonable access to the property, and preventing landlords from removing tenant personal property without prior written consent (Source: CA Civil Code Sections 789.3, 1940.2, and 1954).

40 some jurisdictions implement additional provisions that protect a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

All five sample jurisdictions include provisions regarding harassment and/or retaliation at varying levels of detail. The proposed Ordinance takes a comprehensive approach to regulating harassment by prohibiting landlords, as well as their agents, from engaging in actions that are either negligent or in bad faith. The Ordinance details 28 specific acts that constitute bad faith, while also providing for the creation of regulations to further define and guide the identification of bad faith conduct.

Administrative Considerations
Adopting additional tenant protections such as the right to organize and anti-harassment provisions within a rent stabilization framework requires thorough planning and coordination.

Initially, city staff must educate both landlords and tenants about the new regulations to clarify the legal nuances of organizing rights and assist the community in understanding harassment.

Additionally, staff may need to establish clear policies and procedures for enforcing these protections, which involves setting up standardized complaint reception processes, including a dedicated email and phone line.

On an ongoing basis, staff may investigate complaints, which involves collecting evidence and maintaining records of all complaints and investigations to identify patterns that may require regulatory adjustments or additional educational efforts. Furthermore, staff may collaborate with other city departments or external legal experts to handle complex cases or prosecute persistent offenders, ensuring that the protections are enforceable and effectively enhance tenant security in the community.

41 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
RSG has conducted a detailed fiscal impact analysis on the implementation of a rent stabilization program, including an in-depth review of key factors such as program staffing and budgeting, as well as start-up and ongoing costs associated with such initiatives. These factors are crucial in shaping the administrative and financial demands of the program and play a significant role in determining the resources needed for its effective management at the local level.

Program Staffing and Budget
There are several critical factors that must be considered to effectively estimate the required budget and staffing levels necessary to support a rent stabilization program. These factors include the total number of covered rental units within the City, the scope of regulatory oversight, and the City’s existing staffing framework.

Table 12 provides an overview of the program staffing and budgets of each of the five sample jurisdictions and includes an estimate of the budget required to effectively manage the demands of a rent stabilization program in San Pablo. RSG estimates San Pablo would require an annual budget of approximately $1.21 million to implement the Ordinance proposed by the Initiative.

The estimated fiscal impact for San Pablo’s program assumes that it will initially operate at a moderate capacity. In the early stages, the program will likely concentrate on basic compliance due to staffing and resource limitations. However, the proposed Ordinance necessitates a high level of regulatory oversight, which will drive the program towards more comprehensive enforcement and community engagement over time. Assumptions are detailed in Table 13 and the subsequent sections.

Table 12: Comparison of Program Staffing and Budget
Jurisdiction FTE Annual Budget
Allocation1
Number of
Rental
Units
Registry
Fee per
Unit
Cost
Per
Rental
Unit2
Division of
Work3
Low-Capacity3
East Palo
Alto
2 +
Temp
Staff as
needed
$615,000
2,500 Rent
Stabilized
Units
Covered
Rental Units:
$234
$246
Administration,
Compliance,
Hearings,
Petitions, Public
Information,
Registration,
Termination of
Tenancy
Hayward 3.5 $642,000 Fully Covered
Units: 11,580
Covered
Rental Units:
$66/unit
Non-Covered
Rental Units:
$32/unit
$55
Administration,
Hearings,
Mediation,
Petitions,
Termination of
Tenancy

42 Jurisdiction FTE Annual Budget
Allocation1
Number of
Rental
Units
Registry
Fee per
Unit
Cost
Per
Rental
Unit2
Division of
Work3
Moderate-Capacity
San Pablo 5 $1.21M
~5,608 Rental
Units
Fully
Covered:
$1204
Partially
Covered: -
$845
(Preliminary)
$215
Administration,
Compliance,
Hearings,
Petitions, Public
Information,
Data Collection,
Termination of
Tenancy
Alameda 7.5 $1.99M
Fully Covered
Units: 13,741
Partially
Covered Units:
2,838
Fully Covered:
$162/unit
Partially
Covered:
$109/unit
$120
Compliance,
Hearings,
Petitions, Public
Information,
Registration,
Termination of
Tenancy
High-Capacity
Berkeley 26 $7.51M
Approx.
25,000
Registered
Units
Fully Covered:
$290/unit
Partially
Covered:
$178/unit
$300
Administration,
Compliance,
Counseling,
Hearings,
Housing,
Mediation,
Petitions, Public
Information,
Termination of
Tenancy
Richmond 14 $3.00M
Approx.
18,000
Registered
Units
Fully Covered:
$220/unit
Partially
Covered &
Subsidized
Units:
$125/unit
$167
Compliance,
Counseling,
Hearings,
Housing, Legal
Assistance,
Petitions, Public
Information,
Registration,
Termination of
Tenancy
1 Based on 2023-24 program annual budgets. Amounts are rounded. Cost per total units shown in the “Number of Rental Units” column.
2 Division of work refers to the allocation of responsibilities and tasks among staff and the various parties engaged in the implementation, maintenance, and oversight of the program.

43 3 See the “Scope of Regulatory Oversight” section for a description of Low-, Moderate-, and High-Capacity classifications.
4,5 Proposed Rental Housing Fee that would go in effect until the Rental Housing Fee is determined by the Council.

Table 12 provides data on program costs per rental unit, calculated by dividing each jurisdiction's annual budget allocation by the estimated number of rental units covered under their rent stabilization provisions. This figure varies greatly between jurisdictions, ranging from $55 to $300, and demonstrates the amount of funds ‘allocated’ to each rental unit from a program’s annual budget. A lower cost per rental unit may be due to a lower level of services required by an ordinance, but it may also point to programs with limited financial resources and program capacity.

For instance, the City of Hayward, with the lowest cost per rental unit at $55, is a largely complaintbased program with minimal enforcement procedures.

Higher costs per rental unit may correlate to higher complexity and operational demands of the program, but it may also point to a baseline level of resources required to administer a program regardless of the number of covered units. The City of East Palo Alto, for example, is considered a low-capacity program, however, costs per rental unit are relatively high. This suggests that regardless of the jurisdiction, certain fundamental costs are inherently associated with operating these programs, even with limited staffing and constrained resources.

It should be noted that although the cost per unit offers a general overview of financial allocation across the jurisdictions surveyed, it is not a definitive metric for evaluating the budgetary adequacy or financial management of a rent stabilization program. The following sections will explore the key factors influencing the administrative and financial requirements of program implementation. Additionally, after adopting a rent stabilization ordinance, a formal fee study may offer more precise insights into the operational costs tied to the ordinance as adopted, enhancing understanding and enabling more accurate budget planning.

Number of Rental Units
The number of rental units in a city plays a critical role in determining the budget and staffing needs of a rent stabilization program. As the number of rental units increases, the scope and complexity of managing the program also grows. This expansion requires more staff to handle a variety of tasks such as processing registration and petitions, managing data, conducting enforcement, and engaging with the community. Each of these tasks demands dedicated personnel to ensure the program operates smoothly and complies with legal standards.

Accordingly, a larger rental market necessitates a correspondingly larger administrative structure, which, in turn, increases the budget for salaries, benefits, and operational costs to support the additional staff.

The size of the rental market affects the resources needed for effective program implementation.

A city with a larger number of rental units might also see more disputes and a greater number of submitted petitions, requiring specialized staff and third-party hearing officers or legal experts. On the other hand, in cities with fewer rental units, the program might operate with fewer staff and lower budgetary allocations. Thus, city officials must carefully analyze the rental housing market's size to tailor the rent stabilization program’s staffing and budget, ensuring it is both effective in its enforcement and efficient in its use of public funds.

44 Scope of Regulatory Oversight
The scope of regulatory oversight in a rent stabilization program significantly impacts its budget, primarily by defining the breadth and depth of required staffing activities. A comprehensive set of regulations demands a robust budget to support detailed compliance checks, diverse tenantlandlord services, and extensive documentation collection and monitoring. This necessitates increased staffing, robust training, and technology resources. Additionally, an assertive enforcement strategy requires more resources for legal support, enforcement officers, and ongoing training to handle complex legal issues effectively. Furthermore, extensive regulatory oversight often involves significant community outreach and education efforts to ensure landlords and tenants understand their rights and responsibilities. This includes funding public workshops, informational campaigns, and dedicated support lines, which all require substantial investment in materials, event coordination, and personnel.

Table 12 summarizes program staffing and budget in each of the sample jurisdictions. To better understand the implementation of rent stabilization across different jurisdictions, we have classified sample jurisdictions into three distinct levels of regulatory oversight based on their capacity and approach to enforcement and outreach. These classifications help identify how different cities allocate resources and prioritize rent stabilization within their administrative frameworks.

Low-capacity programs are characterized by limited staffing and constrained resources. These jurisdictions typically exhibit less proactive enforcement and minimal outreach efforts, focusing primarily on basic compliance and reactive measures. Moderate-capacity programs possess sufficient staffing levels and resources to conduct moderately proactive enforcement and outreach. These programs balance reactive measures with preventive actions and maintain a moderate level of community engagement. Finally, high-capacity programs represent jurisdictions with the most extensive resources and staffing levels, characterized by high levels of proactive enforcement and comprehensive outreach efforts. These jurisdictions prioritize rent stabilization highly within their policy agendas and invest significantly in ensuring broad compliance and active community involvement.

For the purposes of this report, San Pablo is classified as a moderate capacity program because, despite having a lower number of rental units, the proposed Ordinance outlines a high level of regulatory oversight. This classification assumes that a moderate level of operation will need to be established initially to address provisions of the ordinance such as collecting and reviewing eviction notices, approving Tenant Safety Plans, maintaining and analyzing records for rental market withdrawals and tenant buyout agreements, conducting education and outreach efforts, developing and setting up a secure database, monitoring compliance, and processing petitions.

Existing Staffing Framework and Efficiency
When determining the staffing needs and budget for a rent stabilization program, the existing staffing framework and efficiencies within the local jurisdiction are crucial factors to consider. The City does not currently have the staffing required to manage and enforce a rent stabilization program and would need to hire new staff or reallocate existing personnel to support the program.

Without an adequate staffing framework already in place, the City must invest in training new hires or existing staff to ensure they understand the complexities of rent stabilization laws and can

45 effectively implement and enforce the program. This initial investment in staffing and training can significantly impact the program's start-up and ongoing budget. The City must ensure the team is well-equipped to manage the program's demands efficiently and effectively.

The existing administrative efficiency within the local jurisdiction also plays a significant role in determining program staffing. Cities that already have streamlined and efficient administrative processes in place may require fewer staff for the rent stabilization program, as their existing frameworks can more easily adapt to the new regulatory demands. In contrast, cities with less efficient systems might find that more personnel are necessary to handle the administrative load effectively. This difference can lead to variations in how resources are allocated. For example, when RSG interviewed the City of East Palo Alto, their staff expressed that many of the City's processes, including annual registration, tracking complaints and inquiries, and collecting fees, are tracked manually, which consumes a significant amount of staff time. Staff indicated that this lack of program efficiencies means that a significant portion of staff time is devoted to administrative tasks and noted that implementing automated processes would reduce the time spent on routine tasks and allow staff to focus on other critical aspects of the program. Therefore, enhancing administrative efficiency is crucial for optimizing staffing levels and ensuring that the program operates smoothly within the available budget.

Estimated Staffing Needs
RSG estimates that the City would need to hire five full-time equivalent staff members to efficiently administer the rent stabilization program proposed by the Initiative. This is based on a thorough analysis of the size of the rental market, the scope of regulatory oversight in the proposed Ordinance, and the existing staffing framework within the City. The suggested team composition includes a Rent Stabilization Manager, who would oversee the program’s overall operations, policy enforcement, and strategic planning. Two Management Analysts would support the manager and handle a variety of essential functions, including data and policy analysis, processing applications and petitions, monitoring compliance, coordinating outreach efforts, and collecting program fees. Lastly, two Administrative Clerks would be responsible for public correspondence to address queries and concerns about the program, maintaining accurate records, coordinating meetings and preparing minutes, and providing general administrative support to ensure the smooth operation of the rent stabilization program.

The inclusion of these roles is crucial for managing the complex demands of a rent stabilization program, which requires not only ongoing monitoring and regulation of rental units but also effective communication with both landlords and tenants to ensure compliance and address issues. The Rent Stabilization Manager’s strategic oversight ensures that the program aligns with city policies and goals while adapting to evolving housing market conditions. Meanwhile, the Management Analysts provide the necessary support to implement policies, analyze program data, and engage with the community, thereby facilitating the smooth operation of the program.

The Administrative Clerks play a crucial role in facilitating communication and ensuring all program-related activities are documented and managed efficiently. This staffing plan, derived from our detailed assessment of the City's needs and current capabilities, ensures that the program has the dedicated and specialized resources it requires to be successful. The costs associated with these five positions are further detailed in the following section.

46 Cost Breakdown and Considerations
The consideration of start-up and ongoing costs is essential in projecting the budget required to implement a rent stabilization program. This report considers the annual budgets of sample jurisdictions that currently administer rent stabilization programs, offering a broader perspective on varying cost structures. It also considers the City of Concord’s budget, which is currently in its first year of program implementation. The insights from Concord are particularly valuable as they provide real-time data and practical experiences related to launching a rent stabilization program.

These combined sources provide a detailed overview of both initial and recurring financial commitments necessary to sustain such a program effectively.

Proposed Ordinance Cost Estimate
Implementing a new program or division requires an initial investment to establish the infrastructure, resources, and personnel necessary to support the program's objectives.

Understanding these start-up costs is essential to ensure that the program is adequately funded and equipped to meet its regulatory responsibilities from the outset.

When planning the budget for a rent stabilization program, it is crucial to account for various startup and ongoing cost categories to ensure a comprehensive and functional implementation. The major expense categories can be broadly classified into salaries and benefits, city department charges, professional and administrative services, and miscellaneous costs.

Table 13 details cost estimates to implement the Ordinance proposed by the Initiative as a potential model. These estimates are derived from data from other jurisdictions and a review of the City budget. Start-up costs include one-time costs to implement the program, such as the creation of a rental registry, setting up a City webpage, drafting program documents, and outreach to educate landlords and tenants. Additional expenses in the first year of program implementation should also be accounted for, including legal consultation fees, staff training, office setup, public awareness campaigns, professional services, printing and distribution of materials, software licensing, community workshops, and translation services. Ongoing costs include maintaining the rental registry and fees, reviewing tenant petitions, holding hearings, and monitoring compliance.

Ongoing costs are subject to change based the volume of public inquiries, complaints, and petitions, as well as salary and professional service contract negotiations.

Ongoing costs are typically higher than start-up costs based on a review of peer jurisdictions that implemented rent stabilization in the last ten years. For example, Richmond expended $2.0 million in fiscal years 2016-17 (partial) and 2017-18 and $2.0 to $2.5 million annually in each of the next five years. Alameda expended approximately $611,000 in fiscal year 2016-17, $958,000 in 2017- 18, and $1.5 million in each of the next two years. Concord anticipates $700,000 in start-up costs and $850,000 annually thereafter, excluding inflation. These figures underscore the importance of prioritizing sustainable funding for ongoing operations to ensure the effectiveness and stability of rent stabilization programs.

If rent stabilization is enacted in the future, RSG recommends conducting a more detailed fee study to accurately determine costs that are specifically tailored to the scope and requirements of the program as adopted.

47 Table 13: Estimated Annual Costs and Start-Up Considerations Category Estimated Annual
Budget Assumptions Start-Up Cost Considerations
Salaries and Benefits
Program Manager
(1 FTE)
$173,113
Community Services Manager
position with Step C
classification and 35% benefit
allocation as indicated on
City’s Salary Schedule (FY
2023-24)
There may be more personnel
involved in year one to
establish frameworks,
integrate systems, and handle
the increased administrative
workload associated with
launching new operational
processes. Initial costs may be
higher to provide
comprehensive training to staff
Management Analyst
(1 FTE)
$146,286
Management Analyst position
(confidential employee criteria)
with Step C classification and
35% benefit allocation as
indicated on City’s Salary
Schedule (FY 2023-24)
Same as above
Management Analyst
(1 FTE)
$146,286 Same as above Same as above
Administrative Clerk
(1 FTE) $78,991
Administrative Clerk I position
with Step C classification and
35% benefit allocation as
indicated on City’s Salary
Schedule (FY 2023-24)
Same as above
Administrative Clerk
(1 FTE) $78,991 Same as above Same as above
Salaries and Benefits
Subtotal $623,667
City Department Charges1

48 Category Estimated Annual
Budget Assumptions Start-Up Cost Considerations
City Attorney $73,502
Assumes 0.25 FTE of City
Attorney position staff time at
Step E hourly classification as
indicated on City’s Salary
Schedule (FY 2023-24)
Increased time in year one to
develop policies and
procedures and ensure
program and messaging is
legally sound
Paralegal $39,394
Assumes 0.25 FTE of
Paralegal II position staff time
at Step C hourly classification
and 35% benefit allocation as
indicated on City’s Salary
Schedule (FY 2023-24)
Same as above
Finance Department $66,355
Assumes 0.5 FTE of
Accountant position staff time
at Step C classification and
35% benefits allocation as
indicated on City’s Salary
Schedule (FY 2023-24)
Increased time in year one to
integrate financial processes
specific to the new rent
stabilization program (e.g.
collection of fees, budget
development)
City Department
Charges Subtotal $179,251
Professional and Administrative Services
Rental Registry
Contract
$140,000 to set up in
first year, $80,000
thereafter
Based on City of Concord
annual contract costs. Aligns
with costs in other jurisdictions.

Actual cost will vary based on
unit volume, scope of services,
degree of customization and
automation, and the chosen
management firm (e.g. 3di,
Tolemi, etc.). Costs may
increase if integration with
other municipal systems of
data migration from older
systems is necessary.

Significant initial costs in year
one, including software
acquisition, system integration,
staff training, and outreach
efforts
Although San Pablo will have a
rental registry in place, the City
will likely require a new registry
with more features to
effectively administer the
provisions outlined in the
proposed Ordinance

49 Category Estimated Annual
Budget Assumptions Start-Up Cost Considerations
Hearing Officer Fees $40,000
Based on the City of Alameda
Fee Study Update (FY 2020-
21) that assumes $200 fully
burdened hourly rate at 200
annual billable hours
Actual costs will vary
depending on the number and
type of petitions received
Costs may be lower in year
one, particularly if the rollout of
the petition process is phased
over an extended period
Consultant Fees $200,000
Depending on the volume of
inquiries and petitions
received, external consultants
may be contracted if workload
cannot be addressed by inhouse staff. Estimate assumes creation of program
documents, 3 public
workshops, responding to
public inquiries, and reviewing
up to 25 tenant petitions.

Actual costs will vary
depending on scope of
services and volume of
inquiries and petitions.

Landlord fair return petitions
are more time intensive and
therefore more costly than
tenant petitions.

Year one costs may be greater
due to higher volume of
inquiries with initial program
implementation
Translation Services $4,000
Based on City of Alameda Fee
Study Update (FY 2020-21);
reflects the City of Alameda’s
anticipated cost per covered
unit times the number of rental
units in San Pablo
Services include translation
services for public inquiries,
cases, meetings, and written
materials
Actual costs will vary
depending on number of public
inquiries, petitions received,
and level of community
outreach efforts
Increased costs in year one
due to the need for translating
newly developed forms and
outreach materials, along with
increased community outreach
initiatives that may require
translation

50 Category Estimated Annual
Budget Assumptions Start-Up Cost Considerations
Professional and
Administrative
Services Subtotal
$384,000
Miscellaneous
Office Supplies $3,000
Based on average office
supplies costs from City of
Alameda Fee Study Update
(FY 2020-21), Richmond Rent
Program budget (FY 2023-24),
and Berkeley Rent
Stabilization Program Budget
(FY 2024) times the number of
rental units in San Pablo
Increased costs in year one
due to the setup of new offices
and the procurement of
essential equipment and
materials necessary for
program operations
Outreach / Mail
Services $13,000
Based on average outreach
and mail services costs from
City of Alameda Fee Study
Update (FY 2020-21),
Richmond Rent Program
budget (FY 2023-24), and
Berkeley Rent Stabilization
Program Budget (FY 2024)
times the number of rental
units in San Pablo
Increased costs in year one
due to the need to establish
awareness of the program
(e.g. extensive mailing
campaigns, production of
informational materials, and
hosting community meetings)
Phone/Fax/Internet $6,000
Based on average
phone/fax/internet services
costs from City of Alameda
Fee Study Update (FY 2020-
21), Richmond Rent Program
budget (FY 2023-24), and
Berkeley Rent Stabilization
Program Budget (FY 2024)
Increased costs in year one to
establish new communication
lines and support increased
inquiries and operational
demands
Miscellaneous
Subtotal $22,000
Total $1,208,918
1Other central City departments (City Clerk, Information Technology, and Human Resources) may be involved periodically in administering the program but RSG does not believe these staff requirements will impact staffing levels.

51 First-Year Implementation
As cities plan to implement rent stabilization programs, understanding the financial and administrative demands in the first year is crucial for effective program roll-out. This is highlighted by an interview with the City of Concord, which is implementing its own rent stabilization program after adopting an ordinance in April 2024. The information provided by Concord is summarized in Table 14 and provides insights on anticipated and actual expenses, staffing configurations, and the challenges and strategies of starting such a program.

Concord’s experience highlights that the first year of implementing a rent stabilization program requires substantial start-up costs and careful consideration of staffing needs. The City has budgeted approximately $700,000 in start-up expenses for the initial year. Expenditures include, but are not limited to, rental registry software administration, hearing officer fees, and community outreach and education. Concord has contracted with a third-party to set up a rental registry and is in the process of identifying a contracted hearing officer. Concord is planning an extensive public outreach campaign to ensure that both landlords and tenants are well-informed about the new regulations. Notably, Concord has budgeted for increased costs in subsequent years, estimating approximately $850,000 annually to administer petition hearings.

Concord’s strategy includes critical timing decisions, such as delaying the acceptance of petitions until October 2024 to allow city staff ample time to fully understand the ordinance and put necessary systems in place. This approach ensures that systems and staff are adequately prepared to effectively handle the program’s requirements. The City of Concord's experience emphasizes the importance of strategic planning in budgeting and staff allocation to manage the workload and meet the program’s goals in its formative phase.

Table 14: City of Concord Program Implementation Costs
FTE
Start-Up
Budget
Allocation
Annual Budget
Allocation
Number of
Rental Units
Registry Fee per
Unit
Cost
per
Rental
Unit1
Division of
Work
Concord 3 $700,000 $850,000
(anticipated)
Fully Covered
Units: 9,200
Partially
Covered
Units: 8,900
Fully Covered
Units: $47
Partially
Covered Units:
$29
$47
Administration,
Hearings,
Petitions,
Public
Information,
Registration
1Amounts are rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Reasons for Potential Deficits
The goal of rent stabilization programs is to adopt an annual fee structure to cover all administrative costs associated with the program. However, achieving this balance can be challenging. Factors such as non-compliance with annual fee payments directly impact the program’s primary revenue stream, leading to budget shortfalls. Additionally, incorrect assumptions about the number of rental units or underestimating the demand for services, such as petition processing, can result in unanticipated expenses. An increase in public records requests, legal challenges, and the need for extensive community outreach can further strain a

52 program's budget. In cases where shortfalls persist, it may be necessary to cover program deficits from the City’s general fund or other sources.

Strategies for Managing Ongoing Costs
Several strategies can be implemented to effectively manage ongoing costs of a rent stabilization program. Regular financial reviews are crucial as they enable program administrators to modify the budget in response to actual expenditures and compliance rates. This flexibility ensures the program remains responsive to changing financial landscapes. Additionally, building in the ability to adjust the fee structure annually allows the program to adapt based on actual costs, maintaining operational effectiveness without jeopardizing its goals, even amidst financial unpredictability.

Such adaptability not only stabilizes funding but also secures the long-term sustainability of the rent stabilization program. Lastly, investing in technology to streamline administrative processes can significantly cut labor costs and improve service delivery. By implementing these strategies, the City can maintain the financial health of the rent stabilization program to effectively serve the community.

53 WORK PROGRAM
This section presents key considerations and a comprehensive list of steps with corresponding timelines to implement rent stabilization. This approach is designed to encourage a smooth rollout and effective management of a rent stabilization program.

Key Considerations
To ensure the successful implementation and sustainability of a rent stabilization program, RSG presents the following key considerations derived from our research and analysis of similar programs in other jurisdictions:

1. Establish Clear Priorities: Identify and prioritize the community’s key concerns through community engagement such as enforcement of annual rent increase limits and landlord ability to make a fair return on investment.

2. Create a Comprehensive Staffing Plan: Develop a staffing plan that not only covers the initial implementation phase but also considers long-term needs for program maintenance and expansion.

3. Conduct a Thorough Fee Study: If a rent stabilization program is adopted, carry out a detailed fee study based on the scope of the adopted ordinance. Analyze Citywide staffing, supply, and overhead costs to ensure the program's rental registry fees are accurately aligned with operational costs and community economic conditions. Regularly prepare updated fee studies to refine budgets and rental registry fees based on actual rent registry and petition data.

Implementation Steps and Timelines
The implementation process can be strategically segmented into five key phases:

1. Preparation and Planning (2-6 months): Develop detailed project plans that define the roles and responsibilities for all involved personnel. Conduct a comprehensive fee study to determine the appropriate fee structure.

2. Recruitment and Training (2-4 months): Hire the necessary staff and provide them with specialized training on rent stabilization policies and administrative procedures.

3. System Development and Testing (3-6 months): Build or procure necessary IT systems for registration, complaint management, and enforcement tracking. Ensure thorough testing of these systems to prevent potential disruptions.

4. Public Outreach and Education (Ongoing with emphasis at launch): Begin outreach efforts to inform landlords and tenants about the new regulations. Implement continuous educational programs to maintain awareness and compliance.

5. Program Launch and Initial Operations (6-12 months): Officially launch the program.

Start the registration process, begin collecting program fees, accept and process petitions.

54 Implementation of a rent stabilization program is a significant and multifaceted undertaking that requires careful planning, significant resources, and ongoing management to ensure its success and sustainability. The report's recommendations for administrative practices, financial planning, and community engagement offer a roadmap for effective implementation. It is crucial to engage with stakeholders, refine strategies based on emerging needs, and monitoring outcomes to adapt and evolve a rent stabilization program.

55 APPENDIX A – DEFINED TERMS
City City of San Pablo
CostaHawkinsCosta-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (Civil Code Sections 1954.50- 1954.535)
CPI Consumer Price Index established by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics DOF California Department of Finance
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development Initiative San Pablo Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections Initiative proposed by Movement Legal in a Notice of Intent to Circulate dated December 14, 2023 Ordinance Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections Ordinance proposed by the San Pablo Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections Initiative RSG RSG, Inc., a community development consulting firm retained by the City to prepare this independent fiscal analysis report
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and Association of Bay Area Governments