My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2025.10.13 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
AgdaPkt 2025.10.13 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2025 2:44:53 PM
Creation date
10/14/2025 2:42:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
10/13/2025
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
362
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ATTACHMENT F – Right to Return Policy Considerations <br />Disincentives for <br />Owners <br />time the tenancy was terminated, plus any increases that would have been allowed under TPA, and how that would impact <br />a landlord’s return on investment for undertaking a substantial remodel. The key findings from the report show that this <br />proposed policy does not appear to be a financial disincentive to landlords seeking to reinvest in their properties and that <br />typical remodel projects remain financially viable and provide a fair return on investment, especially when combined with <br />tax advantages and other financial benefits which were not modeled in the analysis. The report does note there may be <br />some outlier properties for which rents are well below-median but have unusually high rehabilitation needs (e.g. older, <br />historic buildings), in which the TPA allowable rent increase may not be sufficient to recoup investment. For those outlier <br />cases, the report recommended a capital improvement petition or appeals process to handle these rare situations. The full <br />report from EPS is included as Attachment F. <br />Comparative <br />Practice <br />While several local jurisdictions do include the right to return in their tenant protection policies, the majority of those <br />jurisdictions also have rent control/stabilization ordinances along with associated policies and mechanisms for <br />enforcement. In staff’s research, Emeryville and Union City are the only jurisdictions that don’t have rent control but do <br />include the right to return in their policies. Emeryville requires the right to return at the same rental rate and lease terms <br />and Union City’s policy does not include specific requirements regarding the rental rate or lease terms that must be offered, <br />just that the tenant must be offered the right to return to the unit. Table 1 below provides an overview of the jurisdiction <br />research. <br />Table 1 <br />Jurisdiction Right to Return Rent Control / <br />Stabilization? <br />Antioch Yes Yes <br />Berkeley Yes Yes <br />Concord Yes Yes <br />East Palo Alto Yes Yes <br />Emeryville Yes No <br />Hayward Yes Yes <br />Mountain View Yes Yes <br />Oakland Yes Yes <br />Richmond Yes Yes <br />San Francisco Yes Yes <br />San Jose Yes Yes <br />Union City Yes No <br />9.A. - Page 72 of 84 <br />177
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.