Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Agree to Move Forward with Temporary Eviction Ban

On Tuesday, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors agreed to move forward with a countywide moratorium on certain evictions while preventing rent increases during the coronavirus emergency.

The ordinance would be retroactive to March 16 and extends to May 31, however, the Board left it open to be extended should the governor extend his order due to where the state may be in the pandemic.

During a lengthy discussion that included more than 50 public comments read into the record, the board hashed out a series of issues from timelines, to who could be evicted and who could not, to rent increases, etc.

Supervisor John Gioia explained that this health order, which was needed, has created a financial hardship so they needed to not make things worse by not protecting individuals. He said they needed to consider that after this order is lifted, people are not just going to be able to pay their back rent while urging the board to make the ordinance countywide.

Gioia highlighted the need to have both a grace period as well as a moratorium on rent increases which Antioch, Concord and Pittsburg all took that approach.

“Because we are late to the game in passing an ordinance and other counties and cities have passed ordinances that go beyond what may already be in effect statewide, having retroactivity would be appropriate because we don’t want people harmed from an earlier part of this emergency,” said Goia who also explained that if a city has stricter provisions, theirs can prevail as the county would simply be a standard.

He further argued there should be some protections that a tenant could recover some form of lawyer fees if a landlord sues the tenant and is unsuccessful against them—saying this would discourage a landlord from filing an unlawful lawsuit and forcing a tenant into something they would not otherwise agree to.

Supervisor Diane Burgis cautioned her fellow board members that there are different types of landlords where not everybody has a mortgage which some may not get the benefits of mortgage deferment.

“There is bad actors and good actors. There are landlords that already provide assistance to our tenants in our county, they are already making agreements and I want to make sure if they are making the agreements that we are not interfering with that, especially if it’s a better deal than what we are creating,” said Burgis.

She explained her concern with a grace period because she was unsure how long the stay-at-home directive would last and they should consider this from both the landlord and tenant perspectives.

Gioia then jumped in saying many who have done a city policy have stated it would be a number of days after an order ends.

Burgis said she understood what Gioia was stated but did not want to create an undue burden on the landlords who may not be able to survive if they have multiple units. She was concerned about putting too much time or not enough time on the grace period because they were still unclear on how long the pandemic would continue.

Burgis also stated if a property is owned by a family and they were having an economic challenge, moving your family in one of your places is acceptable.

Supervisor Karen Mitchoff urged the County look at the Santa Clara County order as a template. She stated she was not willing to do what the City of Concord had done (90-days per month for rent payback)—she preferred the timeline of 60-days per missed rent.

“I agree with Diane, we have to balance this with the needs of the landlords,” said Mitchoff. “Many of whom are not corporate and renting houses. We are all struggling, and we need to balance it.”

She also wanted the ordinance to apply to those only in the rental as of April 1 and not somebody who entered a lease at a later date and decided they couldn’t pay. She also added that for those who already made their rent payment, it doesn’t entitle the tenant to demand the landlord pay back the rent.

Mitchoff also wanted to protect college students who may have been forced to move out of their dorms and back home where some leases limit the number of occupants. She also provided another example of people pulling a parent out of an elderly care facility and suggested the county allow up to two-more people than what a lease states is approved occupancy so that a landlord cannot effect for anything other than health and safety reasons.

She noted that if a landlord is a bad actor and violates the order by issuing an eviction, the tenant can collect damages.

Supervisor Federal Glover said he was in favor of the moratorium but felt this needed to be countywide which would set a standard, not take away from cities who may want more restrictive.

“We have look at this as what happens when this is lifted. That is going to be very important in terms of a grace period,” said Glover who liked what Concord did but also understands Supervisor Burgis point of protecting the landlords. “This is going to be a hardship on everyone, its not effecting one demographic or another… we need to be as flexible as possible to ensure we are not going to increase our homeless population by not doing the right thing.”

Supervisor Candace Andersen explained that ordinarily she would not support a moratorium on eviction rules or rent control because she believes in free market principals and rights of property owners but right now these were extraordinary times and to no fault of their own millions of people were impacted without jobs and unable to pay their rent.

“I think doing a countywide moratorium makes a lot of sense if we are going to do one than a piecemeal, city-by-city,” said Andersen. “It gives landlords a better confidence about what the law is.”

She further explained that when notice is given, it should be a covid-19 related reason with “simple” documentation such as notice of layoff, filing for unemployment or some form the county creates.

She also urged the timeline to payback rent needing to be reasonable, but they were not waiving rent payments, but rather this was a payment plan.

Andersen further urged when it came to attorney fees, tweak the language so its for both sides which offers protection to the landlord from tenants who may not be acting in good faith and misrepresent why they are not paying their rent.

The board then discussed what types of evictions would be allowed from a health and safety reason to Supervisor Andersen wanting to allow family members to move into a property or if a landlord wants to take the property off the market.

Mitchoff called the point moot because they would still have to go through the eviction process and the courts are closed.

In response to Andersen, Gioia argued a property owner shouldn’t be allowed to pull their property off the market because they were dealing with no-fault evictions except for health and safety reasons.

“If the owner wants to move in that is one thing, if you want to take it off the market and leave it vacant, that is wasting a valuable unit,” said Gioia. “It is one thing to say its okay for an owner to move back, its another thing for an owner to say I just want to evict you and I am going to keep it vacant. That is a loophole that would make this no-fault eviction totally meaningless.”

Andersen explained there are a number of reasons someone may want to take it off the market from rehabbing a unit or if it’s on their property and they want to use it as an office.

“A property owner should have the right should they decide they do not want to rent out a building, an apartment, part of their home, whatever, they should have that right,” said Andersen.

Gioia then responded that what Andersen was arguing would defeat the ordinance by a landlord saying they wanted to take the unit off the market.

Glover argued since they already have the state moratorium in place, everything should stand until its lifted while Mitchoff stated no one could take their rental off the market until May 31.

The Board of Supervisors then went through and provided direction to County Staff to come back and craft a moratorium order.

• Grace Period/Late payments: 120-days from expiration of the ordinance (May 31). Timeline would begin June 1 with rents due within 4-months. County could revisit if order is extended.
• Late Fees: restricting late fees during moratorium
• Commercial Evictions: Have this apply to commercial
• Moratorium on Rent Increases: no rent increases at this time during moratorium.
• Evictions: health and safety related, non-financial Covid-related and should an owner/immediate family member choose to move back into that unit.
• Retroactively: Will go back to March 16
• Attorney Fees: Will mimic Santa Clara County Ordinance (the prevailing party)

Supervisor Mitchoff directed the county to follow Santa Clara County in terms of providing a form on their website for tenants. This is also aimed to educate tenants and landlords which includes a question and answer.

The Board will hold a special meeting at 1:00 pm on April 21, 2020 to approve the ordinance.