HYBRID MEETING
www.Cityofvallejo.net
CALL AND NOTICE OF SPECIAL
MEETING AT 6:00 PM OF THE
VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
Council Chambers
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Andrea Sorce (Mayor)
Diosdado "JR" Matulac (Vice-Mayor)
Peter Bregenzer
Helen-Marie Gordon
Tonia Lediju, PhD
Alexander Matias
Charles Palmares
NOTICE: Members of the Public will be able to participate in-person or remotely via Zoom
City Hall and the Council Chambers will be open to
members of the public 30 minutes prior to the start of
the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the Public may provide
public comments during the City Council Meeting in
person or via ZOOM
(https://ZoomRegular.Cityofvallejo.net), or via
phone, by dialing (669) 900-6833.
For additional instructions on how to speak remotely
during public comment, please
visit, www.cityofvallejo.net/publiccomment
VIEW THE MEETING:
There are four different ways you can view this public meeting:
• In Person
• Watch Vallejo local channel 28
• Stream from the City
website: www.cityofvallejo.net/Streaming
• Join the Zoom webinar:
https://ZoomRegular.Cityofvallejo.net
Scan QR code for live captions and translation in Spanish and Tagalog.
Hybrid Options are available for members of the public to participate. To participate remotely
Option to Join by Computer
From your browser go to https://ZoomRegular.CityofVallejo.net to launch and join the zoom application.
Meeting ID: 914 0075 0676#
Meeting Password: 131313
Option to Join by Phone
Dial (669) 900-6833
Enter Meeting ID: 914 0075 0676#
Meeting Password: 131313
Press *9 to digitally raise your hand from the phone.
Press *6 to unmute/mute
Any supplemental writing related to an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting that is distributed to all or a majority of all members of the City Council less than 72 hours before the meeting will be posted concurrently on the City’s website at www.cityofvallejo.net/agendas Written material distributed during the meeting, will be available at the meeting if prepared by the City or after the meeting if prepared by someone else. Such materials may be obtained from the City Clerk
Vallejo City Council Chambers ADA compliant. Devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk. Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, aids or services may be made by a person with a disability to the City Clerk's office no less than 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof
AGENDA
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL:
You are hereby notified that I do hereby call the Vallejo City Council in special session to consider only the matters stated on the agenda listed below. NOTICE: Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the City Council concerning any item listed on the agenda before or during consideration of that item. No other items may be discussed at this special meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. ACTION CALENDAR
NOTICE: Members of the public wishing to address the Council on Action Calendar Items may do so in person by signing in to the Public Speaker's kiosk located in the back of the Council Chambers or via ZOOM (https://ZoomRegular.Cityofvallejo.net), or via phone, by dialing (669) 900-6833. Enter Meeting ID: 914 0075 0676#. Press *9 to digitally raise your hand from the phone. Press *6 to unmute/mute. For additional instructions on how to speak remotely during public comment, please visit, www.cityofvallejo.net/publiccomment. Each speaker is limited to five minutes pursuant to Vallejo Municipal Code Section 2.02.420 or as approved and announced by the Mayor. In person speakers will be recognized first.
A. STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY
MEASURES AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
Recommendation: Receive a presentation regarding rent stabilization, just cause for eviction, tenant anti-harassment protections, a tenant right to counsel, and the potential administrative and fiscal implications of these policies; direct staff to proceed with the Market and Feasibility Study identified in Housing Element Program F 1.1.3; and direct staff to return to the City Council with findings, policy options, legal considerations, and preliminary staffing and fiscal implications for Council consideration and direction before completion of draft ordinance(s).
Contact: Kristin Pollot, AICP, Planning & Development Services Director, (707) 648-4326
[email protected]
Hector Rojas, Long-Range Planning Manager, (707) 553-7283 [email protected]
5. ADJOURNMENT
ADDITIONAL CITY INFORMATION
Members of the public can:
• Like us on Facebook and Instagram (@cityofvallejo)
• Sign up to receive City Communications via e-mail (www.cityofvallejo.net/subscribe) • Sign up for emergency alerts at: alertsolano.com
Dated: Thursday, September 24, 2026
Andrea Sorce, Mayor
I, Dawn Abrahamson, City Clerk do hereby certify that I have caused a true copy of the above notice and agenda to be delivered to Andrea Sorce (Mayor)
Diosdado "JR" Matulac (Vice-Mayor)
Peter Bregenzer
Helen-Marie Gordon
Tonia Lediju, PhD
Alexander Matias
Charles Palmares,
at the time and in the manner prescribed by law and that this agenda was posted at City Hall, 555 Santa Clara Street, CA at 10:15 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 2026.
Dated: Thursday, September 24, 2026
ACTION ITEM 4.A.
DATE: September 29, 2026
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kristin Pollot, AICP, Planning and Development Services Director Hector Rojas, Long-Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation regarding rent stabilization, just cause for eviction, tenant anti-harassment protections, a tenant right to counsel, and the potential administrative and fiscal implications of these policies; direct staff to proceed with the Market and Feasibility Study identified in Housing Element Program F 1.1.3; and direct staff to return to the City Council with findings, policy options, legal considerations, and preliminary staffing and fiscal implications for Council consideration and direction before completion of draft ordinance(s).
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Housing Element Program F 1.1.3 directs the City Council to consider rent stabilization, just cause for eviction, tenant anti-harassment protections, and tenant right to counsel policies through a phased process beginning with a Market and Feasibility Study. The City’s Housing Element data shows that renters comprise a substantial share of Vallejo households and experience significant housing-cost burdens. Although the data establishes a preliminary baseline for need, it does not identify the number of rental units that would be covered under a specific ordinance. The July 2026 memorandum sent to Council by staff introduced the policy approaches used by other jurisdictions, and the Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition (VHJC) has since submitted a requested framework for rent stabilization and just cause protections (see Attachment 5).
Local renter-protection programs can require substantial staffing, technology, legal support, hearings, enforcement, and ongoing administration. The extent of these obligations depends on the policy framework, number of covered units, anticipated workload, and desired service level. Completing the Market and Feasibility Study before drafting an ordinance would allow the City Council to evaluate Vallejo-specific market conditions, available community input, policy options, legal considerations, and likely staffing and fiscal impacts before selecting a policy framework and directing preparation of any ordinance(s).
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The City Council adopted Vallejo’s 2023-2031 Housing Element on December 30, 2024, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified it on December 31, 2024.
Housing Element Program F 1.1.3 (Renter Protection and Housing Stability) directs the City Council to consider local regulations in four policy areas that would provide protections beyond those established by state law, with the objective of protecting residents from displacement without unnecessarily constraining new housing development.
Date: September 29, 2026
Subject: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
The four policy areas are distinct but related. Rent stabilization limits the amount and frequency of rent increases for covered rental units. Just-cause protections limit tenancy terminations to specified at-fault and no-fault grounds and may require relocation assistance for certain no-fault evictions. Tenant antiharassment protections prohibit specified coercive, retaliatory, or intimidating conduct that interferes with a tenant’s lawful occupancy or exercise of their rights. A tenant right-to-counsel program provides eligible tenants with resources relating to legal advice or representation in eviction proceedings or other covered housing disputes.
Housing Element Program F 1.1.3 identifies the four related actions and timeframes:
Table 1: Housing Element Program F 1.1.3 Actions and Timeframes Actions: Timeframe:
Market and Feasibility Study June 2025
Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinances Council consideration by September 2025 Tenant Anti-Harassment and Right to Counsel Ordinances Council consideration by June 2026 Program Evaluation and Additional Measures Early 2028 through January 2029 The Housing Element’s initial target dates for completing the Market and Feasibility Study and presenting the four policy areas for Council consideration have passed. At the time the Housing Element was adopted, the Planning and Development Services Department did not have identified funding available to complete the Market and Feasibility Study. Staff subsequently incorporated the study into the consultant scope and budget for the grant-funded Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan (DVSP) Update. On September 8, 2026, the City Council authorized the consultant agreement for the DVSP Update, which should allow work to begin in October 2026.
July 2026 Memorandum
On July 24, 2026, staff transmitted a memorandum (Attachment 1) to the City Council summarizing California’s renter-protection framework and comparing rent stabilization and just cause programs in Hayward, Concord, Richmond, Novato, and Antioch. The memorandum and its two comparison matrices were informational and did not recommend a particular ordinance. They summarized the protections established under state law and compared key provisions of selected local ordinances, including coverage, allowable rent increases, eviction standards, relocation assistance, notice requirements, and administrative procedures. This staff report builds on that work by adding Vallejo housing data, the VHJC tenant survey and September 10th policy request, and information regarding the staffing and cost of operating local programs.
State and Local Tenant Protections
California law establishes statewide protections and also defines the extent of local authority. The main components relevant to the Council's discussion are summarized below.
Table 2: State and Local Renter-Protection Laws and Programs Law or Policy Level: General Function: Relevance to Vallejo:
California Tenant
Protection Act (AB 1482)
For many covered units, generally limits
annual rent increases to 5% plus the
applicable change in the cost of living or
10%, whichever is lower, and requires just
cause after the applicable occupancy
period.
Provides the statewide baseline. Statutory
exemptions include qualifying newer
housing, certain affordable housing,
specified owner-occupied duplexes, and
certain single-family homes and
condominiums when ownership and notice
requirements are met.
Date: September 29, 2026
Subject: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
Costa-Hawkins Rental
Housing Act
Limits which units and rental rates may be
subject to local rent stabilization and
generally permits an owner to establish an
initial rent following a lawful vacancy.
Any Vallejo rent-stabilization ordinance
must operate within these limits unless
state law changes.
Ellis Act Preserves an owner's right to withdraw
residential accommodations from the
rental market while allowing local
regulation of specified procedures and
tenant protections.
A local ordinance may establish notices,
relocation requirements, re-occupancy
rights, and related procedures within statelaw limits.
Local Renter-Protection
Programs
May establish protections beyond the state
baseline where authorized, including lower
rent limits, earlier or broader just-cause
coverage, relocation assistance, notice
filing, registration, petitions, hearings, and
enforcement within limitations.
The City can determine the local policy
design and must fund and administer any
local functions it creates.
Note: These are simplified summaries for policy discussion and are not complete statements of state law.
Vallejo Rental Housing Conditions
The Housing Element provides a citywide baseline that can be considered alongside the experiences documented by VHJC. Because the data sources use different years, the figures should be treated as preliminary conditions rather than a current 2026 rental inventory.
Table 3: Selected Vallejo Housing Indicators
Indicator: Housing Element Data: Source:
Total Housing Stock 44,832 units 2021 California Department of Finance (DOF)
Renter-Occupied Households 18,709 households (44.5% of
occupied households)
2015-2019 American Community
Survey (ACS)
Single-Family Housing 31,470 units (70.2% of housing
stock)
2021 California DOF
Multifamily Housing (2-4 units) 4,863 units (10.8% of housing stock) 2021 California DOF Multifamily Housing (5 or more units) 7,141 units (15.9% of housing stock) 2021 California DOF Mobile Homes 1,358 units (3.0% of housing stock) 2021 California DOF Cost-Burdened Renter Households 10,463 households; 55.9% of renters 2015-2019 ACS Severely Cost-Burdened Renter
Households
5,875 households; 31.4% of renters 2015-2019 ACS
Housing More than 30 Years Old 36,897 units; 81.7% of housing stock 2015-2019 ACS Housing More than 50 Years Old 19,922 units; 44.1% of housing stock 2015-2019 ACS Source: Vallejo Housing Element, Housing Needs Assessment Tables 2-11, 2-17, 2-18, and 2-21.
More recent data suggests that renter cost burdens remain significant and may have increased. A September 2025 San Francisco Chronicle analysis of 2024 U.S. Census Bureau estimates reported that approximately 71% of Vallejo renter households paid at least 30% of their income toward housing costs.
This was the highest reported share among Bay Area cities with at least 10,000 rental homes for which data was available, compared with approximately 66% in Solano County and 56% across the Bay Area.
These annual estimates are not directly comparable to the Housing Element’s 2015-2019 five-year ACS estimates and are subject to margins of error and year-to-year sampling variability. Nevertheless, they indicate that renter cost burden remains an important local condition that should be updated and evaluated through the Market and Feasibility Study.
Date: September 29, 2026
Subject: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
Based on the data above, the 18,709 renter-occupied households provide an initial indication of the potential scale of a broadly applicable just-cause or rental-registration program. This figure does not include vacant rental units and may not capture informal, hotel, or unpermitted tenancies. Vallejo also has approximately 12,004 units in multifamily structures containing two or more units. This is a gross structural estimate that counts all units based solely on the type of building in which they are located, without accounting for whether individual units are rented or owner-occupied, when they were constructed, or whether a legal exemption applies. It therefore should not be treated as the number of units that would be subject to rent stabilization.
The Housing Element also identifies conditions relevant to renter stability. Renters account for a disproportionate share of overcrowded households (55.9% of renters compared to 31.8% of homeowners), and areas of elevated overcrowding and displacement vulnerability are concentrated in portions of central and western Vallejo, including areas near the Ferry Terminal and White Slough. Vallejo also has the oldest housing stock among incorporated Solano County jurisdictions. These conditions are relevant both to tenant habitability concerns and to the need for procedures that allow necessary maintenance, rehabilitation, and a constitutionally adequate return for affected property owners.
VHJC Tenant Survey and Report
In July 2026, VHJC and Urban Habitat published “The Right to Thrive: Tenant-Led Housing Justice in Vallejo, California” (Attachment 4). The report presents a community-based tenant survey, resident testimony, and recommendations for rent stabilization, just cause for eviction, tenant anti-harassment protections, a tenant right to counsel, and related housing strategies, including community land trusts. The survey collected 319 responses between November 2023 and July 2024, including 279 responses submitted online and 40 collected in person. Respondents came from Vallejo’s four ZIP codes; 277 identified as renters and 29 identified as homeowners.
Table 4: Selected Findings from the VHJC Survey
Survey Topic: Finding Reported by VHJC:
Support for Renter
Protections
Approximately 75% to 95% overall support for the policies presented, with support generally highest among renters.
Housing Conditions 53.6% of respondents reported that issues such as pests, rodents, or illegal activity were “a big problem” or “a little bit of a problem”. Respondents also discussed mold, plumbing, broken appliances, maintenance, and safety.
Reported Rents Among 268 respondents answering the question, the average reported monthly rent was $1,385.22. VHJC cautions that the survey did not collect household size or number of earners and could not establish household rent burden.
Reported Rent Increases Among 61 respondents providing a percentage, online respondents reported an average annual increase of 12% and in-person respondents reported 6%. Other respondents reported dollar increases or no increase, making responses difficult to compare.
Supportive Services The most frequently selected priorities were safety (74.6%), affordable housing and alternative housing models (69.9%), and tenant associations (54.9%).
The report provides important information about the experiences and priorities of participating residents but should not be treated as a statistically representative survey of all Vallejo renters. VHJC identifies several limitations, including a largely online, self-selected sample recruited through its networks, social media, events, food distribution, and apartment outreach; incomplete responses to some questions and differing response formats for reported rent increases; possible response bias and limited information for evaluating certain findings by race, ethnicity, household size, or household composition; and insufficient household information to calculate rent burden from the survey’s reported rent and income responses.
Date: September 29, 2026
Subject: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
The Housing Element data and VHJC survey serve different but complementary purposes. The Housing Element provides a broader citywide baseline, while the VHJC report documents the experiences and priorities of participating tenants. The Market and Feasibility Study that is called for by Housing Element Program F 1.1.3 can update the citywide data, test preliminary coverage estimates, and incorporate available community information into the policy analysis.
Issues Requiring Additional Analysis
The policy decisions related to just-cause and rent stabilization are interconnected. Coverage affects the fee base and administrative workload; the rent formula affects petition activity; and enforcement expectations affect staffing, legal support, and cost. The principal questions for the Market and Feasibility Study called for in Housing Element Program F 1.1.3 include:
• Covered Units: How many units would be fully covered, partially covered, or exempt under each policy option based on tenure, structure type, construction date, ownership, affordability restrictions, and state law?
• Legal Authority: How would the proposed policies interact with the Tenant Protection Act, CostaHawkins, the Ellis Act, mobile-home law, hotel regulations, due-process requirements, and other applicable laws?
• Rent Regulation: What are the implications of alternative rent formulas, a December 2024 base-rent date, regulation of utilities and fees, fair-return requirements, and tenant rent-reduction petitions? • Eviction Protections: What eviction grounds, cure periods, relocation benefits, notice requirements, tenant safeguards, re-occupancy rights, and remedies are legally and operationally supportable? • Administration and Enforcement: Would the City use staff, contractors, hearing officers, a rent board, the City Council, a combination or private enforcement? Would enforcement be complaint based or proactive?
• Fiscal Sustainability: What start-up and ongoing costs would result, what fee base could legally support the program, and what General Fund exposure or subsidy could remain? • Housing-Market Effects: How could policy options affect tenants, property owners, maintenance, rehabilitation, rental investment, conversion, and new housing production? • Related Protections: How should anti-harassment and right-to-counsel programs relate to rent stabilization and just cause, and what services, eligibility, providers, and funding would they require? Administrative and Fiscal Considerations
The administrative demands of renter-protection programs vary considerably. A limited program may emphasize education, referrals, mediation, and complaint-based enforcement. A more comprehensive program may include:
• Annual rental registration, billing, fee collection, data management, and compliance review. • Review and retention of eviction, relocation, withdrawal, buyout, and rent-increase notices.
Date: September 29, 2026
Subject: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
• Landlord fair-return petitions, tenant rent-reduction petitions, administrative hearings, and appeals. • Investigation and enforcement of rent, eviction, harassment, registration, and notice requirements. • Public information, counseling, language access, forms, workshops, and dedicated phone or email assistance.
• Legal support, hearing officers, software, consultants, and contracts for tenant legal services or mediation.
The City of San Pablo's July 2024 “Fiscal Analysis of a Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections Ordinance” (Attachment 6) provides a useful comparison. In the analysis, RSG, Inc. evaluated staffing, budgets, units, fees, and program responsibilities in five operating programs and estimated the cost of a potential program that was contemplated through a ballot measure, but failed to gather enough signatures for the November 2024 election. The analysis classified programs by regulatory capacity: low-capacity programs rely more heavily on limited or reactive services; moderate-capacity programs provide moderately proactive enforcement and outreach; and high-capacity programs provide more comprehensive services and enforcement.
Table 5: Selected Local Renter-Protection Program Staffing and Cost Jurisdiction: Capacity: FTEs: Units
Administered:
Annual Budget: Cost Per Unit:
East Palo Alto Low 2+ temporary
staff
2,500 $615,000 $246
Hayward Low 3.5 11,580 $642,000 $55
San Pablo
estimate
Moderate 5 5,608 $1.21 million $215
Alameda Moderate 7.5 16,579 $1.99 million $120
Richmond High 14 18,000 $3.00 million $167
Berkeley High 26 25,000 $7.51 million $300
Source: City of San Pablo Fiscal Analysis, Tables 1 and 12. Operating-program budgets generally reflect fiscal year 2023-24; the San Pablo figures are estimates. Unit counts are approximate and include different categories of fully and partially covered or registered units. Costs are not directly comparable because responsibilities and service levels differ.
For San Pablo, RSG estimated approximately five FTEs and $1.21 million in annual costs to administer a moderate-capacity program serving approximately 5,608 rental units. The estimate included program management, analysts, administrative support, City Attorney and Finance time, registry software, hearing officers, consultants, translation, outreach, and other operations. RSG also reported that Concord anticipated approximately $700,000 in start-up costs and $850,000 in annual operating costs, excluding inflation.
Richmond provides a relevant preliminary comparison for Vallejo. Vallejo's approximately 18,709 renteroccupied households are similar in scale to Richmond's approximately 18,000 registered rental units.
Richmond's program also includes a 60% of CPI rent formula and a broad combination of rent stabilization, just cause, registration, petitions, hearings, counseling or legal assistance, and proactive enforcement. RSG reported approximately 14 FTEs and a $3 million annual budget, or approximately $167 per registered unit, for Richmond's high-capacity program.
These numbers do not mean a Vallejo program would cost $3 million. Vallejo's approximately 12,004 multifamily units (the gross starting point for estimating rent-stabilization coverage) are closer to
Date: September 29, 2026
Subject: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
Hayward's 11,580 administered units. Hayward's low-capacity program was reported at 3.5 FTEs and $642,000 annually. The substantial difference between Hayward and Richmond demonstrates that policy coverage, program responsibilities, and service and enforcement levels can be more important cost drivers than unit count alone.
Many jurisdictions use annual per-unit regulatory fees to recover eligible program costs. Among the operating programs reviewed in the San Pablo analysis, annual fees for fully covered units ranged from $66 in Hayward to $290 in Berkeley, equivalent to approximately $5.50 to $24.17 per unit per month.
Alameda and Hayward allowed landlords to pass through up to 50% of the fee to tenants as a surcharge prorated over 12 months. Based on the fees reported in the analysis, the maximum monthly tenant passthrough would be approximately $6.75 for a fully covered unit in Alameda and $2.75 for a covered unit in Hayward. Berkeley, Richmond, and East Palo Alto did not allow a tenant pass-through, while the proposed San Pablo measure did not specify whether one would be permitted.
These peer-jurisdiction fees do not establish what a Vallejo program would cost landlords or tenants. The number of fee-paying units may be smaller than the number of registered units because some units may be partially covered or exempt. Program responsibilities, fee compliance, unit estimates, and service demand can also affect whether fee revenue is sufficient, potentially creating General Fund exposure. A formal fee study would be most useful after the Council identifies a preferred policy framework and the City’s responsibilities can be defined.
Table 6: Annual Per-Unit Regulatory Fees Reported in the San Pablo Analysis Jurisdiction: Annual Fee Reported per Unit: Tenant Pass-Through Reported:
East Palo Alto Covered Unit: $234 Not allowed
Hayward Covered Unit: $66
Non-Covered Unit: $32
Up to 50%
San Pablo proposal Controlled Unit: $120
Partially Exempt Unit: $84
Not specified
Alameda Fully Covered Unit: $162
Partially Covered Unit: $109
Up to 50%
Richmond Fully Covered Unit: $220
Partially Covered or Subsidized Unit:
$125
Not allowed
Berkeley Fully Covered Unit: $290
Partially Covered Unit: $178
Not allowed
Source: City of San Pablo Fiscal Analysis, Tables 1, 9, and 12. The operating-program fees reflect amounts reported in the July 2024 analysis and may have changed. The San Pablo amounts were proposed fees and were not being collected.
Finally, the City Council has also requested staff to explore the establishment of an ordinance permitting short term rentals in the City. Short term rentals are currently not legally authorized as a property use in the City. Short term rental programs in other jurisdictions have been found to have an impact on the availability of long term rental housing. In addressing a market and feasibility study, staff believes that it would be wise to perhaps also include any market and feasibility impacts that could occur based upon the combination of renter protection provisions, the contemplated affordable housing ordinance, and any possible short term rental ordinance.
Recommended Market and Feasibility Study
Date: September 29, 2026
Subject: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends following the “study-first” sequence described in Housing Element Program F 1.1.3.
The study would evaluate all four renter-protection measures, (and perhaps the contemplated short term rental provisions) while initially prioritizing the analysis needed for Council direction on rent stabilization and just cause. The scope should include:
• Updated rental-market conditions, rents, vacancy, affordability, cost burden, eviction and displacement indicators, and property and ownership characteristics. • Property-level estimates of units that would be fully covered, partially covered, registered, or exempt under alternative policy frameworks.
• Evaluation of the VHJC requested framework and other approaches identified in the July comparison matrices.
• Legal and operational feasibility, including interaction with state law and required fair-return and due-process procedures.
• Potential effects on tenants, property owners, housing maintenance and rehabilitation, rental investment, conversions, and housing production.
• Administrative structure, organizational placement, staffing, technology, contracts, enforcement level, start-up costs, ongoing costs, fee options, and potential General Fund exposure. • Potential models, demand, providers, eligibility, and costs for tenant anti-harassment and right-tocounsel programs. • Consideration of available community information, including the VHJC report (Attachment 4) and September 10, 2026 letter (Attachment 5).
An added take of consideration of any potential impact of the combination of renter provisions and short term rental ordinance options may also be advisable.
Based on this scope, staff anticipates the following phased process and target schedule for completing the study, returning to the City Council for policy direction, and, if directed, preparing and implementing an ordinance or ordinances.
Table 7: Proposed Renter-Protection Policy Development Process and Schedule Step: Work Product: Target:
1. Market and Feasibility Study Complete the Vallejo-specific market, coverage, legal, administrative, fiscal,
and policy analysis described above.
Kickoff in October 2026; draft
analysis by February 2027 and final
study by approximately March 2027.
2. Council Consideration and
Direction
Return with study findings, available
community input, policy options, legal
considerations, and preliminary
staffing and fiscal implications.
Council determines whether to
proceed and identifies the preferred
policy framework and sequencing.
March-April 2027.
Date: September 29, 2026
Subject: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
3. Ordinance Preparation and
Consideration
If directed, prepare ordinance
provisions, complete detailed legal
review, refine costs, evaluate a
regulatory fee, and develop
preliminary implementation
procedures. Return the proposed
ordinance or ordinances through the
required public review and adoption
process.
Preparation during spring–summer
2027; Final Council consideration in
fall 2027.
4. Implementation Planning If an ordinance is adopted, recruit and train staff, procure systems and
services, adopt administrative rules
and forms, establish fees and billing,
and conduct public education before
launching the program.
Approximately 6-12 months following
ordinance adoption, depending on
the program selected.
Direction Requested
Staff is not requesting that the Council select a rent limit, or direct immediate preparation of an ordinance at this time. Rather, staff would like for the Council to confirm the recommended approach to proceed with the Market and Feasibility Study before ordinance drafting, consistent with Housing Element Program F
1.1.3, and provide any additional comments or feedback, as applicable, for staff consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
Receiving the presentation and providing direction would not establish a renter-protection program or create the staffing obligations as described in the San Pablo analysis. The Market and Feasibility Study and related policy work are included within the previously approved Downtown and Waterfront Specific Plan consultant work program and budget. If Council direction requires work beyond the approved scope, staff would identify the additional cost and return for authorization as appropriate.
The cost of administering a future renter-protection program cannot be determined until its coverage, services, administrative structure, enforcement responsibilities, and implementation schedule are defined. Based on the San Pablo analysis, peer programs range from approximately $615,000 to $7.51 million annually and from approximately 2 to 26 FTEs.
Potential costs for Vallejo could include dedicated staff, City Attorney and Finance Department support, registry or case-management systems, hearing officers, legal or mediation services, translation, public information, and other contracts. A per-unit regulatory fee may offset eligible costs, but the fee base and amount would require analysis based on the policy framework ultimately selected. Any future ordinance would return to the Council with more detailed start-up, ongoing, revenue, and General Fund information.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Receiving this report, conducting a study session, and directing staff to undertake further analysis would not commit the City to adopting a particular policy or ordinance and would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. These activities are therefore not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. Any future ordinance would be evaluated for compliance with CEQA when its provisions are sufficiently defined.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Renter Protections Memorandum, July 24, 2026
Date: September 29, 2026
Subject: STUDY SESSION ON RENTER PROTECTION AND HOUSING STABILITY MEASURES
AND DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS
2. Rent Stabilization Comparison Matrix
3. Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance Comparison Matrix
4. The Right to Thrive: Tenant-Led Housing Justice in Vallejo, California, July 2026
5. VHJC Tenant Protections Policy Priorities, September 10, 2026
6. City of San Pablo Fiscal Analysis of a Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections Ordinance, July 2024
CONTACT
Kristin Pollot, AICP, Planning & Development Services Director, (707) 648-4326 [email protected]
Hector Rojas, Long-Range Planning Manager, (707) 553-7283 [email protected]
1 MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Harry Black, Interim City Manager
Kristin Pollot, AICP, Planning and Development Services Director Hector Rojas, Long-Range Planning Manager
Date: July 24, 2026
Subject: Overview of Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Policies in Selected California Jurisdictions
Purpose and Summary
This memorandum provides the City Council with an executive summary of California's existing renter protection framework and the approaches used by selected California jurisdictions to regulate rent increases and require just cause for eviction. It accompanies the attached detailed comparison matrices and is intended to establish a common understanding of what state law already requires and how comparable jurisdictions have adopted additional local protections.
This memorandum is informational and does not recommend adoption of a particular ordinance or policy model. It identifies questions that may inform the scope of engagement, market and feasibility analysis, legal review, and policy development contemplated through the upcoming Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan Update. As previously shared, the Specific Plan process will provide the administrative structure and funding for this work. The renter-protection analysis, however, will examine conditions and potential policies citywide rather than being limited to the Specific Plan Area.
Housing Element and Project Background
Vallejo's adopted Housing Element includes Program F 1.1.3, Renter Protection and Housing Stability. The program directs the City Council to consider ordinances addressing rent stabilization, just cause for eviction, tenant anti-harassment protections, and a tenant right to counsel. The purpose is to reduce displacement, increase household stability, and preserve housing that remains affordable to lower-income households, while avoiding unnecessary constraints on new housing development.
2 Program F 1.1.3 established target dates for completing the market and feasibility study by June 2025; presenting initial rent stabilization and just-cause protections for Council consideration by September 2025; and considering anti-harassment and right-to-counsel measures by June 2026. These milestones have passed; however, work is in progress.
Program F 1.1.3 also calls for a market and feasibility study before ordinance adoption and outreach to residents, property owners, legal and fair housing organizations, community groups, and neighborhoods facing elevated displacement risk.
Program F 1.1.3 established earlier milestones for rent stabilization and just-cause protections than for anti-harassment and right-to-counsel measures. Accordingly, this summary and the attached matrices provide baseline research and an educational foundation for the City Council’s further consideration of rent stabilization and just-cause protections.
Existing State-Law Framework
State Policy Purpose and Local Role: The California Tenant Protection Act, commonly referred to as AB 1482, was enacted as a temporary statewide response to the housing crisis, with the rent cap specifically intended to address rent gouging. It provides a baseline level of stability by limiting large rent increases and requiring a lawful reason for many evictions, while retaining significant exemptions, allowing rent resets between lawful tenancies, and requiring only limited relocation assistance. State law also preserves local authority to adopt more protective measures. Local ordinances may therefore lower rent limits, apply protections earlier or more broadly where permitted, provide greater relocation and re-occupancy rights, and establish local administration and enforcement.
Rent Increases: AB 1482 generally limits annual rent increases for covered units to 5 percent plus the applicable change in the cost of living, generally measured by the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), or 10 percent, whichever is lower. When the same tenant remains in a unit, an owner generally may not impose more than two increases during a 12-month period. The law permits an owner to establish a new initial rent following a lawful vacancy, after which the statutory cap applies. This rent reset between lawful tenancies is commonly called vacancy decontrol.
The statewide rent cap does not cover all rental housing. Major exemptions include certain deed-restricted or subsidized affordable housing, qualifying housing constructed within the preceding 15 years, specified owner-occupied duplexes, and certain separately alienable units such as single-family homes and condominiums when ownership and tenant-notice requirements are satisfied. State law does not establish a statewide rent registry, rent board, local-style petition process, or dedicated administrative program.
Just Cause for Eviction: AB 1482 generally requires an at-fault or no-fault just cause before terminating a covered tenancy after the applicable occupancy period, typically 12 months. Atfault grounds are based on tenant conduct and include nonpayment of rent, material lease violations, nuisance, waste, unlawful activity, and refusal of lawful access. No-fault grounds are not based on tenant misconduct and include owner or qualifying family move-in, withdrawal from
3 the rental market, government orders, and qualifying demolition or substantial remodeling.
Substantial remodeling generally requires permitted structural, building-system, or hazardousmaterial work that cannot safely be completed with the tenant in place and requires a vacancy of at least 30 days; cosmetic work alone does not qualify.
For a qualifying no-fault termination, state law generally requires the landlord to provide one month's rent as relocation assistance or waive the final month's rent. AB 1482 does not create a dedicated administrative program, temporary-relocation requirements, or statewide filing or registration procedures. It does, however, provide limited re-rental rights when an intended owner or qualifying family member does not occupy the unit as required or when proposed demolition or substantial-remodel work is not commenced or completed. The statute is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2030, unless extended.
Summary Table of State and Common Local Approaches
California law establishes rent-increase limits and just-cause eviction protections for many unit types but includes significant exemptions and limited administrative procedures. The jurisdictions reviewed combine broader coverage, earlier applicability, lower or differently structured rent limits, relocation assistance, re-occupancy rights, notice and filing requirements, petitions, registries, and local enforcement in different ways. Program scope and administrative structure vary substantially.
Below is a summary table of some important state baseline requirements, with common local enhancements identified for reference.
Policy Area State Baseline Common Local Enhancements
Rent increases 5% plus CPI, capped at 10%. Lower CPI-based limits; fixed percentage limits; carryforward
("banking") rules; petitions for fair
return or capital improvements.
Applicability State exemptions and occupancy
thresholds apply.
Earlier just-cause coverage;
broader local coverage where
permitted; local notice
requirements.
No-fault
displacement
One month's rent or final-month
waiver.
Higher permanent relocation
payments; temporary relocation;
moving costs; enhanced benefits
for qualifying households.
Tenant procedures Primarily court-based rights,
defenses, and remedies, with
limited re-rental rights in specified
circumstances.
City filing requirements; rights of
return; buyout disclosures;
minimum lease offers;
replacement-tenant rights.
Administration No dedicated statewide rent board
or registry.
Rent registries, hearing officers,
rent boards, annual fees, petitions,
penalties, and local enforcement.
4 Rent Stabilization Approaches in Selected Jurisdictions The jurisdictions discussed below and in the attached matrices were selected because they are Bay Area or nearby communities that share some combination of regional housing pressures, rental-market characteristics, or municipal context with Vallejo and, collectively, illustrate a range of local policy and administrative models. The local rent stabilization programs reviewed by staff illustrate a spectrum from a relatively limited dispute-resolution model to a comprehensive rent-board structure. All remain subject to state-law limitations, including the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which restricts local regulation of certain units and generally permits establishment of an initial rent for a new tenancy.
Hayward uses a 5 percent rent-increase threshold rather than a simple across-the-board 5 percent cap. Increases of 5 percent or less generally may be imposed once in a 12-month period without rent-dispute review, while increases above that threshold may be challenged.
The Hayward ordinance also permits limited banking, meaning carryforward of an unused allowable increase; capital-improvement petitions to recover qualifying major improvement costs; review of reductions in housing services, such as previously included parking or utilities; and fair-return petitions for an increase above the standard limit when constitutionally required.
Administration is handled by a Rent Review Officer and supported by an annual program fee; Hayward does not use a comprehensive rent registry.
Concord currently limits annual increases for covered units to no more than 5 percent of lawful rent. Its program includes a rent registry (a City-maintained database of covered units and rent information), annual fees, formal petition procedures through which tenants and landlords may request an adjustment or review, hearing officers, and local enforcement. Compared with Hayward’s more limited dispute-resolution model, Concord uses a more formal administrative structure centered on registration, petitions, and hearings.
Richmond operates the most institutionalized rent stabilization program among the jurisdictions reviewed. Its annual general adjustment (the standard increase available without an individualized petition) is 60 percent of the applicable CPI increase or 3 percent, whichever is lower, and cannot be less than zero. A Rent Board sets the adjustment, administers petitions, collects fees, adopts regulations, receives notices, and enforces the program. Richmond's model provides substantial administrative infrastructure but also requires dedicated staffing, governance, fee collection, and administrative hearings and decisions.
The takeaway here is that the headline annual rent limit is only one component of a local program. Coverage and exemptions, rules governing when rents may reset between tenancies, banking, treatment of capital improvements, reductions in housing services, petition rights, registration, fees, and enforcement determine how the policy operates in practice and how much City administration is required.
Just Cause for Eviction Approaches in Selected Jurisdictions The just-cause ordinances reviewed by staff generally retain at-fault and no-fault categories similar to state law but add local procedural and displacement protections. Several jurisdictions
5 apply just-cause protections from the beginning of the tenancy or without AB 1482's minimum occupancy period, subject to local exemptions and controlling state law.
Local ordinances commonly require termination notices to identify the authorized ground and provide supporting facts, tenant-rights information, and relocation information. Hayward, Novato, Concord, and Antioch also require copies of certain termination notices to be filed with the City within specified timeframes. These filing requirements allow local monitoring and may make compliance a prerequisite to a valid termination.
The largest differences from state law concern no-fault displacement. Local ordinances provide more detailed rules for owner or family move-in, withdrawal from the rental market, demolition, substantial rehabilitation, government orders, and temporary displacement for repairs. Some protect elderly, disabled, terminally ill, low-income, or school-aged households from specified no-fault terminations or provide enhanced relocation benefits.
Permanent relocation benefits vary considerably. State law generally provides one month's rent.
Local programs may instead use multiple months of actual rent; HUD fair market rent, a federal benchmark for modest local rental costs by unit size; moving stipends; documented costs; or enhanced payments for qualifying households. Temporary relocation programs may require daily lodging payments, the difference between existing rent and temporary housing costs, comparable housing, or permanent assistance when repairs extend beyond a specified period.
Most reviewed ordinances also provide re-occupancy protections. A right to return allows a displaced tenant to reoccupy the unit after temporary work, while a right of first refusal gives a former tenant the first opportunity to rent the unit if it is later offered again. Novato and Antioch also regulate tenant buyout agreements (voluntary agreements to accept compensation or another benefit to vacate) including disclosures and periods during which the tenant may cancel. Richmond and Antioch address replacement of departing tenants, while Concord requires a minimum-term written lease offer in specified circumstances.
These provisions demonstrate that a local just-cause ordinance can be considerably broader than requiring a landlord to state a reason for eviction. The ordinances regulate the process, documentation, financial assistance, rights to return or receive a new rental offer, and remedies associated with displacement. They also vary in whether implementation relies primarily on tenant civil actions, City enforcement, a hearing officer, or a rent board.
Key Considerations for Future Vallejo Evaluation
The comparison shows that there is not a single standard model. Each jurisdiction combines protections and administrative procedures differently based on local housing conditions, policy objectives, staffing, and fiscal capacity. The following questions may be useful in any future evaluation:
• Coverage and Exemptions: Which properties and tenancies should receive local protections, and how would the ordinance interact with AB 1482 and Costa-Hawkins?
6 • Level and Type of Protection: Should the City retain the state rent cap, adopt a lower or different local formula, focus on procedural protections, or combine these approaches?
• Displacement Assistance: What permanent and temporary relocation benefits, enhanced household protections, and rights of return would be appropriate and financially supportable?
• Administrative Model: Could the program be implemented by existing staff, or would it require a registry, hearing officer, dedicated program staff, or a rent board? • Fiscal and Market Effects: What would the policy cost to administer, how should it be funded, and how might different options affect tenants, small property owners, rental investment, maintenance, and new housing production?
• Citywide Application and Local Conditions: How should citywide policies account for differences in rental housing stock, landlord types, tenant needs, and displacement risk across Vallejo neighborhoods?
Potential Next Steps
Next steps will include a study session with the full City Council to review this material in more detail and request direction related to some of the key decision points. Staff is working to schedule this study session during the month of September 2026.
Staff also anticipates bringing the Specific Plan consultant agreements to the City Council in September 2026. If approved, the consultants would begin work under their respective scopes, which include market and housing analysis, early anti-displacement public engagement, an AntiDisplacement Feasibility Study, additional comparable-practice research, required policy and legal analysis, and ordinance-drafting support.
Attachments
1. Rent Stabilization Ordinance Comparison Matrix
2. Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance Comparison Matrix
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Rent Stabilization Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482) City of Hayward City of Concord City of Richmond Codification
Where the rent stabilization
legislation is codified
Civil Code Sections 1947.12 and 1947.13. Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 12, Article 1, Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection
Ordinance.
Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40, Residential
Tenant Protection Program; including Sections
19.40.030 through 19.40.060 and Section
19.40.120.
Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 11.100, Fair
Rent, Just Cause for Eviction and Homeowner
Protection.
Adoption/Effective/Sunset
Date
Date the rent stabilization
legislation was adopted,
became effective, or expires
Tenant Protection Act enacted in 2019; rent cap
provisions took effect 1/1/2020. Current Civil Code
Section 1947.12 became operative 4/1/2024 and
sunsets 1/1/2030 unless extended.
Current Article 1 ordinance effective 7/25/2019;
amended by Ordinance No. 20-14 on 7/21/2020 and
Ordinance No. 26-03 on 2/17/2026.
Adopted by Ordinance No. 24-3; effective
5/22/2025.
Fair Rent/Just Cause ordinance adopted
12/20/2016.
Covered Units
Types of rental housing subject
to rent stabilization
Residential real property, including dwelling units
intended for human habitation and certain
mobilehome tenancies, unless exempt.
Covered rental units located in Hayward and used
or occupied by payment of rent, excluding units not
deemed covered rental units under the ordinance.
Covered rental units within the City that are not fully exempt and not exempt from rent stabilization.
Richmond residential rental units classified as
controlled rental units, unless exempt.
Exemptions
Types of rental housing exempt
from rent stabilization
Deed-restricted or subsidized affordable housing;
higher education and K-12 dormitories; housing
already subject to local rent or price control with
annual increases lower than AB 1482; housing
issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous
15 years, except mobilehomes; certain separately
alienable units, including single-family homes,
condominiums, and mobilehomes, if ownership and
tenant notice requirements are met; owneroccupied duplexes; and mobilehome homeowners.
Mobilehomes; nonprofit cooperatives; units whose
rents are controlled, regulated, or subsidized by a
governmental unit, agency, or authority; lawful
ADUs where primary unit is owner-occupied; units in
structures with a certificate of occupancy first issued after 7/1/1979; separately alienable residential real
property; certain condominium units sold separately
by the subdivider; and units exempt from rent
control under Costa-Hawkins.
Hotels/motels; institutional facilities; dormitories;
government-owned or legally exempt housing;
owner-occupied shared housing; emergency
shelters and homeless shelters; residential facilities; ADUs; owner-occupied duplexes; dwelling units
expressly exempt under state or federal law,
including units with a certificate of occupancy or
equivalent residential occupancy permit issued after
February 1, 1995; and rented single-family homes
or condominiums, subject to applicable registration
requirements.
Hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes, rooming
houses, and boarding houses rented primarily to
transient guests for fewer than 14 days; hospitals,
convents, monasteries, extended medical care
facilities, asylums, nonprofit homes for the aged,
and higher-education dormitories; certain
government-owned or government-regulated units;
units exempt under Costa-Hawkins; permitted small
second units; temporary single-family home
tenancies; and owner-occupied shared kitchen or
bathroom arrangements.
Base Rent/Initial Rent
How the regulated rent baseline
is established
Uses the lowest gross rental rate charged for the
unit at any time during the 12 months before the
effective date of the rent increase.
For a new tenancy where no prior tenant remains,
the owner may establish the initial rental rate, with
subsequent increases subject to the cap.
Initial rent is the rent in effect on 7/25/2019. If no
rent was in effect on that date, initial rent is the first rent charged after that date.
For tenancies beginning after 7/25/2019, initial rent
is the rent charged at the beginning of the tenancy.
Base rent depends on tenancy start date: for
tenancies commenced on or before 4/4/2023, base
rent is the rent in effect on 4/4/2023 plus the initial allowable annual rent increase.
For tenancies commenced after 4/4/2023 but before
ordinance effectiveness, base rent is the rent
charged upon initial occupancy plus the initial
allowable annual rent increase.
For tenancies commenced after ordinance
effectiveness, base rent is the rent charged upon
initial occupancy.
Base rent is the rent in effect on 7/21/2015. If no
rent was in effect on that date, base rent is the first rent charged after that date.
For tenancies commencing after adoption of the
chapter, base rent is the initial rental rate in effect when the tenancy begins.
Annual Allowable Rent
Increase/Frequency
Maximum allowable rent
increase and how often rent
may be increased
Annual rent increase may not exceed 5% plus the
percentage change in cost of living, or 10%,
whichever is lower.
If the same tenant remains in occupancy over a 12-
month period, rent may not be increased in more
than two increments during that 12-month period.
Rent increases of 5% or less may be imposed once
every 12 months and are not subject to rent dispute
review.
Rent increases above 5% are subject to the rent
dispute resolution process if challenged.
From 4/1/2023 to 3/31/2025, annual increases were
limited to 60% of CPI, capped at 3%, rounded to the
nearest one-quarter percent.
Beginning 4/1/2025, annual allowable rent increases
are limited to no more than 5% of lawful rent for the
preceding 12-month period.
Only one allowable annual rent increase and one
approved fair return rent increase may be imposed
in any 12-month period, unless otherwise permitted
by the chapter.
Annual general adjustment equals 60% of the
percentage increase in CPI, or 3%, whichever is
lower, and cannot be less than 0%.
The Rent Board announces the annual general
adjustment each year, effective September 1st.
Individual rent adjustments may be approved
through petition.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Rent Stabilization Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482) City of Hayward City of Concord City of Richmond CPI Method/Adjustment
Formula
How CPI is used to calculate
allowable increases
Uses the applicable regional CPI where the property
is located, or California CPI if no applicable regional index is available.
Percentage change is generally based on April-toApril CPI, with March fallback if April data are unavailable, and is rounded to the nearest one-tenth
of 1%.
No CPI-based formula applies to the basic 5%
threshold.
Uses CPI for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward
area, with calculation determined by the City and set
forth in procedures and guidelines.
Rent Board uses the San Francisco-Oakland-San
Jose CPI, or successor index, for the 12-month
period ending in March of the current year.
Vacancy Decontrol/New
Tenancy
Whether rent can reset when a
unit becomes vacant
Yes.
For a new tenancy where no prior tenant remains in
lawful possession, the owner may establish the
initial rental rate; subsequent increases are subject
to the state cap.
Yes.
Initial rent may generally be reset after a voluntary
vacancy or lawful eviction, subject to exceptions for
nonvoluntary vacancies, certain terminated rentrestricted contracts, unresolved serious code violations, or landlord conduct causing the vacancy.
After voluntary vacancy or lawful eviction,
subsequent increases remain subject to the rent
increase threshold.
Yes.
When a tenant voluntarily vacates, abandons, or is
legally evicted from a covered rental unit, the
landlord may set initial rent for the next tenant
without restriction at the commencement of the new
tenancy.
For new tenancies, base rent is the initial rental rate in effect when the tenancy commences. That base
rent becomes the reference point for future
maximum allowable rent adjustments under the
ordinance.
Vacancy decontrol is limited because the unit
remains subject to Richmond rent control after the
new base rent is established, unless otherwise
exempt under Costa-Hawkins or another
exemption.
Banking of Unused Increases
Whether unused annual rent
increases may be carried
forward
Not addressed. Allowed.
A landlord may bank all or part of an unused annual
permissible rent increase up to 5%. Banked
increases expire after 10 years. No more than 5%
of banked increase may be added to a current-year
rent increase, and total annual increase may not
exceed 10%.
Prohibited.
A landlord who does not impose an allowable
annual rent increase during the applicable 12-month
period waives that increase or the unused portion
for the remainder of the tenancy.
Not addressed.
Capital Improvement PassThroughs
Whether capital improvement
costs may be passed through
to tenants
Not addressed, but rent increases must remain
within the applicable state cap unless another
applicable law allows otherwise.
Allowed through an approved landlord capital
improvement petition.
Total costs passed through may not exceed 50% of
total amount paid by the landlord. Costs are
generally amortized over 60 months unless an
extended amortization period is required. The
capital improvement charge must be removed after
the amortization period.
Not addressed, but capital improvements and
rehabilitation-related costs may be considered in the
fair return petition analysis if relevant to net
operating income or fair return.
Addressed through individual rent adjustment
petitions.
The Rent Board or hearing examiner may consider
planned or completed capital improvements that are
necessary to bring the property into compliance or
maintain compliance with health and safety code
requirements and are properly amortized over the
life of the improvement.
Utility/Housing Service PassThroughs
Whether utility costs or housing
service changes are regulated
No separate utility pass-through process, but rent
increases are evaluated as increases to the gross
rental rate subject to Civil Code Section 1947.12.
Landlords may pass through governmental-utility
service costs through a ratio utility billing system
(RUBS) or similar unmetered allocation
arrangement if authorized by written lease.
Utility pass-throughs are not treated as rent for
purposes of the 5% threshold. Tenants may petition
for review if the required documentation is not
provided or if the increase exceeds 1% of existing
rent.
A decrease in housing services without a
corresponding rent reduction is treated as an
increase in rent and may be challenged by tenant
petition.
Utility costs may be considered as operating
expenses in fair return proceedings to the extent
they are not paid by tenants.
Landlords may not charge for utilities unless the
utility is separately or individually metered.
Decreases in housing services may support
downward adjustment of maximum allowable rent.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Rent Stabilization Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482) City of Hayward City of Concord City of Richmond Notice Requirements for
Rent Increases
Tenant and City notice
requirements
Not addressed, but notice of rent increase must be
provided in accordance with Civil Code Section 827.
Landlord must serve a rent increase notice with
required information, including current rent, amount
of increase in dollars and percentage, petition
rights, Rent Review Officer contact information, and
supporting basis for increases above applicable
thresholds.
Landlord must provide the City with a copy of rent
increase notices within 30 days after service.
Landlord must provide prior written notice of rent
increases pursuant to Civil Code Section 827.
Additional notice applies to fair return petitions,
including service of the petition on affected tenants
and proof of service to the City.
Landlords must file copies of rental increase notices
and changes in terms of tenancy with the Rent
Board before serving the tenant.
Landlords must also provide the Rent Board
brochure at commencement of tenancy and with
each rent increase.
Tenant Petition Process
Whether tenants may challenge
rent increases or seek rent
reductions
No administrative petition process.
Tenants may bring civil actions for rent collected
above the state cap.
Tenants may file petitions to review rent increases
above the 5% threshold; contest banked increases;
review utility increases; request rent reductions for
decreased housing services; contest unauthorized
or excessive capital improvement pass-throughs;
review rent increases where units have uncured
health, safety, fire, or building violations; and assert violations of Civil Code Section 1947.12.
Tenants may file petitions to adjust rent to the lawful level if the landlord demands or retains unlawful
rent.
Tenants may also petition based on decreased
housing services after giving the landlord prior
written notice and a reasonable opportunity to
correct.
Tenants may file petitions for individual adjustment
of maximum allowable rent, including downward
adjustments based on decreased housing services,
deterioration, failure to comply with habitability
standards, or other relevant grounds.
Tenants may also file administrative complaints for
excess rent.
Landlord Fair Return Petition
Process
Whether landlords may seek
rent increases above ordinary
limits
No state administrative fair return petition process. Landlords may petition for rent increases above the 5% threshold or above 10% inclusive of banking
and capital improvement costs to obtain a fair
return. Landlords may also petition for capital
improvement pass-throughs.
Landlords may file fair return petitions to request
rent increases beyond the annual allowable
increase.
A fair return increase cannot authorize a rent
increase in a 12-month period above Civil Code
Section 1947.12; excess approved amounts may be
carried forward to future years until fully imposed.
Landlords may petition for individual upward
adjustment of rent ceilings when necessary to
provide a fair return on investment.
The Board or hearing examiner may consider
operating expenses, property taxes, capital
improvements, housing services, recent rent
patterns, and other relevant factors.
Rent Registry/Registration
Requirement
Whether landlords must
register units or report rent
information
No state rent registry. No, but landlords must provide City copies of rent increase and termination notices, and annual
business tax declarations apply to rental units.
Landlords must register covered rental units,
including rented single-family homes and
condominiums, through the City’s designated rent
registry portal; provide required information; pay
registry fees; and submit annual reports.
Landlords must pay rental housing fees and file
required notices with the Rent Board.
The Rent Board may collect and receive copies of
notices of termination and changes in terms of
tenancy and maintain searchable records.
Program Fee/Funding
How administration is funded
No state program fee. Annual rent stabilization administration fee applies to landlords for all rental units, including covered
rental units, subject to the ordinance.
For covered rental units, landlords may pass
through up to 50% of the fee to tenants.
A landlord that fails to pay required fees may not
collect otherwise authorized rent increases, and fee
nonpayment may be asserted as a defense in
actions to recover possession or collect a rent
increase.
Landlords must pay rent registry fees established by
City Council resolution.
Fees fund the rent registry and implementation,
administration, and enforcement of the chapter.
Late fees, interest, fines, penalties, and municipal
tax lien procedures may apply.
Rent Board is funded through annual registration
fees/rental housing fees charged to landlords in
amounts deemed reasonable by the Board and
adopted through the ordinance process.
Administrative Body
Agency or official responsible
for administering the program
No dedicated state rent board.
Enforcement may occur through courts and public
enforcement by the Attorney General, city attorney,
or county counsel.
Rent Review Officer designated by the City
Manager administers rent dispute resolution,
notices, petitions, mediation/arbitration, fees, and
related procedures.
City administers the rent registry, appoints hearing
officers, and implements procedures, regulations,
and guidelines through the City Manager or
designee.
Richmond Rent Board administers the ordinance,
establishes base rents, sets annual adjustments,
conducts hearings, adopts rules and regulations,
collects fees, subpoenas witnesses, and seeks civil
relief.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Rent Stabilization Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482) City of Hayward City of Concord City of Richmond Enforcement and Remedies
Administrative enforcement,
civil actions, penalties,
damages, attorney’s fees, or
defenses
Owners who demand, accept, receive, or retain rent
above the state cap may be liable for injunctive
relief, overcharge damages, attorney’s fees and
costs in the court’s discretion, and up to treble
damages for willful, oppressive, fraudulent, or
malicious conduct.
The Attorney General, city attorney, or county
counsel may enforce the section and seek injunctive
relief.
Landlord noncompliance with notice, fee, utility passthrough, capital improvement, or rent increase procedures may bar collection of increases and may
be asserted as a defense. Tenants may petition for
administrative review. City may issue citations and
administer hearings.
Remedies may include injunctive relief,
actual/statutory/direct money damages, civil
penalties of $2,000 to $5,000 per violation,
additional penalties for senior or disabled tenants,
treble damages or $1,000 minimum damages,
punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs for
prevailing tenants, City Attorney enforcement, and
administrative remedies.
Landlords who demand, accept, receive, or retain
rent above maximum allowable rent may be liable
for attorney’s fees and costs, overcharge damages,
and treble damages upon a showing of willful
conduct, oppression, fraud, or malice.
Tenants may file civil actions or administrative
complaints. Violations may also be misdemeanors,
and the Board, tenants, and landlords may seek
injunctive or other civil relief.
Relationship to State
Law/Costa-Hawkins
How local authority interacts
with state law
Civil Code Section 1947.12 does not expand or limit
local authority to regulate rents consistent with
Costa-Hawkins and does not authorize local rent
limits otherwise prohibited by Costa-Hawkins.
Hayward exempts units exempt from rent control
under Costa-Hawkins and incorporates Civil Code
Section 1947.12 violations into the tenant petition
process.
Concord states that covered units are not subject to
Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 to the
extent covered by the local chapter.
Fair return increases remain limited by Civil Code
Section 1947.12 in any 12-month period.
Richmond exempts units exempt from rent control
under Costa-Hawkins and regulates controlled
rental units to the greatest extent allowable under
state law.
Note: Information current as of July 2026. The descriptions in this table are simplified summaries intended to facilitate comparison of state and local rent stabilization policies. They are not intended to be legal interpretations or complete descriptions of any statute or ordinance.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482) City of Hayward City of Novato City of Richmond Codification
Where the just-cause
legislation is codified
Civil Code Section 1946.2. Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 12, Article 1, Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection
Ordinance; and Article 2, Tenant Relocation
Assistance
Novato Municipal Code Section 4-17, Tenant
Protections.
Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 11.100, Fair
Rent, Just Cause for Eviction and Homeowner
Protection; Chapter 11.102, Relocation
Requirements.
Adoption Date
Date the just-cause legislation
was adopted
Signed by Governor 10/8/2019; effective 1/1/2020;
sunsets 1/1/2030 unless extended.
Current Article 1 ordinance effective 7/25/2019;
amended by Ordinance No. 20-14 on 7/21/2020 and
Ordinance No. 26-03 on 2/17/2026. Article 2 Tenant
Relocation Assistance was repealed and replaced
by Ordinance No. 24-08, adopted 12/17/2024.
Adopted 4/28/2026 by Ordinance No. 1731 Fair Rent/Just Cause ordinance adopted 12/20/2016; Relocation Ordinance effective
1/19/2017.
Covered Units
Types of rental housing subject
to the just-cause legislation
Residential rental units not exempt under AB 1482. Covered rental units located in Hayward and used or occupied by payment of rent, excluding units not
deemed covered rental units under the ordinance.
Multifamily or multipurpose dwelling structures with
separate bathroom, kitchen, and living area; SROs;
and residential rental units, including some units not
legally permitted for residential use.
Residential rental units in the City unless exempt.
Exemptions
Types of rental housing
exempted from the just-cause
protections
Transient/tourist hotels; certain institutional housing; dormitories; owner-occupied shared housing; singlefamily owner-occupied residences; owner-occupied duplexes; housing issued a certificate of occupancy
within previous 15 years; separately alienable units,
such as single-family homes and condominiums, if
statutory ownership and tenant notice requirements
are met; deed-restricted affordable housing.
Nonprofit cooperatives; certain nonprofit substance
abuse treatment or recovery facilities; certain
nonprofit transitional housing facilities for homeless
persons with occupancy limited to no more than 24
months; and owner-occupied shared housing.
Transient lodging; institutional housing; dormitories;
on-site property manager units; owner-occupied
shared housing; temporary tenancies; owneroccupied single-family residences; owner-occupied duplexes; and separately alienable units, including
single-family homes, condominiums, and
mobilehomes, if ownership conditions are met.
Hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes, rooming
houses, and boarding houses rented primarily to
transient guests for fewer than 14 days; hospitals,
convents, monasteries, extended medical care
facilities, asylums, nonprofit homes for the aged,
and higher-education dormitories; certain
government-owned or government-regulated units;
Costa-Hawkins-exempt rent-controlled units; lawful
ADUs; temporary single-family home tenancies; and
owner-occupied shared kitchen or bathroom
arrangements.
Tenant Duration Before
Protections Apply
Length of occupancy required
before just-cause protections
apply
Protections apply after 12 months of continuous
lawful occupancy; in certain multi-tenant situations,
protections apply when all tenants have occupied
for 12 months or one tenant has occupied for 24
months.
Protections apply to applicable rental units without a
stated minimum occupancy period.
Protections apply on the first day of the rental
agreement.
Protections apply to applicable rental units without a
stated minimum occupancy period.
Notice of Tenant Rights
Whether landlords must
provide written notice of tenant
protections
Landlord must provide statutory notice regarding AB
1482 rent cap and just-cause protections.
Yes.
Landlord must notify tenant of rights prior to new or
renewed tenancies.
For existing tenancies, notice must be provided
within 30 days of ordinance effectiveness.
Landlord must execute and retain document
acknowledging tenant's receipt of information,
documents, or notices required by the ordinance.
Yes.
Landlord must provide a current written notice of
rights within 90 days of ordinance effectiveness or
amendment; at lease signing; at renewal; with rent
increases or tenancy changes; when listing the
property for sale; and within 30 days of acquiring
title.
Notice must be in English and Spanish, with
additional translations when required.
Rent Board must prepare a brochure describing
landlord and tenant rights and duties under the Fair
Rent, Just Cause for Eviction and Homeowner
Protection Ordinance.
Landlords must provide the brochure at
commencement of tenancy and with each notice of
rent increase.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482) City of Hayward City of Novato City of Richmond Right to Written Lease &
Minimum Lease Terms
Whether tenants have a right to
written leases and minimum
lease terms
Not addressed by AB 1482. Not addressed. Not addressed. Not addressed.
At-Fault Eviction Grounds
Tenant actions that may justify
eviction
Nonpayment; lease violation; nuisance; waste;
criminal activity; unlawful use; refusal of lawful entry; unauthorized assignment/subletting; refusal to
renew lease; employee/licensee holdover; failure to
vacate after tenant notice or accepted surrender
offer.
Nonpayment; substantial lease violation after written
notice to cease; substantial damage after notice;
refusal to agree to substantially identical new rental
agreement; disorderly conduct after notice; refusal
of lawful access after notice; illegal use conviction;
controlled substance activity; violation of reasonable
written rules after notice; employee tenancy
termination; threat of death or great bodily harm
reported to police.
Nonpayment; lease violation; nuisance; refusal of
reasonable access; waste; unauthorized
assignment/subletting; refusal to renew lease;
employee/licensee holdover; criminal activity;
unlawful use; failure to deliver possession after
tenant notice or accepted surrender offer.
Failure to pay rent; breach of lease after written
notice to cease; nuisance or substantial damage
after written notice to cease; or refusal of lawful
access after written notice.
No-Fault Eviction Grounds
Circumstances allowing
eviction even when the tenant
has not violated the lease
Owner/family move-in; withdrawal from rental
market; government/court/local order requiring
vacancy; intent to demolish or substantially remodel.
Substantial repairs; demolition; owner/family movein; and owner recovery under existing rental agreement.
Temporary vacancy for substantial renovation;
owner/family move-in; withdrawal from rental
market, including demolition.
Temporary vacancy for substantial repairs; owner
move-in (with exceptions for seniors, disabled, and
terminally ill); withdrawal from rental market; or
temporary tenancy recovery.
Notice of Termination
Required contents, language,
delivery, and filing requirements
for notices terminating a
tenancy
Must state the applicable at-fault or no-fault just
cause. No-fault notices must inform tenants of
relocation assistance or rent waiver rights.
Must state the reasons for termination or temporary
termination, with specific facts sufficient to
determine the date, place, and circumstances.
Notice must be served in the manner prescribed by
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1162 and may be
combined with or separate from the termination
notice.
Notice must be provided to City within 30 days after
it has been served.
Failure to state authorized grounds is a defense to
possession.
Must include landlord/agent information, unit
address, service date, current monthly rent, tenancy
start date, initial monthly rent, asserted just cause,
and relocation rights for no-fault terminations.
Notice must be in English and Spanish, with
additional translations when required. Copy must be
provided to the City within 10 days.
Notice must state the cause for termination. For
breach of lease, nuisance/substantial damage, and
refusal of access, required written warning notices
must be attached to the termination notice.
Owner move-in notices must identify the intended
occupant and relationship to the landlord.
Substantial repair and withdrawal notices have
additional requirements.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Departm Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482) City of Hayward City of Novato City of Richmond Termination Notice Period
Minimum advance notice
required before a tenancy may
be terminated
Generally 30 days for tenants occupying less than
one year and 60 days for tenants occupying one
year or more pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.1.
Shorter or longer periods may apply for certain atfault evictions or Ellis Act withdrawals.
Notice periods generally follow applicable state law. No-fault terminations require at least 30 days’ notice unless a longer period is required by state law,
federal law, local law, rental agreement, or the
ordinance.
Generally governed by applicable state law, except
that withdrawal from the rental market requires 120
days’ notice, or one year for senior or disabled
tenants under Government Code Section 7060.4.
Temporary repair and owner move-in notices are
subject to applicable state and local notice
requirements.
Relocation Assistance for
Temporary Displacement
Whether landlords must
provide financial assistance to
tenants that are temporarily
displaced
Not addressed by AB 1482. Yes.
Required for temporary displacement due to
substantial repairs and governmental orders to
vacate due to health or safety conditions, except
natural disasters and tenant caused conditions.
Assistance equal to three times the current fair
market rent for displacement of 30 days or more.
For fewer than 30 days, payment is prorated.
For displacement due to substantial repairs, if the
tenant agrees to vacate, payment is due
immediately upon acceptance to vacate; if the
tenant does not agree, payment is due immediately
upon the tenant vacating. Proof of payment must be
filed with Rent Review Officer within 7 calendar
days of payment. For governmental orders,
payment is due within 10 days after order to vacate
or at least 20 days prior to vacation date in order
(whichever occurs later).
In lieu of making temporary relocation payments,
landlord may offer tenant comparable unit in city.
Temporary relocation payments triggered if tenant
has good cause to vacate comparable unit.
Yes.
Required for substantial renovations and
government orders to vacate.
Assistance includes per diem ($250/day) payments
for displacement of 30 days or fewer; one month’s
rent plus rent differential payments for 31–179 days;
two times HUD fair market rent at 180 days;
comparable unit option; moving expenses; and right
of return.
Yes.
Required for temporary displacement due to
substantial repairs and governmental orders to
vacate due to health or safety conditions, except
natural disasters and tenant-caused conditions.
Landlord must make temporary relocation payments
immediately after vacation of the unit. Tenant must
continue paying lawful rent to receive relocation
payments. Tenant is not obligated to pay lawful rent
if relocation payments are rejected.
After 120 days, landlord must make rent differential
payments until the rental unit is reoccupied or tenant
finds alternative, permanent housing. Tenant is not
obligated to pay rent while receiving rent differential payments.
Permanent relocation payment is required if tenant
finds alternative, permanent housing.
In lieu of temporary relocation or rent differential
payments, landlord may offer a comparable unit in
the City. Temporary relocation payments resume if
tenant has good cause to vacate the comparable
unit.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482) City of Hayward City of Novato City of Richmond Relocation Assistance for
Permanent Displacement
Whether landlords must
provide financial assistance to
tenants that are permanently
displaced
Required for no-fault evictions. Landlord must
provide one month’s rent or waive final month’s
rent.
Yes.
Required for applicable no-fault terminations,
including demolition/removal from the rental market,
owner/family move-in, owner recovery under an
existing rental agreement, and other state or federal
no-fault grounds.
Landlord must provide one month’s rent or waive
the final month’s rent. Payment is due within 14
calendar days of service of notice. Proof of payment
must be filed with the Rent Review Officer within 7
calendar days of payment.
Assistance is recoverable if tenant fails to vacate.
Yes.
Required for owner move-in and withdrawal from
rental market.
Owner move-in requires one month HUD fair
market rent, but not less than one month’s rent, plus
reasonable documented moving expenses.
Withdrawal requires two months HUD fair market
rent, but not less than one month’s rent, plus
reasonable documented moving expenses.
Payment due within 15 calendar days of service of
notice.
Yes.
Required for owner move-in and withdrawal from
rental market, and in certain government order or
health/safety displacement situations (except
natural disasters and tenant caused conditions).
Amounts are determined by City Council resolution.
For owner move-in and withdrawal, one-half is due
within three business days after the tenant gives
written notice of intent to vacate, and the remaining
half is due within three business days after the
tenant vacates and removes personal property
Right of Return
Whether displaced tenants
have the right to reoccupy the
unit after displacement
Limited re-rental/re-offer rights.
If an intended owner or qualifying family member
does not move in within 90 days or does not
maintain the unit as a primary residence for at least
12 months, the owner generally must offer the unit
to the displaced tenant at the same rent and lease
terms. If a stated demolition or substantial remodel
is not commenced or completed, the owner must
offer the displaced tenant an opportunity to re-rent
at the prior rent and terms.
Yes.
Provided after substantial repairs.
Tenant must be given right of first refusal to
reoccupy upon completion of required work.
Yes.
Provided after substantial renovations, government
orders to vacate, owner move-in violations, and
some withdrawal-from-market situations.
Tenant generally returns at prior rent plus lawful
annual adjustments.
Yes.
Provided for substantial repairs, owner move-in, and
withdrawal from rental market.
Tenant returns to the same covered rental unit at
prior rent.
Tenant Buy-Out Agreements
Whether landlords and tenants
can enter into a buyout
agreement where the landlord
provides a tenant money or
other consideration to vacate
the rental unit
Not addressed by AB 1482. Not addressed. Yes.
Landlord must provide disclosures at least 10 days
before making a buyout offer: tenant has right not to
enter agreement; may consult an attorney; may
consult Legal Aid of Marin; and may rescind within
30 days after full execution.
Landlord must retain disclosures and agreements
for at least five years.
Not addressed.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482) City of Hayward City of Novato City of Richmond Right to Replace Departing
Tenant
Whether remaining tenant or
tenants have the right to
replace the departing tenant on
a one-for-one basis
Not addressed by AB 1482. Not addressed. Not addressed. Yes.
Landlord cannot terminate tenancy based on a
tenant's sublease of the unit if the sublease
replaces one or more departed tenants under the
rental housing agreement on a one-for-one basis.
Enforcement and Remedies
Whether the law provides for
administrative enforcement,
civil actions, affirmative
defenses, damages, penalties,
attorney’s fees, injunctive relief,
or other remedies
No dedicated statewide administrative, registration,
or filing program. However, noncompliance renders
the termination notice void, and a material violation
may support a tenant civil action for actual
damages, discretionary attorney’s fees and costs,
enhanced damages under specified circumstances,
and punitive damages. The Attorney General, city
attorney, or county counsel may seek injunctive
relief.
Rent Review Officer administers the ordinance,
including notices, forms, appeals, relocation
payment documentation, and implementation
regulations. Civil actions are available for relocation violations, including injunctive relief and damages.
Remedies may include damages, costs, reasonable
attorney’s fees, treble damages for willful failure to
pay required relocation assistance, City restitution,
enforcement costs, and lien or special assessment
recovery. For permanent relocation assistance,
strict noncompliance renders the termination notice
void.
City may enforce the ordinance through
administrative remedies, citations, fines, and
injunctive relief. Tenants may bring civil actions for
violations, relocation assistance claims, and
ordinance applicability determinations. Remedies
may include injunctive relief, actual damages,
attorney’s fees and costs in the court’s discretion,
treble damages for willful, oppressive, fraudulent, or
malicious conduct, punitive damages, and
affirmative defense in unlawful detainer actions.
Richmond Rent Board administers the ordinance,
including rules and regulations, hearings, fees,
termination notices, withdrawal procedures,
subpoenas, referrals, and civil enforcement.
Tenants and the Rent Board may seek injunctive
relief and money damages for wrongful eviction.
Failure to comply may be asserted as an affirmative
defense in an unlawful detainer action. Attempts to
recover possession in violation of the ordinance
may result in liability for actual damages, including
emotional distress, injunctive relief, money
damages, and costs and reasonable attorney’s fees
for a prevailing tenant.
Note: Information current as of July 2026. The descriptions in this table are simplified summaries intended to facilitate comparison of state and local just-cause-for-eviction policies. They are not intended to be legal interpretations or complete desc the specific topic.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482)
Codification
Where the just-cause
legislation is codified
Civil Code Section 1946.2.
Adoption Date
Date the just-cause legislation
was adopted
Signed by Governor 10/8/2019; effective 1/1/2020;
sunsets 1/1/2030 unless extended.
Covered Units
Types of rental housing subject
to the just-cause legislation
Residential rental units not exempt under AB 1482.
Exemptions
Types of rental housing
exempted from the just-cause
protections
Transient/tourist hotels; certain institutional housing; dormitories; owner-occupied shared housing; singlefamily owner-occupied residences; owner-occupied duplexes; housing issued a certificate of occupancy
within previous 15 years; separately alienable units,
such as single-family homes and condominiums, if
statutory ownership and tenant notice requirements
are met; deed-restricted affordable housing.
Tenant Duration Before
Protections Apply
Length of occupancy required
before just-cause protections
apply
Protections apply after 12 months of continuous
lawful occupancy; in certain multi-tenant situations,
protections apply when all tenants have occupied
for 12 months or one tenant has occupied for 24
months.
Notice of Tenant Rights
Whether landlords must
provide written notice of tenant
protections
Landlord must provide statutory notice regarding AB
1482 rent cap and just-cause protections.
City of Concord City of Antioch
Concord Municipal Code Chapter 19.40, Residential
Tenant Protection Program (specifically, Section
19.40.070)
Antioch Municipal Code Chapter 6, Tenant Eviction
Protections.
Adopted by Ordinance No. 24-3. Effective May 22,
2025.
Adopted 8/27/2024 by Ordinance No. 2240-C-S.
Dwelling units within the City unless fully exempt or
exempt from just-cause provisions.
Any building or part of a building used as a
residence and rented to a tenant as a dwelling
place, except exempt units.
Hotels/motels; institutional facilities; dormitories;
government-owned or legally exempt housing;
owner-occupied shared housing; emergency
shelters and homeless shelters; residential facilities
(defined in Section 18.200.070); ADUs; owneroccupied duplexes; and two or fewer rented singlefamily homes or condominiums offered by the same or substantially similar landlord, owner, or natural
person.
Hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and health
facilities; certain nonprofit substance abuse
treatment or recovery facilities; certain nonprofit
transitional housing facilities for homeless persons
with occupancy limited to no more than 24 months;
and transient hotel/motel occupancies, unless
rented for 30 days or more or used to avoid tenancy
status.
Protections apply upon legal possession of a
covered dwelling unit.
Protections apply from the day the rental agreement
becomes effective until the landlord-tenant
relationship is terminated.
Yes.
Landlord must provide notice as an addendum to
the rental agreement or signed written notice for
new or renewed tenancies.
For existing tenancies, notice must be provided
within 180 days of ordinance effectiveness.
Notice must be in at least 12-point type, in English
and Spanish, and include required statements
regarding rent limits, just cause, right of return,
relocation assistance, moving stipend, and written
lease rights.
Landlord must provide the City form notice before or
at the time of entering into a rental agreement and
when renewing a rental agreement.
Notice must be in English and other frequently
spoken languages, and in the language of
negotiation or written agreement if other than
English.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482)
Right to Written Lease &
Minimum Lease Terms
Whether tenants have a right to
written leases and minimum
lease terms
Not addressed by AB 1482.
At-Fault Eviction Grounds
Tenant actions that may justify
eviction
Nonpayment; lease violation; nuisance; waste;
criminal activity; unlawful use; refusal of lawful entry; unauthorized assignment/subletting; refusal to
renew lease; employee/licensee holdover; failure to
vacate after tenant notice or accepted surrender
offer.
No-Fault Eviction Grounds
Circumstances allowing
eviction even when the tenant
has not violated the lease
Owner/family move-in; withdrawal from rental
market; government/court/local order requiring
vacancy; intent to demolish or substantially remodel.
Notice of Termination
Required contents, language,
delivery, and filing requirements
for notices terminating a
tenancy
Must state the applicable at-fault or no-fault just
cause. No-fault notices must inform tenants of
relocation assistance or rent waiver rights.
City of Concord City of Antioch
Yes.
Landlord must offer a prospective tenant a written
lease with a minimum term of one year. If rejected,
landlord must offer a six-month lease term. If that is
rejected, landlord and tenant may agree to a lease
term of fewer than six months. Existing tenants may
also request a written lease with a minimum term of
one year or six months, subject to ordinance
requirements.
Not addressed.
Nonpayment; material rental agreement breach
after notice to correct; nuisance; waste; refusal to
renew similar rental agreement; criminal activity or
criminal threat; unauthorized assignment/subletting;
refusal of lawful entry; unlawful use;
employee/agent/licensee holdover; failure to deliver
possession after tenant notice or accepted
surrender offer.
Nonpayment; material lease breach after notice and
opportunity to cure; nuisance after notice and
opportunity to abate; waste; criminal conviction for
illegal use of rental property; criminal threats
directed at landlord or agent; refusal to execute
similar lease renewal after timely written request;
repeated refusal of lawful entry; employee/residentmanager holdover; failure to deliver possession after tenant notice or accepted surrender offer; and
unauthorized assignment or subletting.
Owner/family move-in (with exceptions for seniors,
disabled, and terminally ill tenants); Ellis Act
withdrawal; government/court/local order requiring
vacancy; intent to demolish or substantial remodel.
If a school-aged child resides in the covered unit
and the notice of termination falls during the school
year, it can be used as a defense for no-fault
eviction.
Owner/family move-in (with exceptions for elderly,
disabled, handicapped, terminally ill, and lowincome tenants); demolition or substantial remodel; compliance with government/court/local order
requiring vacancy; withdrawal from the rental
market.
Must state at least one for-cause or no-fault reason
and the grounds for termination.
Termination notices must be submitted through the
City’s rent registry portal within 7 calendar days after service.
Additional notice content applies to owner move-ins,
Ellis Act withdrawals, and demolition/substantial
remodels.
Must be served in accordance with Civil Code
Sections 1946–1946.5; must state intent to
terminate tenancy and identify at least one at-fault
or no-fault just cause.
For no-fault terminations, relocation assistance
notice is required.
Copy of notice and proof of service must be
submitted to the City within 5 days after service.
More extensive noticing requirements apply to Ellis
Act withdrawals.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482)
Termination Notice Period
Minimum advance notice
required before a tenancy may
be terminated
Generally 30 days for tenants occupying less than
one year and 60 days for tenants occupying one
year or more pursuant to Civil Code Section 1946.1.
Shorter or longer periods may apply for certain atfault evictions or Ellis Act withdrawals.
Relocation Assistance for
Temporary Displacement
Whether landlords must
provide financial assistance to
tenants that are temporarily
displaced
Not addressed by AB 1482.
City of Concord City of Antioch
Ellis Act withdrawal requires at least 120 days’
notice, extended to one year for senior or disabled
tenants who have lived in the unit for at least one
year and provide timely notice of status.
Demolition/substantial remodel notices must comply
with Civil Code Section 1946.1.
Other notices generally follow applicable federal,
state, and local notice requirements.
Owner/family move-in requires 60 days’ written
notice.
Ellis Act withdrawal requires at least 120 days’
notice, extended to one year for qualifying tenants
age 62 or older or disabled who have lived in the
unit for at least one year and provide required notice
of eligibility.
Other notice periods generally follow applicable
state law unless a longer period applies.
Yes.
Required for temporary displacement due to
substantial remodel.
Assistance includes per Federal General Services
Administration-rate per diem payments for
displacement of 30 days or fewer; and per diem
payments or comparable or superior temporary
housing for 31 days or more.
Yes.
Required for temporary displacement due to repairs,
rehabilitation, health and safety violations,
hazardous materials exposure, or work that makes
the unit untenantable or cannot be completed while
occupied, where repairs take less than 30 days.
Assistance may include per diem for lodging in
Contra Costa County based on the Federal General
Services (GSA) rate; temporary use of another
habitable Antioch unit; a new rental agreement for
another habitable Antioch unit; or safe and sanitary
hotel/motel accommodations (within reasonable
distance of the tenant's rental)
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482)
Relocation Assistance for
Permanent Displacement
Whether landlords must
provide financial assistance to
tenants that are permanently
displaced
Required for no-fault evictions. Landlord must
provide one month’s rent or waive final month’s
rent.
Right of Return
Whether displaced tenants
have the right to reoccupy the
unit after displacement
Limited re-rental/re-offer rights.
If an intended owner or qualifying family member
does not move in within 90 days or does not
maintain the unit as a primary residence for at least
12 months, the owner generally must offer the unit
to the displaced tenant at the same rent and lease
terms. If a stated demolition or substantial remodel
is not commenced or completed, the owner must
offer the displaced tenant an opportunity to re-rent
at the prior rent and terms.
Tenant Buy-Out Agreements
Whether landlords and tenants
can enter into a buyout
agreement where the landlord
provides a tenant money or
other consideration to vacate
the rental unit
Not addressed by AB 1482.
City of Concord City of Antioch
Yes.
Required for no-fault terminations.
Standard amount is three times HUD fair market
rent for comparable unit type plus $3,000 moving
stipend.
Tenant households with lower-income, disabled,
senior, terminally ill, and school-aged children
receive one additional month of HUD fair market
rent.
Certain single-family home/condominium cases
require two months of current rent plus a $2,000
moving stipend.
One-half of relocation assistance is due within 15
calendar days of service of the notice of termination.
The remaining relocation assistance and moving
stipend are due no later than the date the tenant
vacates.
Yes.
Required for no-fault evictions.
Landlord must pay two months of the tenant’s
monthly rent, plus one additional month if the
household includes a qualified tenant, plus moving
expenses under the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act -
Residential Moving Expense and Dislocation
Allowance Payment Schedule published by the
Federal Highway Administration.
A qualified tenant is any tenant who is elderly,
disabled, handicapped, has one or more dependent
children under the age of 18, or meets the income
limits for a "lower-income household".
Yes.
Provided for owner move-in violations, Ellis Act
returns (up to 10 years), government orders, and
substantial remodel.
Tenant generally returns to the same covered rental
unit at prior rent plus lawful increases and prior
rental agreement terms.
Yes.
Provided for owner/family move-in violations,
demolition or substantial remodel, and Ellis Act
returns (up to 10 years).
Tenant generally returns or receives first refusal at
prior rent plus lawful annual increases.
Not addressed. Yes.
Landlord must provide disclosure when proposed
agreement is provided: tenant has right not to enter
agreement; may consult an attorney; may consult
the "department"; and may rescind within 30 days
after full execution.
Tenant Buy-Out Agreement must be: in writing;
translated if negotiated in another language;
provided to each tenant at least 5 days before
execution; include required bold notice language;
allow 30-day rescission; and be filed with the City
within 10 days after execution with proof of service.
City of Vallejo | Planning and Development Services Department Just Cause Protections Ordinance Comparison Matrix July 24, 2026 State Law (AB 1482)
Right to Replace Departing
Tenant
Whether remaining tenant or
tenants have the right to
replace the departing tenant on
a one-for-one basis
Not addressed by AB 1482.
Enforcement and Remedies
Whether the law provides for
administrative enforcement,
civil actions, affirmative
defenses, damages, penalties,
attorney’s fees, injunctive relief,
or other remedies
No dedicated statewide administrative, registration,
or filing program. However, noncompliance renders
the termination notice void, and a material violation
may support a tenant civil action for actual
damages, discretionary attorney’s fees and costs,
enhanced damages under specified circumstances,
and punitive damages. The Attorney General, city
attorney, or county counsel may seek injunctive
relief.
Note: Information current as of July 2026. The descriptions in this table are simplified the specific topic.
City of Concord City of Antioch
Not addressed. Yes.
Landlord has right to approve or deny prospective
replacement tenant, provided he/she does not
unreasonably withhold approval.
City administers the rent registry, hearing officer
process, procedures, regulations, and enforcement.
Tenants may bring civil actions for violations without
exhausting administrative remedies. Remedies may
include injunctive relief, actual/statutory/direct
money damages, civil penalties of $2,000 to $5,000
per violation, additional penalties for senior or
disabled tenants, treble damages or $1,000
minimum damages, punitive damages, attorney’s
fees and costs for prevailing tenants, City Attorney
enforcement, and affirmative defense in unlawful
detainer actions.
City may administer and enforce the chapter, and
the City Attorney or designee may develop
procedures and guidelines. Aggrieved persons,
tenant-representative organizations/entities, and the
City may bring civil proceedings against landlords
and persons who aid, facilitate, or incite violations.
Remedies may include injunctive/equitable relief,
treble damages or $2,000 minimum damages,
attorney’s fees and costs, additional penalties for
violations against disabled persons or persons age
65 or older, compensatory damages, rent refunds,
relocation costs, civil penalties up to $10,000 per
violation, punitive damages, criminal penalties, and
affirmative defense in unlawful detainer actions.
criptions of any statute or ordinance. Individual provisions may be more or less protective depending on
DEVELOPED BY:
Anteeniya Bell, Urban Planner & Researcher
Cristál Gallegos, Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition Senior Organizer Chris Schildt, Director of Housing Justice
THE
RIGHT
TO THRIVE:
TENANT-LED
HOUSING JUSTICE
IN VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
2026
Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition
Urban Habitat
“I believe that we can… get together and form this generational improvement for families to come or generations to come where we can. My great granddaughter can live there if she wants.
She can be thrilled to be a citizen of Vallejo, California.”
ALMA BROWN, LONGSHORE COVE TENANT
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT PARTNERS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Why Vallejo?
Frameworks for Understanding Housing Injustice in Vallejo SECTION 1: THE PROBLEM
How Did Vallejo Get Here?
History of Tenant Organizing in Vallejo
Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition (VHJC)
SECTION 2: TENANT EXPERIENCES IN VALLEJO
The Vallejo Tenant Survey
Research Approach and Survey Design
Research Questions
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Survey Results and Analysis
Survey Limitations
Discussion
SECTION 3: BUILDING TENANT POWER IN VALLEJO
Policy Recommendations to Improve Health and Well-Being of Vallejo Renters Addressing Racial Inequities in Vallejo
Conclusion
Where Do We Go From Here?
Appendix
Figures
02 03
04 05
05 07
09 10
15 16
18 19
19 19
20 20
21 34
36 37
38 43
45 46
47 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS
URBAN HABITAT (UH)
works to democratize power and advance
equitable policies to create a just and
connected Bay Area for low-income
communities of color. Through strategic
partnership, UH supports increasing the
power and capacity in low-income
communities and communities of color.
3 RESEARCHER ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Research has been wielded as an extractive and exploitative instrument of white supremacy, used to further oppress and marginalize Black and Brown communities. Recognizing this harmful legacy, the development of this research is dedicated to reclaiming research-as-justice to uplift rather than harm low-income communities and communities of color. As a mixed-race Black and Korean queer person who has also experienced unstable and dilapidated housing, as well as eviction, similar to many renters in Vallejo, my hope and goal is for community members to use The Right to Thrive report as a transformative tool that aids in building tenant power for low-income renters and renters of color in Vallejo.
Anteeniya Bell
PRINCIPLE AUTHORS
Anteeniya Bell, Urban Planner & Researcher
Cristál Gallegos, Senior Organizer, Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition Chris Schildt, Director of Housing Justice, Urban Habitat
PROJECT PARTNERS
This report was made possible by the community members of South Vallejo and tenants of Longshore Cove and Seabreeze Apartments, whose invaluable expertise and experiences form the bedrock of VHJC’s ongoing efforts. Their complex histories and compelling narratives, represented within this report as tenant testimonials, highlight the urgent need for collaborative action at the city level to secure permanent affordability and stable housing for all renters in Vallejo. Their contributions not only illuminate the challenges faced by low-income renters and renters of color, but also underscore the essential role of community voices in driving meaningful policy change.
VALLEJO HOUSING JUSTICE COALITION
(VHJC)
prioritizes and amplifies the voices of the
communities most directly impacted by
harmful housing policies that have displaced
and uprooted families, especially lowincome families, immigrants, and people of color.
The Right to Thrive Report
4 1
2 3
4 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Vallejo is at a crossroads. Despite its rich cultural diversity and labor organizing history, Vallejo’s renters face growing pressures — from unstable housing within a regional housing crisis and rising rents to deteriorating living conditions and limited legal protections from eviction. Over 55% of Vallejo households are renters, yet the city lacks local tenant protection beyond those offered by the state, leaving many residents vulnerable to displacement, harassment, and poor housing quality.
With “The Right to Thrive: Tenant-Led Housing Justice in Vallejo, California,” we sought to conduct the first tenant experience survey assessing renters’ needs in Vallejo, a severely underserved and underfunded city in the Bay Area. In this report, we summarize our findings from online survey data and tenant testimonials gathered at local food banks, farmers markets, and apartment complexes, to highlight the urgency of advancing tenant protections and communitydriven housing solutions in Vallejo. It centers the voices and perspectives of those most impacted — low-income renters, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households, families, and elders — who are calling not only for protection, but for belonging, dignity, and power in shaping the future of Vallejo as a city where all residents can thrive.
Residents want tenant protections. There is overwhelming support for rent stabilization, just cause evictions, and protections against landlord harassment and displacement to increase affordability across Vallejo, as well as to ensure tenants can remain where they live.
Housing quality and safety are major concerns. Over half of renters reported problems with pests, physical building infrastructure, or illegal activity. Many more called for improved building maintenance and neighborhood safety through regular inspections and increased security presence onsite.
Social connection and mutual aid matter. Beyond affordability, residents emphasized the importance of supportive communities, cultural pride, and mutual aid networks as part of what makes their neighborhoods truly livable. Creating more spaces to connect is integral to quality of life for renters in Vallejo for this reason.
Residents want to get involved in their communities. Many renters are eager to form tenant associations, to be more involved in local decision-making, and to explore alternative models of housing like community land trusts (CLTs).
Vallejo wants to be heard. Across neighborhoods and through online and in-person testimonies, it is clear that Vallejo renters share a great desire for expanded voice and representation in decisions that affect their housing and neighborhoods. The City of Vallejo should work to ensure that community agency is at the forefront of all local policy action in the future.
KEY FINDINGS:
In 2022, United Way Bay Area (UWBA) collaborated with Applied Survey Research to undertake a comprehensive study assessing the alignment of philanthropic fund distribution with community needs across the Bay Area, from 2018- 2020. This study aimed to inform strategic decisions regarding funding and resource delivery. The findings highlighted a stark disparity: Solano County, which has the highest needs score among the eight Bay Area counties, receives the least philanthropic funding per capita—$168 per capita compared to $11,211 per capita in San Francisco County. The study concludes with a call-to-action, urging funders and decision-makers to invest in Solano County, in order to address pressing community needs and promote permanent economic stability for its constituents. 1 2
This study, Understanding Poverty and Philanthropic Giving Disparities in the Bay Area 2018-2020, was a key catalyst for the Vallejo Tenant Survey developed by the Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition (VHJC) to begin understanding the current housing landscape for low-income renters in Vallejo, so as to prioritize and center community voices in the policy advocacy work advanced by VHJC and its partners at the municipal level.
Why Vallejo?
In 2001, the New York Times dubbed Vallejo, California as one of the most racially diverse cities in the nation, recognizing its role as a central maritime, industrial, and agricultural hub while existing on the outskirts of the San Francisco Bay Area. Despite still holding this title, and being the largest city in Solano County, Vallejo has largely been excluded from the regional conversation on housing justice due to a false perception of affordable homeownership opportunities in the city. As housing affordability continues to be an ongoing issue, it is imperative that Vallejo join the brigade of California cities instituting tenant protection ordinances to ensure long-term livability and affordability for residents that are most at-risk of displacement and homelessness. 3 Vallejo is the most populous city in Solano County, with a population of approximately 126,090 people. While renowned for its waterfront district and rich maritime history, Vallejo’s cultural diversity has earned it acclaim over the past two decades as one of the nation’s most diverse cities. As one of the most racially diverse cities in the Bay Area, its demographic composition is approximately 25% Asian, 19% Black, 28% Hispanic, and 23% White. 4 5
6 Vallejo has been spotlighted in local newspapers and Bay Area media networks as the last affordable bastion for homeownership for low-income families and communities of color. As of February 2024, the median home value in Vallejo stood at $434,800, more than 50% lower than the Bay Area’s median home value of $1.2 million. This affordability has made Vallejo a hotspot for new investment from private developers eager to build market-rate housing, despite the ongoing regional housing crisis. The city is also touted as an ideal location for retirees seeking to purchase homes, and with the growth of an aging population in the city (more than 15%), it is imperative that affordable, sustainable housing for Vallejo residents to live a full and dignified life is central to the city’s housing strategy.
7 8
5 I N T R O D U C T I O N
The Right to Thrive Report
Despite a median household income of $88,063, Vallejo faces varied and complex housing challenges. The city has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Bay Area, sitting at approximately 5% of the population. Similar to cities like Antioch, Pittsburg, and Richmond, Vallejo is a periphery city in which its working age population often commutes to more metropolitan areas, namely San Francisco and Sacramento, for quality employment opportunities, highlighting the need for local job creation as a pillar of city and county policy. 9 In this context, the Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition (VHJC) was formed in 2019 to address the lack of tenant protections and affordable housing options for low-income BIPOC residents. Cristal Rocha, VHJC’s original organizer, began this work due to her own personal experience being displaced from her home in Richmond in 2015. Following this, Rocha and her family moved to Vallejo, where her parents were able to purchase a home during a time when their new neighbors were leaving Vallejo for cities like Stockton, Modesto, and Sacramento. Rocha recognized this pattern of place-based loss due to the ongoing housing affordability crisis and chose to transform her own story of displacement into political action, a few months shy of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. 10 The COVID-19 pandemic made many of the issues Rocha and other Vallejo residents faced much more evident, as countless tenants faced eviction, landlord harassment, and unsustainable rent increases. Rocha and other VHJC organizers conducted door knocking to get tenants connected to the limited support from the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). By doing this work, VHJC was able to understand more clearly how dire many tenants living situations were, many detailing stories of landlord harassment, racism and discrimination, predatory property management practices like theft of rental money, refusal to provide receipt of rental payments, threat of eviction, presence of mold and mildew, and pest infestations.
Due to the urgency of COVID-19, VHJC did not have the chance to reassess community needs, concerns, and priorities to enhance awareness of living conditions at the local and regional levels. VHJC also felt it was pertinent to begin this assessment as the summer of 2023 also marked the end of the statewide eviction moratorium that was activated during the COVID-19 breakout in 2020. Immediately following the moratorium lift, eviction cases in California increased exponentially as landlords began the tenant removal process, where the number of tenants facing evictions increased from 10% in Sacramento County to 35% in Santa Clara County from pre-pandemic filings. Many landlords also chose to utilize the last of their rent cap increases, creating an influx of tenants choosing to self-evict as they lacked adequate financial resources or ineligibility for rental assistance programs. And most recently, Vallejo was highlighted in media reports for surpassing New York City in housing costs, indicating a severe escalation in median home prices and monthly rents in Vallejo and nearby cities like Fairfield and Benicia. The Vallejo Tenant Survey was designed to address this gap in engagement and assessment.
11 12
6
Housing injustice in Vallejo is a complex and multifaceted issue, deeply rooted in systemic inequities that have long plagued the city and its most vulnerable residents. Recent research shows that informal eviction processes — such as landlord harassment, degraded housing quality, and rent increases — lead to self-eviction, in which tenants are coerced into leaving their homes. These pressures, compounded by a lack of robust tenant protections, put renters at especially high risk of displacement. Addressing these injustices requires renters and housing justice advocates to have a comprehensive understanding of Vallejo’s urban history, tenant organizing and movement-building, and antidisplacement strategies, to ensure that existing and future generations can remain where they live. The following frameworks are important in contextualizing the history and experience of renters in Vallejo.
Housing as a human right and anti-displacement. Displacement refers to the forced or coerced movement of people from their homes, lands, or communities, often driven by external pressure that targets the most vulnerable.
These pressures can be economic (gentrification and rising housing costs), political (war, persecution, or government policies), environmental (natural disasters or climate change), or large-scale development projects (infrastructure building or urban renewal programs). Displacement is a catalyst for housing instability, with profound consequences for those affected.
13 In Vallejo, the threat of displacement is highest for renters, especially low-income renters in central Vallejo.
Displacement tears apart social and cultural networks, disrupting access to essential services, affordable housing, and employment, and makes it difficult for someone to rebuild their lives in new locations. It is closely linked with the process of gentrification, with low-income residents bearing the brunt of rising property values and living costs as a result of wealthier people moving into their neighborhoods. 14 The principle of housing as a human right asserts that everyone should have access to safe, secure, and affordable housing without discrimination. However, the underlying causes of displacement are deeply entrenched in systemic inequities that require a comprehensive housing justice framework to effectively address and mitigate their impacts.
Anti-displacement efforts are crucial in confronting the economic, social, and cultural disruptions that destabilize communities and displace BIPOC residents from their homes. 15 To combat these forces, tenant-led initiatives that are rooted in direct community engagement and negotiation with local governments are essential. These initiatives can serve as powerful tools to prevent further encroachment of gentrification, and build collective community power. For example, in Marin County, tenants at the Skylark Apartments organized a renters association in response to proposed rent increases. Through rapid-response organizing, including door-knocking, signature gathering, and know-your-rights workshops, they mobilized to advocate for their rights and well-being against inequitable housing practices like unjust evictions and rent hikes. In Vallejo, similar tenant-led, community-informed approaches are vital to safeguarding the human right to housing, simultaneously as movementbuilding work is still undergoing. Fighting gentrification and displacement ensures that Vallejo continues to house its diverse community members, many of whom have already experienced multiple displacements as previous tenants of San Francisco, Oakland, or Richmond.
Housing as a social determinant of health. Solano Public Health has identified housing as a key priority for the health and well-being of Solano County residents. The vision of the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) developed by Solano Public Health and its partners was built on the idea that health systems should be invested in the root causes of the health issues impacting its constituents, and because of this, must center the experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color in Solano County. According to the study, 1 in 3 Solano County residents are at-risk or currently experiencing displacement from gentrification.
16 17
7 FRAMEWORKS FOR UNDERSTANDING
a
The Right to Thrive Report
8 HOUSING INJUSTICE IN VALLEJO
Housing in Solano County is particularly precarious for families and seniors with fewer financial resources, as they are more likely to live in substandard housing. The rising housing prices in the Bay Area have exacerbated racial disparities, leading to an increase in displacement and segregation. This trend has seen low-income Black households growing in numbers in Fairfield, East Vallejo, and Suisun City. The county’s lower income levels mean that it has a higher proportion of cost-burdened households compared to San Francisco, with two in five residents not owning their own homes. The American Community Survey (ACS) defines ‘cost-burdened’ as households that spend 30% or more of their income on housing. In Solano County, approximately 62% of Black and Native American renters are burdened by high housing costs, while only 48% of white renters are cost-burdened. Overall, at the county level, 49.8 renter-occupied housing units per 100 units are cost-burdened, speaking to the need for affordable housing for the renting class. 18 According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, to afford the average cost of a 2 bedroom apartment in Vallejo at fair market value ($1,963 per month), an individual would have to make $37.75 an hour, which is 2.4 times the minimum wage for the county. Additionally, the area median income (AMI) for the Vallejo-Fairfield MSA is 43% higher than the average annual income of the city. And with less local employment opportunities available, affordability continues to be an issue. Over the last decade, Vallejo has also experienced an influx of low-income families displaced from San Francisco and Alameda County, adding further stress to local infrastructure and services, and straining resources to support both new and existing residents.
19 20
Racism as a public health issue. Racism as a public health issue has gained significant attention in recent years, with increasing recognition that systemic racism and racial discrimination have profound and pervasive impacts on the health and well-being of individuals and communities. For example, Black women are most at-risk of eviction in the United States. This understanding has led public health professionals, policymakers, and community advocates to address racism not just as a social and moral issue, but also as a critical determinant of health outcomes. In Vallejo, these issues are particularly pressing given the city’s diverse population and ongoing housing affordability challenges, and they continue to affect the city’s development and growth, as well as inter-community dynamics.
Vallejo exemplifies how systemic racism in housing manifests through historical and ongoing segregation, discriminatory lending practices, and unequal access to affordable housing. Marginalized populations, particularly lowincome Black households, have been disproportionately affected by these inequities, being confined to neighborhoods with substandard living conditions, environmental hazards, and limited access to resources, contributing to higher rates of health issues such as asthma and lead poisoning. The rising housing costs in the Bay Area have intensified these racial disparities, leading to further segregation and displacement of vulnerable communities.
VHJC
Understanding the legacy of historical violence of urban planning projects like urban renewal, residential
segregation, single-family zoning ordinances, and more is essential for developing effective policies and initiatives that promote inclusivity and justice for all residents that are context-specific, place-based, and communityinformed — with special emphasis on Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) residents in Vallejo.
9 But it was either not paying y'all(rent) or paying PG&E. So I had to make that choice. But then I said, in the next following month, I said, what am I going to do? I cannot afford to pay PG&E back all this money to get my lights turned on. And if I don't pay him, you know, so I had to make a decision. So I made the decision to walk out of my house and leave everything there.
With the little bit of money I had in my pocket. And that's how, because I knew I was going to get evicted because it was either pay. (sic) I had no money to even pay the cable or nothing. It was just that we had just walked out and because they said I had to pay that PG&E if I wanted to keep my place and stuff.”
“And so, I didn't, when I moved over here, I just had my little bag and stuff. I didn't even have blankets or nothing to sleep in. We didn't care. I was just happy just to get a place.” “And it's just like, you've been there for a while and you're getting–you're getting no respect.
Then you go to the office and it's like a last minute thing. Yeah, definitely. You know, and I was talking to the girl and I said, you know, and she's like talking back to me, you know. And I told her, I said, so do you know I'm a 67 year old woman and you can't talk to me like that, you know.
Zina Wilson, LongShore Cove Tenant
SECTION 1:
THE PROBLEM
10 To fully grasp the current housing landscape and renter experience in Vallejo, we must begin by examining the city’s urban history. This allows us to pinpoint the root causes of Vallejo’s urban inequities, as well as critically engage with past regional and federal urban policies that have exacerbated racial disparities in the American housing market. Such an analysis is crucial, as any further collaboration with city governments to address and rectify racist policies and practices must be grounded in the shared histories and collective memories of the communities most affected by said policies. It is the people who give meaning to a place, and their experiences and stories are essential to understanding and resolving the challenges that impact their everyday lives.
Early history and land privatization. Prior to Spanish settlement and colonization, Solano County was home to the indigenous Coastal Miwok, Suisunes, and Patwin peoples, who continue to steward the land. The Spanish colonial period saw Vallejo integrated into the mission system, which sought to convert Native Americans to Christianity and integrate them into European colonial society. This era significantly disrupted indigenous ways of life, as European agricultural practices, livestock, and crops were introduced, fundamentally altering the local economy and environment for lifetimes. The construction of ranchos — large land grants given to Spanish and later Mexican settlers — laid the groundwork for Vallejo’s transition from a Spanish colonial outpost to a significant site in California’s Mexican and American history. Rancho Suscol, a Mexican land grant from 1843, established early patterns of land privatization and speculation that continue to influence Vallejo today.
Source: Vacaville Heritage Council
How Did Vallejo Get Here?
11 Vallejo was established as a city in 1851 and briefly served as California’s first official state capital until 1853, when the capital moved to Sacramento. In 1853, Mare Island became the first U.S. Navy post on the West Coast, shaping economic migration patterns into Vallejo. During this period, Solano County already had a significant African American population, with additional migration from Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Florida driven by increasing anti-Black racism in the South during the Great Migration (1910-1970). The Mare Island Naval Shipyard remained a hub for war-industry jobs, attracting Mexican, Black, and Filipino migrants well into the 20th century, until its closure in 1996. 21 Source: Open Vallejo
Redlining and racially restrictive covenants.
The history of redlining and race-restrictive
covenants in Vallejo reflects the broader
patterns of racial discrimination in American
housing policies during the 20th century.
Redlining, a practice institutionalized by the
Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) in the
1930s, systematically denied minority
neighborhoods access to mortgages and other
financial services by marking them as high-risk
(red) on maps. These maps segregated
communities and restricted economic
opportunities for African Americans and other
minorities. In Vallejo, this practice was
compounded by racially restrictive covenants
included in property deeds that used explicit
language that prohibited the sale or rental of
homes to non-white individuals. These covenants
were legal until the Supreme Court decision in
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), which struck them
down federally.
Despite the federal court striking them down,
the impacts of redlining and race-restrictive
covenants racialized both the land and housing
policy in Solano County. Local housing policy and
practices focused on delegating specific
communities of color to different areas of the
city to maintain and control the growing BIPOC
population postwar. Prior to 1960, Vallejo was
predominantly white (approximately 80%), with
East Vallejo being race-restricted for white
families. These segregated single-family home
developments were located around the I-80
“highway home” suburban developments such as
Vista de Vallejo, Winslow Terrace,
22 The Right to Thrive Report
11 Greenfield Terrace, Fairmont Gardens, and more. The Crest, a neighborhood in North Vallejo, was race-restricted for Black families only, making it one of two areas in the city where Black Vallejoans could purchase homes. Despite this, there were many efforts pushed by communities of color in Vallejo seeking refuge from racial violence via private homeownership. For example, in 1952, an organization of citizens concerned about housing discrimination formed the Home Seekers Association, purchasing acres of land in North Vallejo to build permanent housing for Black families. 23 24
25 While “Whites-only” language in land deeds and homeowner association bylaws are no longer regulatory, today we see persistent wealth gaps in areas designated as “red” on redlining maps, as race-restrictive language made it almost impossible for people of color to build wealth via homeownership. The long-lasting impacts of redlining continues to manifest in contemporary neighborhood characteristics, linking systemic exclusion from home purchasing to the diminished well-being of marginalized communities. Today, residential segregation has created unsafe living conditions for Black, Latinx, and Asian neighborhoods in Vallejo, resulting in healthcare gaps, food deserts, and social isolation, perpetuating cycles of poor health outcomes across generations. This is important as Vallejo houses 1 of 11 census tracts in the Bay Area that are categorized today as racially disadvantaged for low-income Black and Latinx households. For example, in 2021, Vallejo census tract 2509 had almost 600 Black and 200 Latinx households that were low-income and living in highly segregated neighborhoods. Vallejo census tract 2509 is located by the waterfront district, home to apartment complexes with residents most at-risk of eviction and property management harassment — Longshore Cove Apartments and Marina Vista Apartments. 26 27
12 Urban renewal and freeway construction. Vallejo was one of the first cities to receive federal urban renewal funds from the United States government in the 1960s. Redevelopment of the downtown district, via the Callahan DeSilva development plan, was the first major urban renewal project taken up by the city, headed by former Vallejo Redevelopment Agency director James Richardson in the 1970s and 1980s. The main goal during this time was to revitalize Downtown Vallejo as a commercial business district, connecting Vallejo’s transportation systems and tourism areas with the waterfront district. Despite these federal funds, ongoing development and revitalization was difficult for the city to keep up with, and many districts, such as the waterfront development plan, fell to the wayside until decades later.
28 Highway and downtown development was a key focus of Vallejo city leaders in the 1970s. The construction of Interstate 80 (I-80) was a grounding force for perceived growth of the city, as the interstate and further offshoots like I-780 would connect Vallejo to nearby cities of Fairfield and Benicia. I-80 construction was also a key component of connecting Solano County to Contra Costa County more directly, as it would expand the city’s transportation network, ultimately leading to the construction of the Carquinez Bridge.29 State highway construction was difficult and unpopular to Vallejo residents, as it would create huge volumes of traffic downtown as well as increase noise and air pollution in the waterfront district. Access to Mare Island for shipyard workers was also of key concern, as most of the working class in Vallejo, many of whom were Black and Filipino, would have increased difficulty commuting to work as highway construction was predicted to disrupt the Mare Island Ferry Co. boats. Additionally, as the waterfront development plans were abandoned, so were the swaths of land purchased by the state to support urban renewal projects. This meant that the waterfront and downtown district would remain relatively undeveloped, despite the city’s population growth and demographic shifts in the second half of the 20th century. While previously race-restricted home developments underwent neighborhood secession, multi-family housing became a key necessity to meet the demands of the region’s population growth after the 1980s.
The Right to Thrive Report
Source: California Highways
13 Predatory marketing and housing foreclosures. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, financial institutions began aggressively targeting communities of color in Vallejo, and other periphery cities in the Bay Area, with predatory lending practices. This period coincided with a significant demographic shift in Vallejo, as many residents sought housing and employment opportunities in other cities following the closure of Mare Island in 1996 — an exodus that attracted Black, Latino, and Asian individuals and families seeking lower housing prices. Unfortunately, new and existing residents were subjected to high-risk lending schemes, where loans came with fluctuating and exorbitant interest rates that were particularly vulnerable to the economic instability of the looming recession.
Between 1998 and 2000, the percentage of subprime mortgages issued to BIPOC households surged from 2% to 18%.
And despite having good credit scores and stable rental histories, many low- and middle-income Black households faced discriminatory practices from traditional lending institutions. These families were either denied conventional loans or steered towards higher risk loans, which carried higher interest rates and less favorable terms. As the recession took hold, these predatory loans led to widespread home foreclosures, beginning in 2008, devastating the financial stability of these communities.
The impact of the Great Recession was particularly severe in Vallejo, leading to the city filing for bankruptcy in May 2008.
The bankruptcy drew national attention, as Vallejo became emblematic of the broader economic collapse that was gripping the nation via bank failings. Significant budget shortfalls and revenue losses hurt Vallejo’s economy. Prior to the recession, Vallejo’s budget was heavily burdened by public servant salaries, which accounted for almost three-fourths of the city’s $80 million budget — substantially higher than the state average of 60%. As a result, the city was forced to make deep cuts to essential services, including the closures of three of the eight Vallejo firehouses, as well almost half of all fire and police staff being cut and the remaining receiving significant salary reductions. Road and infrastructure maintenance were deferred, as the city had to operate on a minimal budget and balance its debt. 30 The recession also wreaked havoc on Vallejo’s housing market. Home prices plummeted from a median home value of $471,000 in the early 2000s to an extreme low of $164,300, and approximately 60% of homeowners in the city defaulted on their mortgages. Unemployment in Vallejo soared to 15%, with even higher decreases in sales tax and property tax revenues. The city eventually emerged from bankruptcy in 2011, with a federal judge approving a $50 million debt restructuring plan, but the scars of the recession — and the predatory lending that contributed to it — left a lasting impact on Black, Latino, and Asian households in Vallejo, serving as a stark reminder of the destructive power of financial institutions preying on marginalized communities.
31 The long-term consequences of the recession continue to be felt in California and the nation. The racial wealth gap persisted and widened for Black and Latino communities, who have long struggled to regain the wealth lost during the crisis. Post-recession would find that collective wealth loss experienced by Black families between 2009-2011 was significant; Black households lost 13% of their wealth due to the economic crisis and housing foreclosures. Steep drops in property values, combined with the waves of foreclosures meant that many BIPOC families not only lost their homes but were also left with insurmountable debt, while white households, though also affected, were more likely to have other assets to buffer against the loss in home value.
32 33
The city, private landowners, and affordable housing. Vallejo is one of the last major cities for affordable homeownership in the Bay Area, especially for low-income and BIPOC homeowners seeking to build intergenerational wealth. The relationship between the City of Vallejo and affordable housing development is multifaceted, shaped by historical, economic, and political factors. The largest historical influences include municipal and federal investment into single-home, suburban developments and the usage of zoning ordinances to restrict residential development to single-family zoning.
14 The Othering & Belonging Institute developed an equity metric to measure the impacts of single-family zoning on residential development in the Bay Area. This study found that 85% of residential land in the Bay Area is dedicated to single-family homes. Vallejo was ranked in the middle category of single-family zoning, between 80-90% of residential land being designated for single-family-only zoning. 34 35
Multi-family housing has been the historical response to the segregationist impacts of single-family zoning — such as duplexes, townhomes, and apartment buildings. Unfortunately, multi-family housing is widely unpopular with private housing developers for a multitude of reasons: (1) they often requires a larger initial investment than single-family homes; (2) they must abide by a city’s complex zoning regulations and approval processes; (3) they are less profitable in markets where single-family homes are in high demand; and (4) they require ongoing property management, tenant relations, and compliance with rental regulations. The growth of the NIMBYism movement and the push for landlord protections in Vallejo has also made it so that multi-family, affordable housing is viewed as a threat against the culture and values of the city.
Vallejo’s primary challenge has been the rising demand and low supply for affordable housing for low- and moderateincome households. Low-income renters, while noted as a priority in the most recent draft of Vallejo’s Housing Element, are not the center of housing policy action at the municipal level. Instead, the dominance of landlords and property management companies overseeing available rentals, and the large percentage of city council members that own multiple residential properties, dictate negotiations on housing stock and type in the city. In a 2023 study of Bay Area elected officials who own rental property, Vallejo mayor Robert McConnell was found to own more rental properties than any other elected official surveyed, with around 12 properties that generate between $120,000-$1,200,000 annually. Increasing renter representation and tenant protections advocates in Vallejo’s city council is key to influencing how the city facilitates conversations with private investors, especially in negotiating affordable housing minimums for development projects.
36 Although Vallejo ultimately adopted its Housing Element, the City has failed to meet the implementation commitments it made to its residents and to the State. The June 2025 and September 2025 deadlines for presenting draft rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinances have come and gone without City Council review, or action.
The Right to Thrive Report
History of Tenant Organizing in Vallejo
The Vallejo branch of the NAACP, established in 1918, was straightforward in attacking housing inequality and job discrimination at a time when only 2,000 Black residents lived in Vallejo. Despite threats from the local Ku Klux Klan, the Vallejo NAACP “pressed for the prosecution of a White property owner accused of torching a Black church, and for equal treatment and cooperation from local authorities and from the commandant of Mare Island Naval Shipyard. In an article by historian Brendan Riley, he highlights author Sharon McGriff-Payne’s account of how her parents utilized a White go-betweener to purchase a home in the 1950s due to the seller refusing to sell to an African American couple. Early 20th century Vallejo was also defined by its strong labor organizing, especially for Black shipyard workers on Mare Island.
38 39
40 Tenant organizing in Vallejo has a rich history rooted in the broader struggles for affordable housing, tenant rights, and social justice. One of the earliest examples of Vallejo residents organizing for fair housing happened during the urban renewal period in the first half of the 20th century. Vallejo, like many American cities, experienced a housing boom after World War II. This period saw significant suburban expansion, driven by federal policies favoring homeownership and single-family zoning. While this development provided housing for many, it laid the groundwork for future housing inequality and residential segregation, excluding people of color from the speculative market.
36 Despite Vallejo being the birthplace of many local Bay Area housing advocates, such as anti-displacement organizer and author James Tracy, little has been documented on Vallejo’s contemporary push for renters’ protections. Even less has been written about the history of racially-restrictive covenants, urban renewal, and redlining in Vallejo, remaining an unexplored part of Vallejo’s legacy. Tracy’s own experience growing up in Vallejo and engaging in labor organizing as a young adult did help shape his later work, including the co-founding of the Eviction Defense Network in San Francisco in the 1990s.41
Today, the Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition (VHJC) stands at the forefront of tenant advocacy in Vallejo, which is aimed at ensuring affordable, equitable housing for all renters in Vallejo. VHJC’s initiatives include organizing workshops on tenant rights and local housing policy, as well as advancing conversations in community-controlled housing preservation strategies, namely the formation of a community land trust, to prevent displacement and maintain long-term affordability.
Tenant leaders and members of VHJC have also vocalized interest in creating a coalition of renters and tenants associations in Vallejo, in order to create a more connected network of renter-focused housing justice organizations across Solano County.
15
16 Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition (VHJC)
The Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition (VHJC) is a grassroots organization committed to championing housing justice, tenant rights, and equitable development in Vallejo, California. Established in response to the escalating housing crisis and the pressing challenges faced by low-income and marginalized communities, VHJC strives to ensure that every Vallejo resident has access to safe, affordable, and stable housing. Their advocacy and policy work is at the forefront of their mission, and by actively engaging in policy advocacy at both local and state levels, VHJC promotes laws and regulations that offer and enforce robust tenant protections, and supports the development of affordable housing projects.
In 2018, Urban Habitat (UH) began conversations with local residents about regional segregation and housing challenges.
These discussions set the groundwork, context, and priorities for VHJC’s work, leading to the coalition’s formal establishment in 2019. In addition to their instrumental work supporting tenants at the Strawberry Hill and Holiday Garden Apartments in their fight for an emergency anti-rent gouging ordinance, VHJC has facilitated conversations with city council and the mayor to ensure the renewal of the ordinance until AB 1482 came into effect in 2020.
Community education and outreach form the bedrock of VHJC’s initiatives. The coalition conducts workshops, informational sessions, and community meetings to educate residents about their rights as tenants and the resources available to them. These efforts are designed to empower tenants with the knowledge and tools they need to navigate the complexities of the Californian housing system and to advocate for their rights effectively. VHJC also started conversations with tenants for their participation in the city’s Housing Strategy Process, highlighting their commitment to inclusive community engagement.
Direct tenant support and legal aid are critical components of VHJC’s services. The coalition provides invaluable assistance to tenants facing eviction, harassment, and other housing-related issues by connecting them with legal aid services, offering guidance on dealing with landlords and helping to mediate disputes. This direct support is essential in preventing unjust evictions and ensuring that tenants are not left vulnerable to exploitative practices. In 2020, VHJC shifted its outreach efforts online due to the pandemic, conducting mass phone and text campaigns to inform tenants about their rights and available resources, collaborating with local organizations to push for a county-wide eviction moratorium and increased rental assistance funds.
VHJC also prioritizes research and data collection to inform their advocacy efforts. By conducting surveys and gathering data on housing conditions and tenant experiences in Vallejo, VHJC highlights the real-life impacts of housing policies on renters, ensuring that their policy action work is evidence-based and grounded in the lived experiences of the community.
In 2022, VHJC continued to build relationships with tenants and local organizations, holding know-your-rights trainings and participating in the Housing First Alliance Steering Committee, receiving additional funding from BUILD to hire a campaign coordinator to focus on base-building activities. VHJC’s community engagement and advocacy efforts have intensified this year, with tenant leaders participating in national assemblies and engaging in ongoing pressures for Vallejo city council for the delayed Draft Housing Policy and other regional housing projects, such as California Forever. Most recently, they were awarded a grant from the San Francisco Foundation’s Greater Community Collaboration fund to establish a new multi-sector collaborative space, aiming to bring more foundation and philanthropic funding to Solano County.
In addition to the tenant protections policy action VHJC has been engaged in since 2019, the organization also pushes two housing justice programs: (1) the Vallejo Leadership Cohort and (2) the Vallejo Community Land Trust.
The Right to Thrive Report
17 Vallejo Leadership Cohort (VLC). The Vallejo Leadership Cohort (VLC) is a community-driven initiative aimed at empowering local residents to take active roles in advocating for housing justice and equitable development in Vallejo.
The 8-week cohort is designed to build leadership skills, foster community engagement, and create a network of informed advocates who can effectively address housing issues in their own neighborhoods.
In early 2023, VHJC founded the Vallejo Leadership Cohort (VLC), an 8-week tenant leadership development program.
The first cohort began work from February to July of 2023, with 16 Vallejo tenant leaders. VLC participants undergo comprehensive training that includes workshops on tenant rights, community organizing, policy advocacy, and public speaking. The program emphasizes the importance of understanding local housing policies, the impact of place-based gentrification, and the need for sustainable, affordable housing solutions. By equipping residents with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate and influence housing policy, the Vallejo Leadership Cohort aims to create a strong, unified voice for housing justice in Vallejo. This initiative not only empowers individuals but also strengthens the community’s ability to advocate for fair and equitable housing practices, ensuring that the needs and rights of lowincome and marginalized residents are represented in the city’s decision-making process and protected from displacement.
42 Vallejo Community Land Trust (VCLT). VHJC and Urban Habitat began engaging with city leadership and the planning department to advocate for the introduction of a community land trust (CLT) in Vallejo, starting in 2022. At this time, VHJC was conducting community engagement sessions to involve residents in the updated Draft Housing Element set to be finalized, as well as educate residents on CLTs in the Bay Area. It was here that the Vallejo Community Land Trust (VCLT) was founded, in partnership with the Northern California Land Trust (NCLT), the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII), and Urban Habitat, providing technical assistance to VHJC.
The main goal of VCLT is to address housing insecurity and displacement by maintaining the ownership of land and providing affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income residents in Vallejo. Their key initiatives focus on community training, site identification, scaling up of properties, and acquiring selected sites for community-controlled housing. Currently, work is being done to identify three initial sites for possible acquisition and development, for projects that involve multi-family developments, cooperative-style resident management, and also converts singlefamily homes into mixed-generation co-housing to support BIPOC elders and Vallejo homeowners.43
AT THE VALLEJO HOUSING JUSTICE COALITION (VHJC),
WE BELIEVE THAT HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT.
18 SECTION 2:
TENANT EXPERIENCES
IN VALLEJO
What are the experiences of renters in Vallejo?
What are the primary concerns of Vallejo tenants?
How can Vallejo tenants transform their own material
conditions to support their continued health and well-being?
THE MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS GUIDING THIS PROJECT WERE:
1. What are the experiences of renters in Vallejo?
2. What are the primary concerns of Vallejo tenants?
3. How can Vallejo tenants transform their own material conditions to support their continued health and well-being?
19 Following several community workshops and “know your rights” trainings, VHJC developed the Vallejo Tenant Survey to advance tenant experience research in Vallejo. Given that tenant organizing is relatively new in this part of the Bay Area, this survey seeks to understand current housing experiences of Vallejo renters, which will inform VHJC and other housing justice advocates on priority areas to push for policy and systems change at the city and county levels.
Additionally, this foundational work aims to empower tenants and catalyze long-term improvements in housing stability and affordability in Solano County, as well as build momentum and capacity for reparative policy action in the city of Vallejo.
The Vallejo Tenant Survey was developed by the Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition (VHJC) to understand the unique perspectives and experiences of renting households in the city, specifically that of low-income renters and renters of color. The survey aimed to integrate resident narratives with quantitative data, shedding light on the lived realities of Vallejo’s renting class as previous studies, such as United Way Bay Area’s Understanding Poverty and Philanthropic Giving Disparities in the Bay Area 2018-2020 report only provides a regional overview of funding gaps. This methodology was grounded in principles of community-driven systems change and transformative human-centered policy. In total, the survey consists of 18 questions, containing both qualitative and quantitative questions to better understand the concerns, needs, and desires of Vallejo’s renting class.
Most importantly, this survey is the first grassroots effort to collect data that is localized and specific to Vallejo, as it is an underrepresented and underfunded city in the greater Bay Area. Vallejo should be a part of the region’s conversations on equitable housing development, especially as the rate of evictions have increased and housing quality and maintenance has steadily declined since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. VHJC’s central goal in designing this survey is to empower BIPOC renters in Vallejo in being a part of the physical improvements to their home environments.
It is the hope of VHJC that this survey contextualizes the long-lasting impacts that residential segregation, single-family zoning, predatory housing practices, and more have had on low-income renters and renters of color. In addition, this survey should serve as an anti-displacement tool that allows Vallejo tenants to remain where they live and use their voices to engage in policy action with the city.
The Vallejo Tenant Survey
Research Approach & Survey Design
Research Questions
20 VHJC began collecting online responses from the Vallejo Tenant Survey in November 2023. The survey was influenced by VHJC’s ongoing work with Vallejo city council on the newest Draft Housing Element, the development of the Vallejo Community Land Trust, and the introduction of permanent tenant protection ordinances in Solano County. Participants were recruited through VHJC’s network of supporters, social media campaigns, and local events to ensure broad and inclusive engagement. Special efforts were made to reach the most impacted residents, many of whom are predominantly low-income Black and Latinx residents at risk of eviction and landlord harassment. Surveys were collected for nine months until July 2024: online responses were paused at the beginning of June 2024 and VHJC canvassers began collecting in-person survey responses in June and July.
Data Collection
Both qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data were conducted.
Qualitative. VHJC staff and organizers, as well as the Housing Justice Intern at Urban Habitat, facilitated in-person surveys at local community events and social service provisions, such as the Downtown Vallejo Farmers Market and Faith Food Fridays, a local food pantry. Surveys were available in English, Spanish, and Tagalog, allowing for greater accessibility among Vallejo’s diverse population. VHJC staff assisted residents with clarifying survey questions and provided verbal translation when necessary. Surveys were printed and distributed at each event and collected by VHJC staff. Follow up surveys were conducted over-the-phone as well. VHJC and Urban Habitat staff compiled the data. As in-person surveys were conducted after the online survey data was collected, in-person data was analyzed later.
Special attention was paid to significant differences between in-person and online surveys and also aggregated together to compare them for commonalities and differences.
The survey also included several open-ended short answer questions to understand current living situations of tenants, their stance on tenant protection ordinances, and their overall opinion of what they like most and least about their current housing. These questions were analyzed with a word frequency analysis and qualitative coding of answers to identify commonalities and differences between responses. These responses were also coded for positive and negative associations on topics related to physical amenities, neighbor relationships, sense of belonging, safety, and more. Codes were then quantified and tallied to identify key priorities for renters and residents living in Vallejo.
Additional tenant testimonies were collected by VHJC for more detailed narratives on the landlord-tenant relationship and discriminatory housing practices, as well as understanding ways that renters in Vallejo thrive in the face of exclusion, eviction, and displacement. The value of these narratives cannot be overstated, and underscore the need for policy action that addresses the root causes of housing instability for Vallejo’s most vulnerable residents. This qualitative approach ensured that the voices of low-income renters and renters of color were accurately captured, providing a rich and nuanced understanding of their housing experiences. Respondents were able to emphasize the importance of community support networks and the role of local organizations in advocating for their rights, as well as describe their daily struggles as renters with things such as housing maintenance, financial stress due to high rental costs, and the impacts of gentrification and displacement.
Quantitative. The quantitative data from the Vallejo Tenant Survey provides a detailed overview of the demographic and economic characteristics of renters in Vallejo, specifically on housing tenure, and monthly household income. VHJC staff and organizers compiled and sorted the survey data by geography via zip code.
Data Analysis
The Right to Thrive Report
21 VHJC received a total of 319 responses (279 online and 40 in-person) from Vallejo residents in zip codes 94589, 94590, 94591, and 94592. The highest response rate came from the 94591 zip code which corresponds with East Vallejo, accounting for 116 responses (36.4% of total responses). The zip code 94590 (Downtown and South Vallejo) followed with 96 responses, zip code 94589 (North Vallejo) had 73 responses, and zip code 94592 (Mare Island) accounted for the smallest proportion with 34 responses, respectively. Zip code 94590 is of key interest, as it is home to three apartment complexes with a large proportion of low-income renters and renters of color, with a significant number of tenants who are disabled, single-parent households, or seniors. These complexes—the Seabreeze Apartments, Marina Vista Apartments, and Longshore Cove Apartments—have been at the center of conversations regarding future development to revitalize the downtown and waterfront districts, which would advance gentrification and displacement processes in Vallejo.
Survey Results and Analysis
Urban Habitat’s Housing Justice Intern then conducted the initial quantitative analysis with the online survey responses, producing a preliminary report that summarized demographic information and key findings to understand differences in experiences of renters in Vallejo, which would ultimately guide the structure of this final report. Additional research was conducted, utilizing American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Census data for the city of Vallejo to provide comparative statistics on race, rent cost burden, and median household income, as these questions were not put in the survey.
22 The Right to Thrive Report
Key Findings
Figure 1: Tenant Protections are Popular, Especially the Right to Organize and Community Land Trusts
Figure 2: Support of Tenant Protections is Popular Across All Zip Codes A majority of respondents support increasing renters’ rights and anti-eviction protections in the city, approximately 75-95% overall. Support for tenant protections is above 79% in all parts of Vallejo, except on Mare Island, where support ranges between 60-80% respectively. In addition to support of renters’ rights at the zip code level, there was also similar widespread approval for residents surveyed of differing housing status, which comprises homeowners, renters, and those with unknown housing statuses. There seems to be some slight differences in levels of support for a tenant’s right to counsel and rent control, with approximately 35-40% of homeowners being in support of these two tenant protections.
Residents want policy action and tenant protections. Residents were asked five multiple choice questions about introducing tenant protections that protect renters right to remain in Vallejo, namely the tenant’s right to organize, the right to counsel, unfair and discriminatory evictions, alternative collective housing models, and the city’s right to restrict annual rent increases.
23 Figure 4: Support of Tenant Protections is Highest
Amongst Renters, with Interest from Local Homeowners
Renters are living in a broad range of complex circumstances. The majority of respondents were renters, with 277 renters compared to 29 homeowners. Additionally, about 5% of respondents had unknown housing statuses at the time of the survey — many of these respondents completed the survey in-person. This equates to 86% of participants identifying as renters, with many noting concerns around rent increases and desires for social connection with neighbors as well as desires for improvements to the physical infrastructure of their places of living. Among renters, 193 respondents are renting apartments, with the highest concentrations in the 94590 and 94591 zip codes.
Additionally, 83 respondents noted that they rent rooms in houses or apartments, with the highest concentrations in East Vallejo, Downtown Vallejo, and South Vallejo (see more in Appendix A).
Figure 3: Resident Support of Tenant Protections by
Renting Status
During the data collection process for in-person surveys, most of which were conducted at the Downtown Vallejo Farmers Market and Food Faiths Fridays, 30.8% of respondents surveyed (n=12) noted that they were currently living in complex situations. Some had been recently evicted and others were couch surfing, living in their personal vehicles, or homeless. Aggregated with all surveys, those in complex living situations accounted for 3.8% of respondents; although a small percentage, this data point speaks to the need for affordable housing solutions for those at-risk or already unhoused, such as permanent supportive housing.
Monthly household income highlights significant economic disparities among Vallejo residents. The survey collected data on monthly household income, which refers to the accumulated income for all working members within a household. Responses were diverse between in-person and online survey results, revealing that most
24 respondents earn a monthly household income between $1,000 and $5,000. Specifically, 46.5% of online respondents reported between $2,500 and $5,000 earned within their household per month, and about 1% earned less than $1,000 per month. In-person responses showed a higher concentration of lower incomes, with 35 respondents earning $2,500 or less per month. These aggregated findings highlight significant economic disparities among Vallejo renters.
In-person surveys had a larger concentration of respondents who were unemployed, retired, or on disability, revealing the need for continued engagement with Vallejo’s most impacted community members. The income distribution data indicates that a substantial portion of renters are living on modest incomes, with many earning less than the median household income for the city. This financial strain is further compounded by the high cost of living and the pressures from private development and market-rate housing investments in Vallejo. Additionally, approximately 87.7% (280 out of 319) community members were employed at the time they submitted their survey.
The high proportion of renters in our survey pool also underscores the housing affordability challenges faced by Vallejo residents, given that the average rent in Vallejo for a fair market rate 2-bedroom is about $2,050 per month, according to sources like Apartments.com and Zillow. This means that for most of our respondents whose households earn between $2,500 and $5,000 per month, as much as 82% of their monthly income might be spent on rent payments.
44,45
Figure 5: Most Have Lived in Vallejo for At Least 5 Years, with Many Newcomers and Long-Time Residents
Renters continue to rent for extended lengths of time.Length of residency differs slightly by zip code and type of housing arrangement, as well as for those who gave online and in-person responses. There were some tenants who had recently moved and had only occupied an apartment for less than a month, and there were other long-time renters who had lived in their homes for as long as 39 years. In this survey, ‘home’ refers to the dwelling or living quarters in which an individual lives, and a ‘house’ refers to a type of home in which an individual lives. The average length of stay for online respondents was greatest for those living in houses at 8.25 years, and 7.59 years for apartment dwellers. The average length of stay for in-person respondents was greatest for apartment dwellers at 7.12 years, and 6.63 years for those living in houses. The locations (by zip code) with the longest average length of residence was in East Vallejo at 8.03 years for online respondents, and in Downtown and South Vallejo for 8.75 years for in-person respondents.
The Right to Thrive Report
25 Figure 7: Length of Residency is Longest for
People Living in Apartments and Houses
Average monthly rent payments range across zip codes, and anxieties regarding rent increases persist. The average rent paid throughout all zip codes is $1,385.22 per month (n = 268). The highest average rents per month are located in East Vallejo at $1,781.03 per month, and lowest rents per month are located in Downtown and South Vallejo at $882.06 per month. Important to note is that a significant proportion of respondents (approximately 16.5%) did not respond to this question. This could be attributed to respondents not having to pay rent as they are living with family, being private homeowners, being housing voucher recipients, or living in precarious situations, such as being unhoused or living in their cars. Additionally, this survey did not ask for number of renters per household.
Figure 8: Monthly Rents are Highest in East Vallejo
The average monthly rents follow different patterns if we look at housing status and type of residence for respondents.
For housing status, average monthly rents are highest for those renting entire apartments or homes (n = 176) at $1,483.02 per month, and lowest for those renting a room within an apartment or home (n = 75) at $1,175.28 per month.
For housing status based on type of residence, rents per month are highest for those living in houses (n = 71) at $1,446.92 per month and lowest for those living in mobile homes (n = 6) at $766.67 per month. A majority of those surveyed live in either apartments or condos (n = 185), with rents averaging $1,385.00 for apartment dwellers per month and $1,392.26 for condo dwellers per month.
Although the average monthly rent payments are lower than the monthly rent for a standard fair market rate 2 bedroom apartment in Vallejo, going for about $2,050 a month, tenants still described anxieties around rent increases and long-term affordability. Additionally, as we did not collect information on the total number of residents within a household, it is hard to make generalizations regarding rent burden. We do know, however, that many residents in
26 The Right to Thrive Report
Vallejo and Solano County are experiencing significant rent burden, even before the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. New census data from the 2023 American Community Survey has shown that about 1 in 3 households in the Bay Area are considered “cost-burdened,” meaning that more than 30% of a household’s income is spent on living costs, primarily rent. In Vallejo, over 40% of households are cost-burdened. This is significant because over half of the city is composed of renters, and with the ongoing economic downturn the country and region are facing, living costs are only expected to rise.
46 47
Additionally, when we compare the average monthly rents of residents surveyed to other major cities in the Bay Area, we see major differences. Based on rent estimates from March 2025, the overall rents for Vallejo are approximately $2,190 per month. Although monthly rents are trending lower for surveyed residents, this may be due to a number of factors (e.g. many persons living in one household that are splitting monthly rental costs). As we did not collect the 48 Figure 9: Monthly Costs are Highest for People Renting Apartments or Homes Figure 10: Monthly Rents Are Highest for People Renting Houses Figure 11: Vallejo Has Some of the Highest Rents Across Bay Area Cities
27 The Right to Thrive Report
number of persons per household in each survey response, it is difficult to know if residents surveyed are representative of all Vallejo residents impacted by high rental costs. Because of this, further outreach is needed to properly understand how rent-burdened the people of Vallejo are.
Annual rent increases vary among respondents. Responses to questions of rent increases were varied, as we received both percent (%) increases and dollar ($) increases, as well as short descriptive phrases detailing their experiences. For the 61 respondents who provided a percent increase, online respondents reported on average their rents increased by 12% annually. In-person respondents reported a 6% average annual rent increase. 86 respondents provided annual rent increases in dollar amounts, online respondents (n=78) reported on average their rents increased by approximately $131 annually. In-person respondents (n=6) reported an estimate of $203 average annual increase (this sample size is significantly smaller than the online respondents, but may speak to major income differences between online and inperson survey takers). 37.4% of total respondents experienced no rent increases (n = 120), which could be attributed to many factors such as lack of rent payments, home ownership, renting to own mortgage payments, or community members who are currently unhoused, recently evicted from their homes, or living in their cars.
Average annual increases also differ by housing status. Community members renting apartments or homes (n = 76) experienced a 19% percentage increase or $113.06 dollar increase to their annual rental costs. Residents renting a room in an apartment or home (n=49) experienced a 10% percentage increase or $239.38 dollar increase to their annual rental costs.
Residents describe their living situations in a multitude of ways. We asked residents to describe their current living situation in one sentence, and received 217 responses from community members (71% of total respondents). We received a mix of generally positive and negative responses from residents. Almost 39% of respondents described their living situations as satisfactory or generally positive, with an additional 10% reporting that where they live exceeds their expectations. The remaining 51% of community members had complex responses to this prompt, with about 9% of respondents describing their housing arrangements with friends, family, and roommates. Affordability concerns and financial stress was also reported by several renters (7.4%), who reported briefly on anxieties regarding
28 rent increases and continued affordability of their homes. 5.5% of respondents stated that they had generally negative opinions on their current living situation, describing themselves as “not very happy” or “struggling”. One respondent dissatisfied with their current living situation pointed at the lack of social services in the city putting “the poor people at the bottom” of Vallejo’s housing hierarchy.
In addition, residents describe concerns regarding their living conditions in various ways. Issues like illegal activity and pests or rodents are common concerns across all zip codes. More than half of residents surveyed (53.6%) reported these issues in their apartment buildings as “a big problem” or “a little bit of a problem.” In contrast, fewer tenants expressed concern about ADA accessibility in their buildings and complexes. This counters concerns tenant leaders, many of whom are older adults with disabilities, in Downtown and South Vallejo who claim that many of their units are not ADA compliant. Broken appliances are also of leading concern to North Vallejo residents, while presence of mold and mildew is important for residents in East Vallejo. A more detailed breakdown of residents’ perspectives on their living conditions can be found in Appendix A.
Figure 12: Vallejo Residents' are Most Concerned About Pests, Mold, Plumbing Issues, and Illegal Activity Figure 13: Vallejo Residents Want More Safety Initiatives and Alternative Housing Models, like CLTs
The Right to Thrive Report
29 Residents are interested in different types of supportive services. Community members were asked to rank their top 5 supportive services they would prioritize to improve their health and well-being. Across all respondents, the highest ranked supportive services were: safety (74.6%), affordable housing and alternative housing models such as community land trusts (69.9%), and tenant associations (54.9%). Other supportive services still ranked as medium priorities for residents surveyed, such as landlord and property management harassment or rental assistance. Youth advocacy services and women’s supportive services ranked the lowest across all responses, with between 30-36% of residents ranking it in their desired supportive services. There were slight variations between different regions of Vallejo, but not in comparable proportion to the highest ranked supportive services. There were some differences in responses from residents who reported via the online survey or in-person. In-person respondents noted that access to fresh, healthy food and women’s supportive services were important to them, and online respondents highlighted support for eviction defense.
Key Resident Concerns
The most common issues highlighted by community members were housing quality, community characteristics and resources, safety, and physical infrastructure. The tenant testimonials we collected from tenant leaders and housing justice advocates in the city displayed throughout the report gives more detail to these tensions between landlords and tenants, but further investigation into discriminatory practices and intimidation tactics should be conducted in specific apartment communities, such as the Longshore Cove Apartments or Marina Vista Apartments. In addition, resident concerns differ by zip code, so engagement may be needed to address localized, specific needs of community members living in different parts of Vallejo.
Figure 14: Vallejo Residents Had the Most to Say About
Housing Quality in their Everyday Lives
To understand Vallejo renters current living situations further, we asked: (1) “What do you love most about your neighborhood or apartment complex?”; (2) “What do you like least about your neighborhood or apartment complex?”; and (3) “What would it take for you to feel safe and happy, where you live now?”. Responses were coded based on common topics, and many residents noted multiple topics in their qualitative answers, so there may be slight overlapping in codes designated to each response.
30 Primary Concern: Long-term Affordability. Housing affordability is a critical factor that shapes economic mobility, individual and community health, and financial security. Within survey responses, affordability was a primary concern, mentioned 35 times within resident responses. Many expressed a deep sense of fear and anxiety about the ability to remain in their current homes, driven by rising costs and uncertain futures. Residents repeatedly emphasized the difficulty of managing rent and daily expenses within tight financial constraints, expressing doubt about their ability to improve or maintain their current living situations. One resident captured this sentiment, stating: "Home prices or rents in the community may be too high and beyond the affordability of residents, leading to financial stress and dissatisfaction."
Figure 15: Residents Experience A Lot of Stress Related to Housing Affordability and Stability
The Right to Thrive Report
In total, we received 727 comments for the four key qualitative questions available on the survey. As these were openend questions without a word limit, residents were able to provide detailed responses. Due to this, some responses were attributed with more than one qualitative code. In total, 1,130 primary codes were attributed to resident comments and 1,288 sub-codes were attributed to resident comments, which accounts for specificity in response.
Important to note is that many comments were categorized with just the primary code, as they were more general responses.
Figure 16: Residents Want Economic Stability
in Their Neighborhoods
Figure 17: Where People Live Matters, With Many Wanting to Live Close to Businesses and Schools
31 A recurring theme was the anxiety surrounding potential rent hikes, especially among renters who faced the possibility of displacement due to their landlords' intentions to sell homes because of rising mortgage costs. While some residents described their current living situations as stable, they voiced growing concerns about future affordability, highlighting the fragile nature of housing security in the community. Additionally, 57% of neighborhood concerns of residents were focused on the economic stability of their neighborhoods, and their desire for economic support to increase accessibility to nearby workplaces and public transit networks. For many, proximity and location are large indicators of access and affordability in their neighborhoods, with a number of residents citing proximity to local businesses, public schools, and the waterfront as key to their health and well-being in Vallejo.
Sense of Community and Belonging. A strong sense of belonging emerged as a key factor in residents’ enjoyment of their living environment, ranking as the second most common reason for their satisfaction. Moreover, it was the topranked factor that residents felt would most improve their overall satisfaction with their current living conditions.
Othering alienates individuals or groups, preventing their full participation in social and communal life. For Vallejo renters, their neighborhoods, apartment buildings, and complexes play a vital role in creating spaces for connection, fostering relationships that embrace diversity and build bridges across differences.
Social Connection and Cultural Programs. Vallejo residents across all zip codes voiced desire for social and cultural connection, noting the need to have better shared community spaces that foster opportunities for interaction and collaboration. Approximately 26% of the comments focused on community infrastructure highlighted a sense of belonging and sense of community as key concerns for what makes a neighborhood more livable and joyful. Social interactions and relationships within a neighborhood or community were also of critical importance to those surveyed.
Knowing your neighbor is a key component of increasing one’s sense of belonging and community, and as one of the most diverse cities in the Bay Area, culturally inclusive development and programming is key to increasing social connection between neighbors.
32 Community, sense of culture, and social cohesion are also extremely essential to Vallejo residents. In addition to building trust, a shared sense of community helps people feel connected rather than isolated, where shared values, mutual respect, and strong cultural identities can be a motivating, unifying force for collective action and transformation. Additionally, as housing insecurity and risk of eviction can be major drivers of toxic stress, being able to rely and be supported by a community of neighbors can be an amazing buffer against the emotional and physical toll of landlord harassment, dilapidated housing maintenance, and rapid development.
Mutual Aid and Supportive Services. Mutual aid and community resource networks are vital for a city like Vallejo due to ongoing income inequality, housing insecurity, and historic underinvestment in public infrastructure. Vallejo is a city where half of its residents are renters, with a large proportion of renters being working-class families and communities of color, many of whom lack robust social safety nets due to systemic barriers accessing basic services.
Mutual aid helps fill critical gaps by mobilizing community-based networks to provide food, housing support, emergency resources, and care without the stress of bureaucratic hurdles. Mutual aid and community-based supportive services also reflect a culture of solidarity, where neighbors can care for each other in the absence of local and federal government intervention and service provision. In Vallejo, where trust in the city government can be low and needs are extremely high, mutual aid and community services provide immediate relief but also build resilience, community power, and local leadership from the ground up.
Physical Amenities and Building Maintenance. Nearly half of all resident concerns centered on the quality of housing, neighborhood infrastructure, and the upkeep of apartment buildings and complexes. 33% of all comments identified housing quality as a major issue affecting their daily lives and offered suggestions for improvement, such as regular inspections, pest control, and improving landlord and property management relationships. While some residents (approximately ¼ of housing quality-related commenters) expressed satisfaction and comfortability with their current living conditions, the overwhelming focus on substandard maintenance and dilapidated infrastructure from others reflects a broader need for investment into building repairs and improvements to onsite amenities.
Figure 18: Residents Prioritize Sense of Belonging and
Community in Their Everyday Lives
The Right to Thrive Report
33 Safety and Security Personnel. Concerns regarding safety manifested in many ways. The most frequently cited issue was the security of private property, with 35% of safety-related comments emphasizing the need for stronger security measures, such as better surveillance or onsite security personnel, to improve sense of safety. Some residents expressed a desire for increased police presence as a deterrent to crime, particularly in areas with histories of gun violence or visible street crime, like in Downtown and South Vallejo. A few residents noted past negative experiences when encountering police, so presence of police brings about mixed responses, although reliance on police to protect their neighborhoods seems to be a shared value of residents surveyed. Not all safety concerns were tied to public crime, as many raised concerns about interpersonal violence, such as domestic abuse or neighbor conflicts, which are harder to monitor and address through traditional police enforcement alone. This complexity is compounded in Vallejo, where the Police Department’s ongoing badge-bending scandal has deepened community mistrust and created understandable hesitation around relying solely on law enforcement for safety, making stable housing and tenant protections even more essential.
Figure 19: Many Residents Have Concerns About Safety
and Improving Sense of Security Where They Live
Figure 20: Most Residents Feel Safe in Their Communities, But Desire Improvements to Feel More Safe
Do you feel safe where you live? Page 68 of 153
34 When asked a different question on feelings of safety as it relates to resident experiences and knowledge, approximately 34% of respondents noted feeling somewhat safe or not safe at all where they live. Collectively, these experiences point to the need for a holistic approach to community safety that balances protection of property, responsiveness, and fosters trusts and violence prevention across all housing environments.
Survey Limitations
The Vallejo Tenant Survey is the first grassroots effort to understand tenant experiences in Vallejo. As an initial step, it is important to acknowledge several limitations that may impact the findings and insights derived from this research.
Future research efforts should aim to address these limitations by developing a more robust and targeted outreach to Vallejo’s most impacted residents. Addressing these limitations through continued research and engagement with tenants in Vallejo can enhance the development of more effective housing policies that guarantee that renters have the right to remain in their homes without the risk of displacement. 1 Absence of Race and Ethnicity.
Race and ethnicity demographic questions were not asked on the survey, making it impossible to link direct survey outcomes to racial disparities related to housing instability, displacement, rent increases, or landlord discrimination. Vallejo has a deep history of segregation and racialized housing policies, and so, excluding questions related to race risks erasing the ongoing effects of redlining, gentrification, and racial discrimination has had for different marginalized communities in Vallejo, especially Black residents. This is of key importance as research shows that BIPOC communities often bear the brunt of evictions, rent burdens, and poor housing conditions. Without this demographic data, it may be difficult to make the case for race-conscious policies seeking to redress historic, discriminatory housing policies. Additionally, although it is the goal of VHJC to address racial equity, this could potentially lead to excluding key voices from decision-making in housing and their perspectives may be overlooked in addressing Vallejo’s housing crisis. 2 Monthly Household Income.
Very few demographic questions were asked to community members besides monthly household income, which accounts for all working persons within a household. However, the number of working persons within a household was not collected, nor was information on the presence of children within a household. This complicates the analysis of income data, particularly in households with multiple earners or non-traditional living arrangements, such as roommates or people with unstable incomes.
49 3
Focus on Renters.
While the survey centered on the experiences of renters, more open-ended questions on affordability, fear of eviction, and affordable housing that were targeted for low-income households could have been asked to collect specific data on the most impacted and most at-risk to be displaced by the regional housing crisis affecting Vallejo. As evident with our in-person surveys, many individuals and families are currently living in precarious housing situations. 4 Unhoused Community Members.
The survey did not focus on the unhoused population, though some data was gathered from those living in complex or precarious housing situations. This exclusion limits our understanding of the full spectrum of housing instability in Vallejo.
Future research should include intentional efforts to capture the experiences of unhoused community members, especially as the conditions they face grow increasingly dire. The death of James Oakley II, an unhoused Black Vallejo resident killed by a city-operated tractor/backhoe, underscores both the urgency and the consequences of systemic neglect. Without lifting up the voices and realities of our unhoused neighbors, any housing justice analysis remains incomplete.
The Right to Thrive Report
35 5
Organizational Capacity.
Vallejo is an under-researched city in the Bay Area, despite its rich culture, history, and people. The Vallejo Tenant Survey was a hyper-localized research effort, and to continue the next iteration of this work effectively, there is a need for organizational growth and increased capacity. In-person surveys garnered calls for immediate housing placement and community members already undergoing the eviction process, and while VHJC is not a placement-focused organization, pointing renters to the appropriate resources is needed to build trust within the community. This requires a more robust and sustained research approach in the future, as well as a permanent physical space in the heart of Downtown and South Vallejo, where the most impacted currently live.
6 Digital Divide.
The primary research method was an online survey, which, while accessible to many, excluded community members who do not have access to a personal device with internet access. This could also be influenced by the fact that 10% of the residents reported that they were unemployed at the time of taking the survey, as previous research has shown that digital access and employment are intimately linked.50
7 Survey Design and Format.
One of the major limitations that may have influenced our findings was the design and format of the survey and its questions.
The survey was composed of 18 questions with multiple choice, ranking, and short answer options, increasing both the length of the survey and the data analysis process. The in-person survey was formatted to four pages in length, which may have led to residents being discouraged from participating.
8 Response Bias.
The survey relied on self-reporting, which can introduce bias in responses. Respondents may have provided answers they perceived as socially desirable or may have misunderstood questions, leading to inaccurate data. For instance, in the question dedicated to understanding tenants’ current living situations, some respondents described their specific housing arrangements (type of housing, who they lived with, length of stay) while others provided feelings or emotions attached to the living conditions (happiness, stress, anxiety).
9 Null Responses.
For each question, we have a significant proportion of respondents who did not provide responses. For example, there were some multi–part questions where about 16-30% of respondents did not respond, which may speak to more on-the-ground assessment needed by canvassers to provide physical clarity and understanding for questions that could vary in response.
Additionally, the length of the survey overall may have discouraged residents from answering all questions.
Discussion
As VHJC and Urban Habitat advocate for just cause eviction protections, rent stabilization, anti-harassment ordinances, and tenants' rights to counsel, the results of this project are crucial for ongoing engagement and tenant organizing with Vallejo’s most impacted residents, predominantly low-income Black and Brown renters. This is especially urgent, as the number of low-income households in Vallejo and across Solano County has grown in response to rising housing prices throughout the Bay Area, deepening existing racial and economic inequalities. Intensified racial disparities across the region may also reinforce existing residential segregation in areas like Downtown and South Vallejo. The consequences of these rising inequalities are not abstract, as they directly contribute to an increase in homelessness in Vallejo. And despite calls for investing in permanent, dignified housing solutions, the city has often responded with criminalization and police enforcement, further dehumanizing unhoused neighbors and pushing them to the margins of public life.
51 Vallejo’s diversity poses a unique challenge and opportunity for addressing housing justice, especially when we consider how historic interracial tensions and the long-lasting legacy of anti-Black racism, particularly by non-Black residents, continue to shape how resources and power are distributed throughout the city. As one of the most diverse cities in the Bay Area, a shared sense of belonging is vital to ensuring that Vallejo remains racially and culturally diverse. This sense of belonging must include unhoused residents — many of whom are Black, disabled, and multiply displaced — whose visibility and humanity are often erased in public discourse and municipal policy.
Belonging is more than just an emotional attachment to a place, but being able to define oneself within a place. For BIPOC renters, this means protecting and preserving their homes, strengthening cultural and familial ties, and maintaining social networks necessary to navigate the city’s existing and future economic challenges. When communities are grounded in trust, mutual respect, and collective care — including their unhoused neighbors — they are able to organize for transformative housing solutions that resist displacement and gentrification for all. Building tenant power in Vallejo will require directly addressing and reconciling anti-Blackness and class divisions within Latinx, Asian American, and other communities of color to create a truly multi-ethnic, interclass tenant movement that affirms the dignity and right to housing for all, regardless of income or housing status. 36 The Right to Thrive Report
37 SECTION 3:
Building tENANT
pOWER IN VALLEJO
38 Policy Recommendations to Improve Health and Well-Being of Vallejo Renters Tenant protection ordinances (TPOs) are a set of laws and regulations designed to safeguard the rights and well-being of renters, and are aimed to ensure that tenants have safe, affordable, and stable housing. They are crucial for maintaining housing stability, preventing homelessness, and promoting fair and equitable housing practices. They vary by region and are often subject to ongoing legislative efforts and community advocacy from tenant organizations and renter’s associations. Some examples of TPOs include: anti-harassment laws to protect tenants from landlord intimidation, habitability standards that require landlords to maintain rental properties in livable condition, or security deposit regulations that govern the collection, use, and return of deposits. Although statewide TPOs can be issued, they are less common and hard to enforce without robust local tenant outreach and legal services, so most legislation happens at the municipal level.
Tenant protections are essential for building tenant power in Vallejo. According to Tenants Together, less than 8% of California cities have a form of robust tenant protections. While the statewide Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) caps rent increases for most residential units at 5-10%, local enforcement is at the behest of renters to report the rent increase to a local housing authority, tenant advocacy group, or the Attorney General. Our survey results also indicate that Vallejo residents are heavily impacted by rent increases currently, with almost 20% of respondents averaging a 13% increase in their rent annually. Additionally, AB 1482 is set to expire in January 2030, so more permanent legislation is needed to ensure that renters can remain in the neighborhoods they live in. 52 53
As noted by the Urban Displacement Project, “Safe and stable housing is foundational to the rest of our lives — without it, it’s hard to meet our needs around health, school, jobs, and community.” Most importantly, safety must be understood as more than just the absence of crime: it encompasses economic security, emotional well-being, and trust in one’s neighbors. In housing, safety is often viewed as an amenity, used to raise property values or justify punitive policing. Yet, renters’ actual experiences of safety are shaped by their race, gender, income, and the presence of supportive services embedded within their communities. Feeling safe also means knowing that your rent won’t spike unexpectedly in unpredictable ways, that you won’t be harassed by your landlord for trying to organize your floor, and that neighbors will watch out for each other.
54 Responses from our survey show that residents across Vallejo crave connection — to their neighborhoods, to economic opportunities, to better schools and educational opportunities, and more. They have articulated that despite being overburdened by rent, wishy-washy landlords, and degraded public infrastructure that they have hopes for more.
Together, tenant protections like rent stabilization, just cause evictions, anti-harassment laws, a tenant’s right to organize, a tenant’s right to counsel, and community-controlled housing models like community land trusts prevent displacement and ensure that renters continue to have a say in shaping the future of their communities. These protections are not just legal tools – they are the foundation for creating communities where people feel rooted, protected, and safe. And for the renters of Vallejo, it means that they can continue to build on their hopes and dreams collectively.
The Right to Thrive Report
39 Which Tenant Protections Have the Most Promise in Vallejo? Rent Stabilization. For years, community members and tenant organizations in Vallejo have been advocating for rent stabilization at the city level. Both Solano County and the city of Vallejo lack rent regulations to ensure the safety and protection of tenant’s rights as a renter. The city of Vallejo does not have a general rent stabilization policy, although it instituted a state of emergency to prevent price gouging for rental properties in June 2019 that prohibited landlords from increasing rents to tenants by more than 10%.55
In 2015, Richmond and Mountain View were the first cities in California to establish rent stabilization policies after three decades. Since then, tenant organizers in more than 30 cities in California have successfully instituted some form of rent stabilization through their advocacy. As rent stabilization has gained momentum across the state, its benefits have extended to both tenants and landlords. For tenants, rent stabilization offers vital protections against sudden and excessive rent hikes, helping to prevent displacement in cities where evictions and gentrification pressures are highest.
For landlords, rent stabilization is practical and effective, offering longer tenancies, which overall reduces turnover costs and extended vacancies, ensuring a more reliable, consistent rental income stream. Through this, rent stabilization policies transform volatile rental markets into more equitable and sustainable housing landscapes, which has promise for all communities in California.
56 VHJC helped facilitate conversations with city council members and former mayor Bob Sampayan leading up to the emergency ordinance in 2019, supporting residents of Strawberry Hill Apartments and Holiday Garden Apartments through their tenant organization Reliable Tenants. Strawberry Hill is a 64-unit complex located across the street from Kaiser Permanente in North Vallejo, whose tenants are predominantly elders on a fixed income. A majority of Strawberry Hill tenants are also Filipino American, and this area of Vallejo has a large Filipino community. Renters were at-risk of displacement and homelessness due to a new San Francisco-based property management company, Reliant Group Management, purchasing the apartments and informing their tenants they would be doubling the price of rent.
Reliant Group stated that they would assist tenants with rehoming to other affordable housing apartments in cities like Antioch and Pittsburg, and many long-time tenants of Strawberry Hill and Holiday Garden suspected that the properties would be turned into workforce housing for Kaiser employees with larger incomes. 57 58
In 2019, California passed the California Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482), a statewide rent stabilization law that limits the annual rent increases and removes the right of landlords to evict tenants without just cause. AB 1482 is an important tenant protection ordinance at the state level, although it excludes certain affordable housing projects, such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties, some project-based properties, and public housing projects.
Unfortunately, many tenants cannot access AB 1482 protections: tenants must hire an attorney and sue their landlord if a property is found in non-compliance. Additionally, AB 1482 is not a permanent tenant protection and requires state legislators to vote for its extension by 2030. This becomes an issue for cities like Vallejo, where local protections do not exist.
59 60
61 Just Cause Evictions. Just cause refers to laws that protect tenants from arbitrary eviction, or eviction without reason. They are critical for maintaining housing stability and promoting equitable urban development in the Bay Area, and ensure that landlords can only evict tenants for specific, legitimate reasons. By safeguarding tenants from retaliatory evictions, especially for exercising their legal rights by reporting unsafe or unsanitary conditions, just cause fosters a more just and resilient housing market.
62 Just cause laws also promote fairness by ensuring evictions are carried out with proper notice, and give tenants an opportunity to address lease violations or disputes. Moreover, they help mitigate homelessness by preventing
40 Table 4: Overview of Tenant Protection Ordinances (TPOs) Type of Protection What Is It? What Does it Do? Presence in Bay Area Counties Rent Stabilization Legal policy that limits how much
landlords can charge for rent
Ensures housing stays affordable,
especially for lower-income
residents
Alameda, Hayward, Los Gatos,
Richmond, Oakland
Right to Counsel Guaranteed legal representation
for tenants facing eviction
Keeps people housed, decreases
likelihood of eviction, and reduces
the imbalance between landlords
and tenants
San Francisco
Anti-Harassment and
the Right to Organize
Laws designed to protect tenants
from abusive behavior by landlords
or property managers, allowing
tenants to come together
collectively to advocate for their
rights without fear of landlord
retaliation
Prevents landlords from using
intimidation, coercion, or other
aggressive acts to force tenants out
of their homes, allowing tenants to
file complaints, seek legal action,
and request mediation
Richmond
*Notable example: Los Angeles
Just Cause Evictions
Laws that prohibit landlords from
evicting tenants without specific
reason, and within certain
requirements within a specific time
of notice
Protects tenants from unlawful or
retaliatory eviction, and refusal to
renew leases; helps prevent
displacement and tenant
discrimination; promotes housing
stability in areas with low vacancies
and high rental costs
Berkeley, Oakland, East Palo Alto,
Petaluma
*Community Land Trusts
A non-profit organization that
promotes affordable housing and
community land development
through collective land ownership;
goal is permanent collective land
ownership by removing land and
housing from the speculative market
Non-profit holds the land on behalf
of a community (via land deed), and
serves as long-term steward for
things like affordable housing,
community gardens, urban farms,
commercial spaces, and more
Vallejo, San Francisco, Berkeley
Example: Bay Area Community Land
Trust
unnecessary evictions, reducing the risk of renters struggling to find new housing quickly in a tight housing market.
Housing stability allows tenants to focus on their jobs, education, and family needs without the anxiety of sudden displacement, contributing to broader economic security. Stable housing is fundamental to community cohesion, as higher turnover rates from frequent evictions disrupts neighborhood stability and social networks, undermining the vitality of urban areas. This is an important reminder that the threat of eviction is a form of structural violence often experienced by low-income and BIPOC renters, who are often at the whim of local and regional policies due to underrepresentation within city governments.
*This is an additional measure being pushed by VHJC.
Right to Counsel. A tenant’s right to counsel is an emerging and crucial aspect of housing justice in the Bay Area, and remains a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. This right ensures that tenants facing eviction proceedings have access to legal representation, significantly enhancing their ability to navigate the complexities of the legal system and protect their right to remain in their homes. The stakes of eviction cases are high for Bay Area renters as eviction filings by landlords have surged following the cessation of the statewide eviction moratorium due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent study by Cal Matters found that eviction filings have surpassed average pre-pandemic levels, often accompanied by sudden rent increases that forces tenants to self-evict themselves or be evicted. Given the high stakes of eviction cases, the most severe being homelessness, the right to counsel is a powerful tool for promoting equity and fairness in the housing market.
63 The Right to Thrive Report
41 Legal representation can make a substantial difference in eviction outcomes. Tenants with lawyers are far more likely to avoid eviction and secure favorable settlements compared to tenants who represent themselves. This underscores the importance of legal aid that ensures that tenants’ rights are upheld and not unfairly disadvantaged in legal proceedings. Approximately 80% of landlords utilize attorneys in eviction filings, further highlighting the inherent power imbalance embedded in the landlord-tenant relationship. Additionally, low-income renters and renters of color are disproportionately affected by eviction and housing instability, even more so post-pandemic. Black women, for instance, are twice as likely to endure evictions than their white counterparts speaking to the complexities of race and housing in California and the nation.
64 65
San Francisco was the first city in California to pass a tenant right to counsel ordinance, approved in 2018 under Proposition F. Under Proposition F, the Tenant Right to Counsel (TRC) program, gives renters access to free legal representation within 30 days of receiving an eviction notice, regardless of income level. Since 2019, Proposition F has saved thousands of San Franciscans from undergoing eviction and becoming unhoused. Between 2022 and 2023, TRC provided legal services to over 1,800 tenants, and about 95% of TRC’s clients were low-income or extremely lowincome, with tenants in the Tenderloin, Mission, and SOMA districts having the highest client representation.
Furthermore, TRC has proven extremely cost-effective for the city, with the average case cost being a little over $6,000 compared to the cost of maintaining one shelter bed in the city, which is around $70,000 annually, with the program boasting a success rate of about 92%.
66 67
68 Anti-Harassment and the Right to Organize. Anti-harassment ordinances are local laws designed to protect tenants from the abusive behavior of landlords or property managers. These ordinances define specific actions that constitute harassment and establish legal consequences for landlords, aiming to prevent landlords from using aggressive or coercive tactics to force tenants out of their homes or make their living conditions unbearable. Common forms of harassment include threats of eviction without proper cause, cutting off essential services like water or electricity, or entering rental units without proper notice. Additionally, landlords may use intimidation, verbal abuse, or refuse necessary repairs in an attempt to make living conditions uninhabitable. Harassment can also involve retaliation against tenants for asserting their rights, such as filing complaints or organizing with other tenants, as well as implementing unjust rent increases or changes in lease terms to pressure tenants into leaving. In apartment complexes in South Vallejo like Longshore Cove Apartments and Marina Vista Apartments, where the risk of property management intimidation and harassment is high, this is of utmost importance.
Anti-harassment ordinances typically allow tenants to file complaints with local housing authorities and tenant associations, seek legal actions such as restraining orders or lawsuits for damages, and request mediation to resolve disputes. Cities with stronger tenant protections, like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, often have robust antiharassment ordinances to safeguard renters from landlord abuses in highly competitive rental markets. In the case of Los Angeles, renters also have the right to organize, allowing them to form tenant unions or associations as collectives to advocate for their rights without fear of retaliation. This includes the freedom to assemble, protection from retaliatory evictions or rent increase, and the ability to hold tenant meetings in common areas of buildings. Organized tenants have stronger negotiating power to better conditions and services as a group, improve political education by sharing knowledge about local housing laws, and overall create solidarity among renters.
Community Land Trusts. Alternative land stewardship models are becoming increasingly more popular to create permanent affordability in urban areas. A community land trust (CLT) is a non-profit organization designed to acquire and hold land for the benefit of a community, ensuring that it is used in a manner that serves the public interest. It 69
42 does so by removing land from the speculative market, and while typically focused on providing affordable housing, they can be used for community-controlled commercial spaces, civic buildings, urban agriculture, public facilities, and more.
CLTs ensure that housing and other developments on the land remain affordable for future generations. They achieve this by owning the land and leasing it to homeowners or developers under long-term, 99-year renewable ground leases.
CLTs have mixed governance structures, often including a board of directors made up of residents, community leaders, and public representatives. It is important that the land is managed in this way to continue to reflect the changing needs and desires of the community, as community control is a key component of CLT housing. Homeowners within a CLT can also build equity through their property, although resale prices are usually restricted to keep homes affordable. This balance helps provide financial stability for homeowners while maintaining affordability for future buyers. Additionally, CLTs often provide supportive services for residents, such as homebuyer education, financial counseling, and maintenance or repair services.
CLTs are commonly integrated within social housing and cooperative housing models as part of a broader movement to decommodify land and housing. Social housing is a public, non-market alternative to private housing with significant overlaps with the CLT model, frequently being developed on CLT-managed land to guarantee long-term stability for community residents. CLTs can also operate under cooperative housing models, such as shared equity, so they are owned and managed by residents in alignment with key principles of community ownership and shared governance that define CLTs. National organizations like the Right to the City Alliance advocate for these models as part of a broader vision for housing justice that deeply prioritizes affordable, democratically controlled housing rooted in community needs over market speculation. Together, these approaches offer a pathway to transform housing from a commodity into a human right.
70 The Right to Thrive Report
43 Addressing Racial Inequities in Vallejo
Build a multi-ethnic coalition of tenants that is anti-racist. Tenant unions are essential tools that empower renters to collectively advocate for their rights and improve their living conditions. These coalitions create spaces for tenants to engage in collective bargaining, negotiating better terms for their rental agreements and unit conditions.
Additionally, tenant unions serve as crucial spaces for legal and housing education, where renters can gain the knowledge and confidence to navigate complex issues like eviction notices, substandard housing conditions, and unfair practices, enabling tenants to assert their rights and dignity in the face of ongoing housing challenges. Perhaps most importantly, tenant unions foster a sense of solidarity among renters, especially in building-based unions. Renters often feel isolated when negotiating individually with landlords or property managers, but when united, their collective voices carry more weight. This shift from being passive stakeholders in the decision-making process to active partners in advocating for their needs is a powerful transformation. Given Vallejo’s unique history of segregation, it is important that tenant organizing spaces actively divest from anti-Blackness in order to build coalition networks that are multiethnic and committed to anti-racism as a core practice. Without this focus, anti-Blackness will continue to perpetuate divisions, further segregating Vallejo.
Increase regional investment in Solano County. Solano County has the highest overall needs score of any Bay Area county, yet it receives the lowest amount of philanthropic funding per resident — only $168 per capita, compared to $11,211 per capita in San Francisco County. Failing to address long-standing disparities in funding will only continue to limit the county’s ability to respond to resident needs. Increasing regional investment in Solano County will enable funders, policymakers, and institutions to advance place-based equity issues, stabilize housing and economic insecurity, strengthen regional resilience, and increase the sense of accountability and trust in local government. 71 Build capacity for tenant leadership development and prioritize community members for city leadership positions. The Boards and Commissions Leadership Institute (BCLI) is a program at Urban Habitat designed to empower and train social justice leaders to serve on local and regional boards and commissions. BCLI aims to diversify leadership within governmental bodies to ensure that communities of color and low-income communities are represented in decision-making processes to advance equitable policy. The program offers a comprehensive curriculum that includes workshops, seminars, and mentorship opportunities centering topics such as affordable housing, transportation, land use, environmental justice, and community health. Members of BCLI also receive training in public speaking, policy analysis, and coalition-building, and they gain skills necessary to navigate the intricacies of the Bay Area’s varied political landscapes in order to build a pipeline of informed, skilled, and dedicated leaders.
Develop organic leaders, not activists. Over 60% of respondents noted that they want to become more involved with VHJC and their community. Many also spoke up feeling powerless to address the changes happening within their communities, while others felt activated to make a long-lasting impact through becoming more involved in their communities. Developing organic leaders from those within tenant organizing spaces is essential to building strong, sustainable tenant unions. Their leadership is localized and rooted in their lived experiences with understanding local housing issues with the shared values of their neighbors, making tenant organizing strategies more aligned with what renters truly need. This not only builds long-term community power but also ensures that tenant-led social movements are resilient and adaptive to the changing housing landscape through distributive leadership strategies, instead of relying on external organizers. This approach is especially crucial in under-resourced communities where outside support may be inconsistent, and where meaningful change is reliant on leadership from within the community.
Figure 21: Would you like to become more involved with
VHJC and your community?
Investigate where wealth is accumulated in Vallejo. Understanding how and where wealth is accumulated in Vallejo is essential to understanding the root causes of inequality in the city. In the United States, homeownership remains the one of the single greatest drivers of intergenerational wealth, yet low-income people and communities of color, particularly Black, Indigenous, and immigrant families, have historically been locked out of these opportunities through discriminatory housing practices. In Vallejo, patterns of ownership, investment, and property value growth could reveal stark disparities in who benefits from economic development and who is left behind. At the city level, it’s also important to examine how civic infrastructure contributes to this imbalance. For example, city departments with staff vacancies could reallocate a portion of salaries to hire community researchers and tenant leaders to help bridge trust gaps and increase data transparency.
Invest in South Vallejo. Investing in South Vallejo is essential for advancing racial equity and building long-term community resilience, especially as it is home to a significant portion of Vallejo’s renting class. This is exceedingly important, as the second largest proportion of surveyed residents live in Downtown and South Vallejo. This area includes three major apartment complexes – Seabreeze Apartments, Marina Vista Apartments, and Longshore Cove Apartments – which houses large numbers of low-income renters, renters of color, disabled tenants, single-parent headed households, and seniors. These residents are not only vulnerable to housing insecurity but are also at the center of growing concerns around displacement, as city leaders pursue redevelopment plans aimed at revitalizing the downtown area and waterfront districts. Without strong tenant protections and community-driven planning, these efforts risk accelerating gentrification and pushing long-time residents out of their neighborhoods. Strategic investment in South Vallejo, through increasing public funds and private philanthropy, generating local jobs, and pushing affordable housing in the city’s development pipeline, can keep residents housed and empowered. Environmental justice efforts to address public health disparities and climate vulnerabilities is also important. Supporting local small businesses, cultural districts, and community arts programs can celebrate South Vallejo’s rich Black, Filipino, and Latine cultural heritage while also strengthening its economic base. Ultimately, investing in South Vallejo must be led by its own people — especially tenant leaders and youth organizers — to ensure that future development centers their voices, needs, and the right to remain.
44 The Right to Thrive Report
45 CONCLUSION
Historical and contemporary tensions between private homeowners and multi-family housing developers – alongside the structural imbalance between landlords and tenants — reveals the ways in which power and wealth are concentrated in Vallejo, excluding low-income renters and renters of color from shaping their built environments. As the housing crisis continues to affect Bay Area renters, Vallejo must balance preserving existing neighborhoods with the need for diverse, affordable housing options. Rezoning efforts, flexible housing policies, and tenant protections is the first step to addressing the racist and classist history of suburbanization and single-family zoning in Solano County.
Additionally, like many cities across the nation and throughout California, Vallejo is at increased risk of climate disaster, particularly to wildfires, flooding, and drought. Identifying climate resilient and adaptive ways to protect renters and low-income homeownership in Vallejo is imperative for this reason. While the focus of this report has been to advocate for the rights of renters, we acknowledge that homeownership is still one of the primary ways for BIPOC households to build generational wealth and to bridge the racial wealth gap in the United States. Still, private homeownership in Vallejo has been marked by the dark shadow of redlining and urban renewal. A movement growing across California is the promise of digitizing racially-restrictive covenants in home deeds and removing racist language from contracts.
Decommodifying individual homeownership and moving towards a model of community-owned housing, as offered by the Othering & Belonging Institute, may be another way of generating more affordable, long-term housing solutions for marginalized communities in Vallejo.
72 73
Better data transparency and knowledge sharing at the city-level is also integral to building an informed coalition of renters in Vallejo. For this, centralized databases dedicated to eviction filings available to the public would be important, especially in supporting tenants navigating the housing legal system.
Building tenant power in Vallejo requires a combination of grassroots organizing and strategic political action. Renters have the tools to fight back against displacement and housing injustice, from pushing for local ballot measures and rent stabilization ordinances to forming tenant associations and building a local landlord database, building off to the works of projects like Worst Evictors Bay Area, to better understand discriminatory housing practices. Door-knocking and signature gathering are one of the key ways VHJC mobilizes building communities to push for policies that protect tenants. By organizing with their neighbors and using local politics and community knowledge to their advantage, such as the way Larkspur residents in Marin County have, Vallejo renters can create long-lasting change to the current housing landscape in Solano County, ensuring stable, affordable housing and a future where tenants, not corporate landlords, have the power.
Where Do We Go From Here?
46 The Right to Thrive Report
APPENDIX.
47
Figure H: Safety Ranked Highest Supportive Service of
Desire by Residents in North Vallejo
Figures
48 The Right to Thrive Report
Figure I: Alternative Forms of Housing and Safety Rank Highest in Supportive Services Desired by Residents in Downtown and South Vallejo Figure J: Safety Ranked Highest Supportive Service of Desire by Residents in East Vallejo
Figure K: Alternative Forms of Housing and Safety Rank Highest in Supportive Services Desired by Residents on Mare Island 49
ENDNOTES
50
51 United Way Bay Area. 2022. Understanding Poverty and Philanthropic Giving Disparities in the Bay Area 2018-2020. https://uwba.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Understanding-Poverty-and-Philanthropic-Giving-DisparitiesReport_06.13.2023.pdf 1 Ibid. 2
Holmes, S. 2001. A Diverse City Exists Equal but Separate. The New York Times. 3 U.S. Census Bureau. Vallejo city, California. https://data.census.gov/profile? q=Vallejo%20city,%20California%20Race%20and%20Ethnicity 4 Raskin-Zrihen, R. 2019. Vallejo is diverse but segregated, new study finds. Times-Herald. https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2019/02/12/vallejo-is-diverse-but-segregated-new-study-finds/ 5 City of Vallejo. 2022. Why Vallejo: Quick Facts About the City of Vallejo. 6 Zillow. Vallejo CA. https://www.zillow.com/vallejo-ca/land/ 7 Nesbit, J. 2024. Best Places to Retire in California. U.S. News Real Estate. https://realestate.usnews.com/realestate/articles/best-places-to-retire-in-california 8 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Vallejo-Fairfield, CA. https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca_vallejo_msa.htm 9 Hepler, L. 2022. California just extended eviction protections again. But how many people does the deal leave out?. SF Chronicle. https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/California-just-extended-eviction-protections-17049442.php 10 Kuang, J. 2023. Across California, eviction cases have returned to – or surpassed – pre-pandemic levels. Cal Matters. https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2023/11/california-evictions-post-pandemic/ 11 Padilla, C. (2023). Vallejo and Fairfield beat NYC in new ranking of Most Expensive Places to Live in U.S. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/vallejo-and-fairfield-beat-nyc-in-new-ranking-of-most-expensiveplaces-to-live-in-u-s/ 12 Dorazio, J. 2022. Localized Anti-Displacement Policies: Ways to Combat the Effects of Gentrification and Lack of Affordable Housing. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/localized-antidisplacement-policies/ 13 Thomas, T. et al. 2019. California Estimated Displacement Risk. Urban Displacement Project. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/california-estimated-displacement-risk-model/ 14 Tars, E. 2021. Housing as a Human Right: 2020 Advocate’s Guide. National Homelessness Law Center. 15 Solano Public Health. 2023. Solano County Community Health Improvement Plan. 16 Ibid. 17
Race Counts. N.d. Housing Cost Burden (Renter). https://www.racecounts.org/issue/housing/ 18 National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2023. Out of Reach: California. https://nlihc.org/oor/state/ca 19 Ibid. 20
Thompson, I. 2012. “Historian releases new book on Vallejo’s black heritage.” Daily Republic. https://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solano-county/historian-releases-new-book-on-vallejo-s-blackheritage/article_73b9c2d5-3717-5c5b-ba93-8b9de9e9e6dd.html 21 Riley, B. 2023. “How decades of racist housing policies shaped modern Vallejo.” Open Vallejo. https://openvallejo.org/2023/05/05/how-decades-of-racist-housing-policies-shaped-modern-vallejo/ 22 Ibid. 23
Riley, B. 24
St. Clair, K. (2018). “‘Re-Shaping Vallejo’ lines the walls of City Hall with history. Times Herald.” https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2018/01/23/re-shaping-vallejo-lines-the-walls-of-city-hall-with-history/ 25 Mendiola Ross, A. (2022). “One in 10 Bay Area Neighborhoods are Segregated Areas of White Wealth.” Bay Area Equity Atlas. https://bayareaequityatlas.org/mapping-segregation 26 Ibid. 27
Rohrs, S. (2018). “For better or worse, urban renewal has helped shape modern day Vallejo”. Times-Herald. https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2009/07/26/for-better-or-worse-urban-renewal-has-helped-shape-modernday-vallejo/ 28 Riley, B. “Brendan Riley’s Solano Chronicles: Vallejo’s worst idea ever?” Times-Herald. https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2024/06/06/brendan-rileys-solano-chronicles-vallejos-worst-idea-ever/ 29 CBS Sacramento. 2011. “Vallejo Finally Emerging From Bankruptcy.” CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/vallejo-finally-emerging-from-bankruptcy/ 30 Small, J. 2012. “The cost of Vallejo’s 2008 bankruptcy and what that means for California now.” LAist. https://laist.com/news/kpcc-archive/cost-vallejos-bankruptcy 31 Burd-Sharps, S. & Rasch, R. 2015. Impact of the US Housing Crisis on the Racial Wealth Gap Across Generations. The Social Science Research Council (SSRC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 32
52 Hutchful, E. 2018. The Racial Wealth Gap: What California Can Do About a Long-Standing Obstacle to Shared Prosperity. California Budget & Policy Center. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/the-racial-wealth-gap/ 33 Menendian, S. et al. 2020. Single-Family Zoning in the San Francisco Bay Area: Characteristics of Exclusionary Communities. Othering & Belonging Institute.===
34 Ibid. 35
Urban Habitat & Bay Rising. 2023. Decision-making and Representation in Action: A Closer Look at Landlord Elected Officials and Tenant Protection Legislation in the Bay Area. Bay Area Equity Atlas. https://bayareaequityatlas.org/electeds2023/casestudy
36 Riley, B. 2023. “Brendan Riley’s Solano Chronicles: Blacks struggle for equality in Vallejo, Mare Island.” Times Herald. https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2023/02/23/brendan-rileys-solano-chronicles-blacks-struggled-for-equality-invallejo-mare-island/ 37 Ibid. 38
Ibid. 39
Ibid. 40
O’Donoghue, L. 2014. Don’t call it gentrification. Salon. https://www.salon.com/2014/11/02/don%E2%80%99t_call_it_gentrification/ 41 Gallegos, C. 2023. Building a tenant-led movement in Vallejo. Urban Habitat. https://urbanhabitat.org/newsletter/building-a-tenant-led-movement-in-vallejo/ 42 Northern California Land Trust. 2023. Vallejo CLT. https://www.nclt.org/vallejo-clt 43 Vallejo, CA rental market. 2025. Zillow. https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/vallejo-ca/ 44 Rental Market Trends in Vallejo, CA. 2025. https://www.apartments.com/rent-market-trends/vallejo-ca/ 45 Leonard, C. & Devulapalli, S. 2023. “Where is the Bay Area’s housing crisis impacting people the most? Here’s one key stat.” SF Chronicle. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/housing-costs-rent-mortgage-18535110.php 46 Ibid. 47
Rent Estimates: March 2025. Apartmentlist.com. 48
Median Household Income (Quick Facts). U.S. Census. 49
Duane, J. 2016. Access to Broadband Fuels Workforce Development and Enhances Job Skills. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Accessed March 2025: https://www.ntia.gov/blog/2016/accessbroadband-fuels-workforce-development-and-enhances-job-skills. 50 Solano Public Health. 2023. Solano County Community Health Improvement Plan. 51 Rent Control for All. Tenants Together. https://www.tenantstogether.org/campaigns/rent-control-all 52 The California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482). City of San Francisco. 53 Kumar, V. 2022. Who Benefits from Tenant Protections?. Urban Displacement Project. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/blog/who-benefits-from-tenant-protections/ 54 City of Vallejo. 2019. “06-28-109 - Press Release - Vallejo Issues Proclamation of Emergency to Prevent Pricing Gouging On Rentals.”
55 Rent Control for All. Tenants Together. https://www.tenantstogether.org/campaigns/rent-control-all 56 Raskin-Zrihen, R. 2019. “Vallejo tenants at risk of displacement get possible reprieve.” Times-Herald. https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2019/06/04/vallejo-tenants-at-risk-of-displacement-get-possible-reprieve/ 57 Ibid. 58
Western Center on Law & Poverty. 2020. AB 1482 - California Rent Cap & Just Cause for Eviction Resources. https://wclp.org/eviction-resources-in-response-to-ab-1482/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwuK0BhC0ARIsANQtgGM2Jju14H0sagF7Bw58bk_U9lhQbeh4GiA9N8calsgpdgYB4G8UH30aAid8EALw_wcB 59 National Housing Law Project. Does AB 1482 Apply to Tenants Using Section 8 Vouchers or Tenants Living in Affordable Housing? Factsheet. https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/AB-1482-Factsheet-HCVs-andAffordable-Housing.pdf 60 Bungalow. 2022. California’s rent control law, explained. https://bungalow.com/articles/californias-rent-control-lawexplained 61 Cuellar, J. 2019. Effect of “Just Cause” Eviction Ordinances in Four California Cities. Journal of Public and International Affairs (Princeton University). https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/effect-just-cause-eviction-ordinances-eviction-fourcalifornia-cities 62 Kuang, J. 2023. “Across California, eviction cases have returned to – or surpassed – pre-pandemic levels.” Cal Matters. https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2023/11/california-evictions-post-pandemic/ 63 The Right to Thrive Report
53 DeBenedetti, K. 2024. “Thousands of San Francisco Residents Saved from Eviction by 2018 Legal Aid Measure.” KQED. https://www.kqed.org/news/11984467/thousands-of-san-francisco-residents-saved-from-eviction-by-2018-legal-aidmeasure 64 Beiers, S., Park, S., & Morris, L. 2020. Clearing the Record: How Eviction Sealing Laws Can Advance Housing Access for Women of Color. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/clearing-the-record-how-eviction-sealing-lawscan-advance-housing-access-for-women-of-color 65 DeBenedetti, K. 2024. “Thousands of San Francisco Residents Saved from Eviction by 2018 Legal Aid Measure.” KQED. https://www.kqed.org/news/11984467/thousands-of-san-francisco-residents-saved-from-eviction-by-2018-legal-aidmeasure 66 Ibid. 67
Ibid. 68
Zepeda, F., Montojo, N., & Goldberg, L. 2022. Community Land Trusts as Stewards of Public Land. Othering & Belonging Institute (University of California, Berkeley). https://belonging.berkeley.edu/community-land-trustsstewards-publicland#:~:text=CLTs%20monitor%20and%20enforce%20the,and%20direction%20to%20the%20organization. 69 Alliance for Housing Justice. What is Social Housing?. https://www.allianceforhousingjustice.org/us-social-housingprinciples 70 Ibid. 71
Riley, B. 2023. How decades of racist housing policies shaped modern Vallejo. Open Vallejo. https://openvallejo.org/2023/05/05/how-decades-of-racist-housing-policies-shaped-modern-vallejo/ 72 Montojo, N. et al. 2025. Living in the Future: Scaling Community Owned Housing in California. Othering & Belonging Institute.
73
September 10, 2026
Mayor Andrea Sorce
Vice Mayor Peter Bregenzer
Council Member Alexander Matias
Council Member Diosdado Matulac
Council Member Tonia Lediju
Council Member Charles Palmares
Council Member Helen-Marie Gordon
Via email: [email protected]
And
Kristin Pollot, Planning Manager
Via email: [email protected]
Harry Black, City Manager
City of Vallejo
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Key Policy Objectives for Vallejo’s Just Cause & Rent Stabilization Ordinances Dear Vallejo City Council Members and Staff,
Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition writes to urge the City to adopt promptly Just Cause and Rent Stabilization ordinances that incorporate the attached policy priorities. The City of Vallejo is now a year beyond the deadlines for moving these policies forward that it committed to in its Sixth Cycle Housing Element, and our city cannot wait any longer for these essential policies to protect our families and stabilize our community. These priorities are grounded in extensive input from Vallejo tenants, local organizations, and housing policy experts to support the City’s fulfillment of those commitments.
Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition (VHJC) is comprised of community members and partners whose goal is to ensure affordable and equitable housing and community stability in Vallejo.
VHJC prioritizes and amplifies the voices of the communities most directly impacted by harmful housing policies that have displaced and uprooted families, especially low-income families, immigrants, and people of color. VHJC and our partners developed the attached policy priorities based on input from a range of stakeholders, including tenants, local advocacy and service organizations, and statewide housing policy experts. These policy priorities are the result of more than a year of community meetings and outreach conducted by VHJC and our partners, as well as research into conditions facing renters in Vallejo including the recently released Right to Thrive report. The policy priorities have been endorsed by organizations representing diverse community perspectives, with additional endorsements forthcoming.
As you are aware, the city made a commitment in its Sixth Cycle Housing Element to present four tenant protection ordinances to the City Council: rent stabilization and just cause eviction Page 90 of 153 protections by September of 2025, and tenant anti-harassment and right to counsel by June of 2026. Both legally mandated deadlines have passed without any draft ordinances presented.
We are concerned that the City has still not committed to a clear and prompt timeline for consideration and adoption of the renter protection ordinances described in the Housing Element even though the City is more than a year tardy in fulfilling its obligations. We understand that the City Council will hold a study session about renter protections in late September, and that staff expect to develop a plan for drafting the ordinances after the study session. Given that the City is already a year behind the legally binding deadline it laid out in its Housing Element, we urge an aggressive timeline and swift action to ensure that the City adopts much-needed policies to protect Vallejo tenants from displacement. The attached policy priorities, developed through extensive community input, are intended to help this process move quickly and effectively. Vallejo families cannot afford further delay.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to this issue, and we look forward to continued engagement with the City as it moves with urgency and transparency to fulfill its commitments and deliver long-overdue protections for Vallejo’s renters.
Sincerely,
Cristal Gallegos
Project Director
Vallejo Housing Justice Coalition
Just Cause & Rent Stabilization in Vallejo
Why Do We Need Tenant Protections in Vallejo?
Tenants, particularly low-income tenants of color, experience significant displacement as a result of rapidly rising rents and arbitrary evictions. In Solano County, over half of all low-income households live in neighborhoods that are at risk of gentrification, the highest share among all counties in the Bay Area. Vallejo remains one of the last “affordable” cities in the Bay Area, but that will not remain the case unless the City Council acts quickly by passing rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinances.
Tenant Protection Policies Should Apply Broadly
Everyone deserves a safe, stable home regardless of the type of unit they rent or the type of rental agreement they have. Just cause and rent stabilization should apply to all tenancies, including informal tenancies, oral tenancies, and subleases, as well as to tenants in unpermitted units, hotels, and mobile homes.
- Covered by just cause: All rental units.
- Covered by rent stabilization: Maximum coverage allowed by state law: multifamily buildings–including duplexes and triplexes–constructed before 1995.
Components of a Rent Stabilization Ordinance:
- Cap rent increases to 60% of the annual change in CPI or 2.5%, whichever is less: For renters to remain in their homes long-term, rents should not rise faster than wages. - Protect renters from hidden charges: Many landlords use confusing formulas to charge tenants for utilities that are not separately metered, causing housing costs to vary wildly. To keep housing costs predictable, rents should include the costs of any utilities that are not separately metered, and landlords’ ability to add new fees or other charges should be limited. - Administrative Hearings: There should be a hearing process for landlords who need to increase rents beyond the annual limit to get a fair return, as well as for tenants seeking rent reductions. - Rent Registry: Requiring landlords to report on rents, vacancies, and evictions, promotes transparency and legal compliance.
- Rent rollback: To discourage landlords from increasing rents in anticipation of rent stabilization being adopted, use rents as of December 31, 2024, the date the City’s current Housing Element was adopted, as base rents for calculating future rent increases.
Components of a Just Cause Ordinance:
- Just Cause ordinances prevent landlords from evicting tenants arbitrarily. Landlords must either provide an at-fault or no fault reason for the eviction. - At-fault: A landlord has grounds to evict a tenant for certain behaviors. The at-fault reasons should be limited to serious issues such as nonpayment of rent for two or more
Just Cause & Rent Stabilization in Vallejo
months; serious breach of material, mutually agreed-upon terms of a lease or rental agreement; nuisance; violent criminal activity on the premises; or using the rental unit for illegal purposes (e.g., manufacturing or selling illegal drugs). - No fault: Evictions for reasons unrelated to a tenant’s behavior should be limited: 1) repairs are necessary (tenant has a right to return afterwards), 2) landlord wants to take the unit off the rental market, or 3) an owner (or their immediate relative) wants to move-in, with maximum safeguards for vulnerable tenants such as disabled, elderly, or terminally ill renters, and for students and teachers during the school year. - Allow Tenants to Cure for At-Fault Reasons: Requiring a 10-day written warning with opportunity to cure for most at-fault reasons is critical so that an eviction does not arise from a misunderstanding or one-time mistake.
- Provide adequate relocation payments: When landlords evict tenants for no-fault reasons, they should be required to provide relocation assistance to help displaced tenants secure new housing, including additional payments for certain tenants (low income, elderly, persons with disabilities, or minor children).
- Deter evictions via legal remedies: Requiring landlords to pay triple damages for evictions without just cause would deter landlords from evicting tenants for discriminatory or unjust purposes.
- Just Cause Protections from Day 1: State tenant protections exclude renters who have lived in units less than a year. All tenants deserve protection from unjust evictions. This local policy would fill a substantial loophole that exists in state law.
Other Rights:
- Rent Registry/Fees Require Landlords to register their rental units and pay a small fee. The combined fees from all units will cover the cost of the administration of all tenant protections programs, including any additional staffing and infrastructure needed to implement them. - Increase buyout transparency: Requiring landlords that offer buyout agreements to translate them into the tenants’ language and file signed copies with the City will help to ensure that landlords do not pressure tenants into signing buyout agreements that they do not understand.
Many Bay Area Cities Already Have Rent Stabilization and Justice Cause Ordinances Including: Berkeley, Oakland, Alameda, San Francisco, Richmond, San Leandro, Antioch, Concord, San Jose, Hayward, East Palo Alto, and Mountain View.
Just Cause & Rent Stabilization in Vallejo
Endorsed as of 09/15/2026 By:
Organizations:
City of San Pablo
Fiscal Analysis of a Rent Stabilization and
Tenant Protections Ordinance
July 30, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 About the Proposed Initiative .................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................................. 2 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 2 Fiscal Impact (Elections Code Section 9212(a)(1))...............................................................................2 Effect on the Internal Consistency of City’s Plans (Elections Code Section 9212(a)(2)) ......................5 Effect on the use of Land (Elections Code Section 9212(a)(3))............................................................5 About RSG ................................................................................................................................. 6 How California Tenant Protections Generally Work .................................................... 7 Costa-Hawkins and Impact of Potential November 2024 Repeal ........................................ 7 Implications of Costa-Hawkins Repeal on the Proposed Ordinance.....................................................8 Just Cause Eviction and Ellis Act Protections ...................................................................... 8 Implications of the Ellis Act Under the Proposed Ordinance.................................................................8 Tenant Protection Act ............................................................................................................... 8 Implications of the Tenant Protection Act Under the Proposed Ordinance ...........................................9 Rent Stabilization Studies And Market Trends........................................................... 10 Rent Stabilization Literature Review..................................................................................... 10 Market Trends .......................................................................................................................... 11 Analysis of Community Housing Characteristics and Goals ................................... 14 Housing Characteristics......................................................................................................... 14 Income Levels and Affordability............................................................................................ 16 Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Element Goals ................................... 18 Comparative Analysis of Peer Jurisdictions .............................................................. 21 Rent Stabilization Provisions ................................................................................................ 23 Rent Increase Limits ............................................................................................................................24 Rent Banking........................................................................................................................................25 Administrative Considerations .............................................................................................................25 Eviction Protection Provisions.............................................................................................. 25 Just Cause Reasons for Eviction.........................................................................................................26 Noticing Requirements.........................................................................................................................26 Relocation Assistance..........................................................................................................................27 Withdrawal from Rental Market ...........................................................................................................29 Buyout Agreements..............................................................................................................................29 Administrative Considerations .............................................................................................................30 Registration and Compliance ................................................................................................ 30 Annual Registration and Fee ...............................................................................................................31
Administrative Penalties and Fines......................................................................................................33 Administrative Considerations .............................................................................................................35 Petitions and Petition Process .............................................................................................. 35 Petition Types and Fee ........................................................................................................................36 Petition Review and Hearings..............................................................................................................37 Appeals ................................................................................................................................................38 Administrative Considerations .............................................................................................................38 Enhanced Tenant Protections ............................................................................................... 39 Right to Organize.................................................................................................................................39 Anti-Harassment / Retaliation provisions.............................................................................................39 Administrative Considerations .............................................................................................................40 Fiscal Impact Analysis................................................................................................... 41 Program Staffing and Budget................................................................................................ 41 Number of Rental Units........................................................................................................................43 Scope of Regulatory Oversight............................................................................................................44 Existing Staffing Framework and Efficiency.........................................................................................44 Estimated Staffing Needs ....................................................................................................................45 Cost Breakdown and Considerations................................................................................... 46 Proposed Ordinance Cost Estimate ....................................................................................................46 First-Year Implementation....................................................................................................................51 Reasons for Potential Deficits..............................................................................................................51 Strategies for Managing Ongoing Costs..............................................................................................52 Work Program................................................................................................................. 53 Key Considerations..............................................................................................................................53 Implementation Steps and Timelines...................................................................................................53 Appendix A – Defined Terms......................................................................................... 55
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of Sample Jurisdiction Provisions and Budgets ............................................... 4 Table 2: Demographic Overview of San Pablo and County ......................................................... 14 Table 3: Housing Types (City of San Pablo)................................................................................. 15 Table 4: Housing Units by Year-Built Date (City of San Pablo).................................................... 15 Table 5: Overview of Sample Jurisdictions................................................................................... 21 Table 6: Comparison of Ordinance Provisions ............................................................................. 22 Table 7: Comparison of Rent Stabilization Provisions ................................................................. 24 Table 8: Comparison of Relocation Assistance ............................................................................ 28 Table 9: Comparison of Rental Registry and Fee ........................................................................ 32 Table 10: Comparison of Administrative Penalties and Fines ...................................................... 34 Table 11: Comparison of Petition Provisions ................................................................................ 36 Table 12: Comparison of Program Staffing and Budget............................................................... 41 Table 13: Estimated Annual Costs and Start-Up Considerations ................................................ 47 Table 14: City of Concord Program Implementation Costs .......................................................... 51 List of Figures
Figure 1: Average Multi-Family Residential Per-Unit Sales Prices by Jurisdiction...................... 12 Figure 2: Multi-Family Asset Value by Owner Origin by Jurisdiction ........................................... 13 Figure 3: Median Income in the City and County (2020-2024).................................................... 16 Figure 4: Comparison of Allowable Rent Increase Limits (2020-2024) ....................................... 17 Figure 5: Market Rents vs. HCD Rent Limits (2020-2024) .......................................................... 17 Figure 6: 5th Cycle RHNA Progress (City of San Pablo) ............................................................. 19 Figure 7: 6th Cycle RHNA Progress (City of San Pablo) ............................................................. 20
1 INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2023, Movement Legal - a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization advancing the rights and interest of tenants in California - submitted a Notice of Intent to Circulate the San Pablo Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections Initiative (“Initiative”) to the City of San Pablo (“City”).
The Initiative proposed adopting a Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections Ordinance (“Ordinance”) to enact tenant protections on rental housing in the City.
Movement Legal did not collect enough certified signatures for the Initiative to be eligible for the November 2024 election (the minimum threshold is 10% of registered voters). If Movement Legal proposes a similar initiative in the future, the City anticipates it could be placed on the ballot in November 2026.
The City retained RSG, Inc. (“RSG”) in May 2024 to prepare an independent fiscal analysis of the Ordinance proposed by the Initiative. Although the Initiative will not be on the November 2024 ballot, this report will assist the City in understanding the fiscal and administrative needs to implement a rent stabilization program should one be enacted in the future. The analysis considers the level of services required by the Ordinance proposed by the Initiative as a model.
It also considers the City’s housing market, demographics, and costs to administer rent stabilization ordinances in other cities in the region.
This report is structured to address impacts pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9212(a) so it may be referenced if a similar initiative qualifies as a future ballot measure.
About the Proposed Initiative
The Initiative proposed an Ordinance that places tenant protections on rental housing, generally including:
• An annual allowable rent increase of 60% of the change in the regional Consumer Price Index (“CPI”), but in no event will the allowable increase be less than 0% or more than 3%. The base rent is the rent as of December 14, 2023 for tenancies in place as of that date, or the initial rent for tenancies that begin after such date. • Eviction protection provisions to define just cause reasons for eviction, implement enhanced eviction noticing requirements, implement Ellis Act regulations for withdrawing units from the rental market, require relocation assistance for no-fault evictions and temporary displacement, impose requirements when completing substantial rehabilitation of rental units, and regulate tenant buyout agreements. • Data collection requirements and an annual rental housing fee to track compliance and fund administration.
• A landlord and tenant petition and hearing process.
• Other enhanced tenant protections such as the right for tenants to organize, antiharassment and retaliation provisions.
2 The Ordinance proposed by the Initiative complies with State laws related to rent stabilization and tenant protections based on a review by the City Attorney.
Rent stabilization ordinances vary widely by jurisdiction and may be adopted by City Council or a voter initiative. If an ordinance is adopted by City Council, the City Council sets specific policies and may amend the ordinance at any time. If an ordinance is adopted by a voter-approved ballot initiative, amendments must be approved in subsequent elections. However, the City may create internal policies and regulations to implement the voter-approved ordinance as adopted.
Purpose of this Report
This report presents fiscal and administrative considerations for implementing a rent stabilization ordinance. It analyzes the Ordinance proposed by the Initiative and compares it to five Bay Area jurisdictions (Alameda, Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Hayward, and Richmond). A comparable analysis highlights the different level of services required by each program based on their specific policies.
This report estimates the amount of staffing and costs required to implement the Ordinance proposed by the Initiative as a potential model. Actual costs would vary based on the scope of an adopted ordinance and number of covered rental units.
If a new initiative qualifies as a future ballot measure, the City Council may order a report pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9212(a) to examine its impact on the City. This report analyzes the following components pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212(a) and may be referenced for a future initiative if applicable:
(1) Fiscal impact.
(2) Effect on the internal consistency of the City’s general and specific plans, including the housing element.
(3) Effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs.
Executive Summary
Fiscal Impact (Elections Code Section 9212(a)(1))
The estimated fiscal impact of the proposed Ordinance to the City is approximately $1.21 million in ongoing annual costs, excluding adjustments for inflation. An estimated five full-time staff members will be required to administer the program. This is based on an approximation of staff and overhead costs to administer the services required by the Ordinance.
The approximation of staff and overhead costs needed to implement the Ordinance is informed by thorough research and interviews conducted with five peer jurisdictions that have implemented similar rent stabilization and tenant protections ordinances. These jurisdictions experience annual operational costs ranging from $615,000 to $7.51 million, illustrating a broad spectrum of potential financial commitments based on varying program capacities and enforcement levels.
The actual costs, necessary staffing, and resource requirements for the City's program will hinge on several variables that are detailed further within this report. These include the number of rentstabilized units, level of services provided, the volume of landlord and tenant inquiries and
3 petitions, as well as compliance rates and the extent of regulatory oversight. 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.
Table 1 provides a comparison of the jurisdictions studied, summarizing the general provisions of each ordinance, total budgets, and the approximate cost per rental unit, offering a contextual benchmark for evaluating the potential financial implications of the proposed Ordinance in San Pablo. More details about the methodology for determining the estimated annual costs is included in the Fiscal Impact Analysis section of this report.
4 Table 1: Overview of Sample Jurisdiction Provisions and Budgets 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
Annual Budget $1.21 M $1.99 M $7.51 M $642,000 $3.00 M $615,000 Number of Rental Units Administered1 5,608 16,579 25,000 11,580 18,000 2,500 Cost Per Rental Unit $215 $120 $300 $55 $167 $246
Rental Registry/Housing Fee per fully
covered unit
$120
(initial) $162 $290 $66 $220 $234
1Approximation. See Table 12 for a detailed unit of measurement for rental units by jurisdiction.
A rent stabilization ordinance would not have a direct impact on development impact fees, property tax, sales tax, business license tax, community facilities district fees, and property tax inlieu of motor vehicle license fees revenues. The proposed Ordinance includes a Rental Housing Fee on landlords to finance the reasonable and necessary expenses of the Ordinance (proposed Ordinance Section 8.05.150). The initial fee would be $120 per controlled rental unit per year ($10 per month) until the City Council can determine a fee amount. A preliminary estimate of the cost to implement the Ordinance is $215 per rental unit; however
5 actual costs would vary based on the number of controlled rental units and other factors such as salary and contract negotiations.
The City has 5,608 rental units based on 2022 U.S. Census data. The actual number of controlled units would be determined after implementing a rental registry. It would also depend on a separate statewide November 2024 ballot measure to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (“Costa-Hawkins”), which could significantly increase the number of controlled units (see the “How California Tenant Protections Generally Work” section for more details). If a rent stabilization ordinance is enacted, the City may implement a rental registry and conduct a more thorough fee study to determine a Rental Housing Fee and the number of staff required to administer the program. This report assumes all rental units within the City would be fully or partially covered by a rent stabilization ordinance for the purposes of this fiscal analysis.
The Initiative’s proposed Ordinance was silent on whether the Rental Housing Fee could be passed through to tenants and whether the fee could be revised at the City’s discretion. The City would need to clarify this if another initiative is proposed in the future.
Effect on the Internal Consistency of City’s Plans (Elections Code Section 9212(a)(2)) A rent stabilization initiative is consistent with the City’s Housing Element by addressing multiple goals and policies to address affordability and housing security, striving for the provision of housing affordable to San Pablo residents, promoting fair housing practices, and informing the community on available programs to address individual housing needs. This is based on an analysis of San Pablo’s demographics and housing characteristics and a review of Housing Element goals.
Effect on the use of Land (Elections Code Section 9212(a)(3)) Rent stabilization would not have a direct impact on the use of land, such as new housing development, and the ability of the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”).
Rent stabilization does not directly regulate the development of new housing units. RHNA production goals will not be met by a rent stabilization ordinance because it does not construct new deed-restricted affordable rental units. It is notable that the City nearly met or exceeded its very low, low, and moderate income 2015-2023 RHNA production goals.
Under current State law, housing units constructed after 1995 are exempt from rent stabilization statewide. If Costa-Hawkins is repealed, this exemption would be removed, and new development would be subject to rent stabilization. Research on the impact of rent stabilization on new development is mixed. A 1998 analysis conducted by the City of Berkeley found rent stabilization had little to no impact on new development in the City,1 whereas a 2019 article on the impact of rent control in San Francisco found that it reduced rental housing supply. 2 If Costa-Hawkins is
repealed, new studies will need to be conducted about the 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. 1 Urban Habitat. (2018). Strengthening Communities Through Rent Control. Retrieved from https://urbanhabitat.org/sites/default/files/UH%202018%20Strengthening%20Communities%20Through%20Rent%20Control_0.pdf. 2 Diamond, Rebecca, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian. (2019). "The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco." American Economic Review, 109 (9): 3365–94.
6 About RSG
RSG has extensive experience advising on and administering rent stabilization programs and policies, including recent engagements with the cities of Carson, Corona, El Monte, Escondido, Oceanside, Palmdale, Pomona, Pico Rivera, Santa Ana, and San Jose. RSG brings a depth of knowledge and expertise to this report with over 40 years of experience in the areas of affordable housing finance and development, housing policy, and community engagement.
7 HOW CALIFORNIA TENANT PROTECTIONS GENERALLY WORK
Rent stabilization programs and policies have existed in California for decades.3 Many jurisdictions have established rent stabilization ordinances dating back to the 1970’s with the intention of keeping current residents housed by limiting rent increases and preventing unwarranted evictions.
Rent increase limits under rent stabilization programs vary by jurisdiction and seek to balance tenant and landlord interests. While these policies provide tenants with increased housing stability and security, landlords may raise their rents above the allowed limit through petitions for fair returns or capital improvements, protecting their right to a fair return on investment.
Rent stabilization programs and policies are often, but not always, governed by a hearing officer/examiner or a board composed of community members acting as a regulatory body that adheres to non-arbitrary decision-making to protect the rights of both tenants and landlords. The proposed Ordinance designates a hearing examiner to conduct hearings on landlord and tenant petitions.
Rent stabilization programs are constrained by limitations in State law, including three key pieces of legislation:
1. Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (Civil Code Sections 1954.50-1954.535)
2. Ellis Act (Government Code Sections 7060-7060.7)
3. Tenant Protection Act (California Civil Code Section 1946.2, et seq.) These three laws are described in more detail below, along with how they would apply with the proposed Ordinance.
Costa-Hawkins and Impact of Potential November 2024 Repeal Costa-Hawkins limits the types of policies a local jurisdiction can impose when establishing rent restrictions. Generally, Costa-Hawkins limits rental restrictions on:
• units constructed after 1995,
• protects landlords’ rights to raise the rent to market rate upon their units’ vacancy, and • exempts most single-family homes and condominiums from local rent restrictions.
The November 2024 ballot will include a statewide measure to repeal Costa-Hawkins called the California Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative. This is separate and unrelated to the local San Pablo Initiative. Specifically, if the Costa-Hawkins repeal is passed by California voters, it would not only strike from the Civil Code the Costa-Hawkins Act as it is today, but also expressly prohibit the state from limiting any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control.
3 The terms "rent control" and "rent stabilization" are often used interchangeably, despite denoting distinct rental price regulation methods. Rent control involves rigid rent caps, while rent stabilization permits gradual rent increases. The distinction is also sometimes referred to as first and second generation rent control, with the latter referring to “rent stabilization.”
8 Implications of Costa-Hawkins Repeal on the Proposed Ordinance The Ordinance proposed by the Initiative was not conditioned upon any change to CostaHawkins. However, if Costa-Hawkins is repealed, under the proposed Ordinance rental units exempt from Costa-Hawkins would be exempt from its rent stabilization provisions (proposed Ordinance Sections 8.05.060 and 8.05.160) only for the first ten years after the completion of their construction (proposed Ordinance Section 8.05.040). This means units constructed after 1995, single-family homes, and condominiums would be subject to annual rent increase limits starting ten years after they were constructed. Landlords would continue to be permitted to set the initial rent for a new tenancy to the extent permitted by State law (proposed Ordinance Section
8.05.060).
If a similar Ordinance is proposed in the future, the City would need to clarify whether new development constructed after the repeal of Costa-Hawkins would be exempt from rent stabilization for ten years, and whether landlords could increase rent to market rate upon their units’ vacancy.
Just Cause Eviction and Ellis Act Protections
Rent stabilization ordinances are often paired with locally enacted just cause eviction provisions, collectively forming rent stabilization programs. Just cause eviction provisions typically define what causes are allowable for a property owner to seek eviction of a tenant and may include relocation assistance requirements to support tenants who are being evicted at no fault of their own in finding new housing. Studies show just cause eviction policies measurably lower eviction rates.4It is important to note just cause eviction protection policies are not bound by legislation such as Costa-Hawkins.
However, the Ellis Act (1985) establishes the right of landlords to withdraw certain existing housing units from the rental market. Specifically, the Ellis Act prohibits a public entity to compel the owner of residential real property to offer or continue to offer accommodations. Further, the Ellis Act allows local jurisdictions to adopt certain regulations controlling the withdrawal process, the return of withdrawn units to the rental market (including penalties for return within two years), and the transfer of these constraints to successors in interest.
Implications of the Ellis Act Under the Proposed Ordinance If the Ordinance were to pass, before a unit is withdrawn from the rental market, the landlord would be required to provide a minimum 120-day notice of termination of tenancy and relocation payments. Households meeting certain conditions (e.g. senior, disabled, school-age children or educator) would be eligible for extended notice and higher relocation payments.
Tenant Protection Act
Housing costs in the California continue to rise, and many tenants have experienced significant rent increases and/or evictions. Recognizing this issue, the State Legislature enacted the Tenant Protection Act (Civil Code Section 1946.2, et seq.) which will be effective through December 31, 4 Julieta Cuellar, "Effect of Just Cause Eviction Ordinances on Eviction in Four California Cities," Princeton University Journal of Public and International Affairs (2019), https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/effect-just-cause-eviction-ordinances-eviction-four-california-cities
9 2029, unless amended. The Tenant Protection Act established a statewide rent cap that limits annual increases to 5% plus any rise in the CPI, not to exceed a total 10% increase. In addition to limiting annual rent increases, the Tenant Protection Act also enacted statewide provisions to prevent tenant evictions without just cause when all tenants have lived in the unit for at least 12 months or at least one tenant has occupied the unit for at least 24 months.
Implications of the Tenant Protection Act Under the Proposed Ordinance Rental units subject to the Ordinance’s annual allowable rent increase would need to comply with the more restrictive limit.
10 RENT STABILIZATION STUDIES AND MARKET TRENDS
Rent Stabilization Literature Review
There is mixed and somewhat limited research on the impact of rent stabilization. Existing literature tends to examine the effects of rent control policies, which involve rigid rent caps, as opposed to rent stabilization policies, which allow for gradual rent increases. Due to these limitations, a nuanced understanding must be carefully considered to predict the potential impacts of rent stabilization in San Pablo.
Proponents of rent control highlight its positive impacts on tenant displacement and housing stability, while opponents argue that rent control policies can reduce housing supply and lead to deteriorating housing quality. A 2019 study published in the American Economic Review that examined the impact of rent control expansion in San Francisco found that rent control policies reduce tenant displacement rates and increase the likelihood that tenants remain in their homes long-term.
5 Furthermore, a 1998 analysis conducted by the City of Berkeley found that rent control had little to no impact on new development in the City.6 Lastly, a 2015 study published in Cities expanded existing research on rent control ordinances in New Jersey communities and found that rent control did not have a significant effect on property values when compared to non-rent controlled cities.7
Conversely, the 2019 San Francisco study also found that rent control reduced rental housing supply by contributing to condominium conversions and other methods to exempt units from rental regulation. Additionally, a 2007 analysis of the removal of rent control in Massachusetts published in the Journal of Urban Economics found that rent-stabilized buildings have greater maintenance and habitability concerns, which may drive down non-controlled rents in surrounding areas. 8 In a
2016 publication prepared by Beacon Economics for the California Apartment Association, similar outcomes were predicted in regard to property maintenance, which can affect the quality of life for tenants, and affect the surrounding neighborhood by decreasing the value of adjacent properties.9
A separate 2014 analysis on the removal of rent control in Massachusetts published in the Journal of Political Economy found that rent-controlled properties were valued at a discount of about 45 to 50% relative to never-controlled properties with comparable characteristics in the same 5 Diamond, Rebecca, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian. (2019). "The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality:
Evidence from San Francisco." American Economic Review, 109 (9): 3365–94. 6 Urban Habitat. (2018). Strengthening Communities Through Rent Control [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://urbanhabitat.org/sites/default/files/UH%202018%20Strengthening%20Communities%20Through%20Rent%20Control_0.pdf. 7 Ambrosius, J. D., Gilderbloom, J. I., Steele, W. J., Meares, W. L., & Keating, D. (2015). Forty years of rent control: Reexamining New Jersey’s moderate local policies after the Great Recession. Cities, 49, 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.08.001 8 Sims, D. P. (2007). Out of control: What can we learn from the end of Massachusetts rent control? Journal of Urban Economics, 61(1), 129– 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.06.004
9 Thornberg, C., Levine, J., & Beacon Economics. (2016). An analysis of rent control ordinances in California (By California Apartment Association). https://caanet.org/u/2016/02/Jan2016_Rent_Control_Study.pdf
11 neighborhood.
10 The same analysis found that rent-controlled properties’ assessed values rose by 18 to 25% relative to never-controlled properties following rent decontrol.
Additionally, a 2003 study published in the American Economic Review indicated that rent regulations can lead to reduced tenant mobility and as a result, create a mismatch of housing needs to current housing situations.
11 For instance, in order to maintain regulated rent, a couple may continue to occupy a large family-sized apartment instead of occupying a smaller unit when housing needs decrease, which results in a misallocation of housing stock.
If Costa-Hawkins is repealed, new studies will need to be conducted about the 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.
Market Trends
Historical real estate market trends can highlight the potential effects of a rent stabilization ordinance on property values. This may affect property tax revenues, housing quality, and community investment. Figure 1 provides a historical comparison of per-unit average sales prices for multi-family properties across nearby jurisdictions with rent stabilization policies, in addition to San Pablo.
10 Autor, D. H., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Palmer, C. J., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Pathak, P. A., & Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2014). Housing Market Spillovers: Evidence from the End of Rent Control in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In Journal of Political Economy (Vols. 122–122, Issue 3, pp. 661–662). The University of Chicago. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/housing%20market%202014.pdf 11 Glaeser, Edward L., and Erzo F. P. Luttmer. (2003). “The Misallocation of Housing Under Rent Control.” American Economic Review 93(4):1027–46.
12 Figure 1: Average Multi-Family Residential Per-Unit Sales Prices by Jurisdiction Note: The City of Berkeley’s RSO was adopted in 1980, while the City of Richmond and Alameda had RSOs adopted in 2016.
Source: ParcelQuest
Alameda and Richmond adopted rent stabilization in 2016 and Berkeley has a long-standing ordinance adopted in 1980. Both Richmond and Alameda saw increases in multi-family sales prices from 2013 to 2016, which continued immediately following the adoption of their rent stabilization ordinances. From 2016 to 2022, all jurisdictions experienced increases in multi-family sales prices with San Pablo experiencing the highest growth (48%), followed by Alameda (33%), Richmond (30%), and Berkeley (22%). This suggests that rent stabilization policies may not hinder property values in the short-term. However, the long-term effects of recently adopted policies in Alameda and Richmond could be evaluated as more time passes. Additionally, factors such as interest rates, regional housing supply, income growth, population growth, and other local policies impact real estate market fluctuations.
RSG conducted interviews with three brokers with extensive experience in the multi-family residential market in both Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Most brokers stated that statewide tenant protections, such as the Tenant Protection Act, are beneficial in protecting tenants against excessive rent increases. However, the benefit of local rent stabilization policies was debated as some brokers found that local policies lead to a greater prevalence of landlordtenant issues. Additionally, nearly all brokers interviewed stated that rising costs have presented a challenge for landlords. Limited rent increases make it difficult keep up with operating and $50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
San Pablo Richmond Alameda Berkeley