Albany Rental Providers Express Wide-Ranging Concerns Over Rent Control and Costly Tenant Protections at December Albany City Council Meeting

As 2025 came to a close, nearly two dozen Albany rental providers and concerned citizens addressed the Albany City Council on December 1 to express their fears and dismay regarding rent control and costly tenant protection measures that the city’s Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) was recommending that the council consider adopting as new policies and laws.

The purpose of the December meeting was to gather the public’s input on the 16 HAC recommendationsbefore the City Council officially takes up the matter in the New Year. Here’s a link to the city’s video of the December 1 meeting.

This February, or possibly in the coming months, the council is expected to review the HAC’s final report and direct its staff on which of the HAC recommendations on rent control, also known as rent stabilization, and tenant protections it wants to receive more information on in order to eventually vote on the matter. It’s imperative Albany rental providers and their supporters attend this meeting to play a role in which recommendations the council will pursue gathering more information on and which they should drop and the type of information that they should be seeking. Albany rental providers, play a critical role in the early stages of the city council’s decision making and attend this meeting in person or by Zoom!

As the city council receives this rent stabilization (rent control) and tenant protection information from its staff over the following months, it is expected to hash it out over a series of city council meetings before eventually voting on these topics. Albany rental providers, it’s imperative that you attend each and every one of these meetings in person or via Zoom that cover these topics as the council moves to a final vote!

Make a difference! Have your voice heard!

Red Alert! Albany City Council to Consider 16 Costly and Restrictive Rent Control and Tenant Protection Regulations

Albany rental providers brace for a roller coaster ride as the city council considers 16 rent control and tenant protection regulations that can prove more costly and restrictive for the city’s rental housing providers.

The city council in the coming weeks and months is expected to review 16 recommendations from the Albany Housing Advisory Commission (HAC), which focuses on Rent Stabilization Policies, otherwise known as Rent Control; Just Cause for Eviction Policies; and Anti-Harassment & Non-Discrimination Policies.

At the city council meeting, council members are expected to instruct staff to dive deeper into those topics of interest and come back with recommendations in the coming weeks and months.

The council will eventually be voting on some or all of these recommendations, which, if passed, could create new regulations that could cost rental providers tens of thousands of dollars in additional costs, while simultaneously putting a lower cap on their income.

Here are the HAC’s 16 recommendations and three core areas that they fall into, based on the December 1, 2025, staff report to the city council for their review. The information from the report is below:

Anti-Harassment & Non-Discrimination Protections

California law prohibits discrimination by providers of housing based on a broad range of protected characteristics (e.g., race, religion, etc.). During the March 5th, 2025, HAC meeting on anti-harassment and non-discrimination, there was broad support for clear prohibitions against harassment. Although one Commissioner noted that there is not need for additional regulations, during the September 3rd meeting, the majority of HAC members supported the policies below:

1. Explicitly protect non-nuclear, nontraditional, and multigenerational families from harassment and discrimination. Non-traditional families would include multigenerational households, blended families, chosen families, unmarried partners, foster or kinship care arrangements, and non-related roommate households functioning as a family unit. State law does not explicitly define or protect non-traditional family arrangements.
2. Explicitly prohibit retaliation against renters for engaging in specific tenant organizing activities. State law protects participation in tenant associations but does not detail specific activities, so a local ordinance could explicitly include actions like distributing flyers, holding meetings, posting notices, and using digital communication as protected tenant organizing.
3. Define harassment to include any threat to report a renter to immigration authorities and/or any unnecessary demand for proof of U.S. citizenship. State law already prohibits property owners from inquiring about or disclosing a renter’s immigration or citizenship status but does not explicitly classify these activities as harassment.
4. Define harassing behaviors to include refusing lawfully offered rent, failing to provide or threatening to withhold required repairs, repeated or excessive entries into a rental unit without proper notice, and interruptions or shutoffs of essential services such as water, heat, or electricity. Not explicitly covered by State law, some local jurisdictions have expanded their ordinances to cover these activities, recognizing them as common tactics that disrupt renters’ quiet enjoyment and may create unsafe living conditions.

Just Cause for Eviction Policies

Feedback during the April 2nd HAC meeting on just cause for eviction included concerns that the eviction process is already difficult and expensive, which may discourage property owners from renting units, and that state protections already exist. Others emphasized the importance of stronger protections against no-fault and retaliatory evictions to maintain fairness and diversity in the City. During the September 3rd, 2025, HAC meeting, the majority of Commissioners, with some variation, supported the following policies, though concern was expressed that owners may remove units from the rental market if regulations become too onerous:

1. Eliminate sunset date for California Just Cause for Eviction protections. Currently, the just- cause eviction protections provided for in AB 1482/SB 567 are set to sunset January 1, 2030.
2. Lessen or remove minimum tenancy requirement. State law currently protects renters only after 12 months of tenancy.
3. Include units exempt under AB 1482 (single-family homes, newly constructed housing, etc.) in just cause requirements. A local jurisdiction can broaden just-cause protections to unit types currently exempted from State law protections, including single-family homes, duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units, and housing constructed in the last 15 years (a rolling exemption).
4. Require property owners to file eviction notices with a designated City department. In addition, make failure to file such notices a defense in eviction cases. This was discussed as a low-burden requirement that would provide metrics on the instances of eviction in the City.
5. Require owners to maintain a valid business license and unit registration as a condition for pursuing an eviction. Failure to comply would provide tenants with a valid defense in eviction proceedings.
6. Increase relocation assistance for no-fault evictions. State law currently requires one month’s relocation assistance.

Rent Stabilization Policies (RENT CONTROL)

Lengthy discussions occurred during the May 7th HAC meeting on rent stabilization focused on rising rents outpacing incomes, with calls for limits beyond state law. Others mentioned the increased costs to property owners, particularly related to insurance, how rent stabilization may restrict rental supply, how regulations would be enforced, and questioned whether a local rent stabilization program is needed in Albany, considering state limits. Local rent stabilization measures would only apply to units eligible under the Cost-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, primarily older multifamily properties built before 1995, while single-family homes, condos, and newer construction would remain exempt under state law. At the September 3rd, 2025, HAC meeting, the Commissioners generally agreed with the following policies, with one Commissioner only agreeing if means testing accompanied rent stabilization:

1. Eliminate sunset date for California rent stabilization provisions. Currently the rent stabilization limits provided for in AB 1482/SB 567 are set to sunset January 1, 2030.
2. Cap annual rent increases below the state limit. State law currently caps rent increases on non-exempt units to the lesser of 5% of the current rent plus the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), or 10%, in any 12-month period. The City could set an alternative limit such as a flat percentage, the regional CPI, or a combination of the two. To comply with constitutional requirements, the City would also establish a process for property owners to petition for higher increases based on a fair rate of return.
3. Expand rent stabilization coverage to units not included in AB 1482/SB 567 but legally eligible by state law. This could include duplexes where the owner does not occupy a unit at the beginning of tenancy.
4. Limit rent increases to once a year. State law currently allows an owner to raise rent twice in 12 months provided the total increase does not exceed the annual limit.
5. Prohibit rent increase in first year of tenancy. Allow rent increases only after 12 months of tenancy
6. Invalidate any rent increase on the property that is not licensed and registered. A property owner’s failure to obtain a business license or register their unit could be used as a valid tenant defense to an eviction for nonpayment of increased rent. A local registration requirement to validate rent increases could apply to all rental units, including those exempt from rent stabilization laws.

Summary of the 1/20/26 Albany City Council meeting discussions relevant to landlords and interest in rent control

The Albany City Council meeting on January 20, 2026, was primarily focused on administrative updates, hazard mitigation planning, and climate initiatives. While “rent control” was not a formal agenda item, the meeting touched on several issues that directly impact the relationship between the city, tenants, and landlords—most notably regarding mandatory building upgrades and the push for electrification.

Mandatory Retrofits and Regulatory Pressure A significant portion of the meeting involved the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) [32:00 ]. During the discussion, Council Member Jordan explicitly suggested extending the mandatory seismic retrofit ordinance to include duplexes and single-family residences that are rented [45:44 ]. He framed this as a “business proposition,” arguing that because these properties are income-generating, they should be held to higher safety standards regardless of the owner’s financial bandwidth. This indicates a policy direction where rental properties are singled out for mandatory capital improvements.

Electrification and EV Charging Mandates Public comment and council discussion highlighted a growing push for landlords to provide EV charging infrastructure. A representative for a tenant shared a statement regarding the “stress” of charging an EV while renting, noting that their landlord was “not interested” in installing a charger [27:34 ]. The commenter urged the city to “encourage” or require apartment owners to install these units [29:00 ]. Additionally, there was a proposal to explore an ordinance similar to Berkeley’s BESO (Building Emissions Saving Ordinance), which would require energy efficiency upgrades at the time of sale [01:03:02 ].

Instances of Potential Bias Against Landlords The meeting reflected a recurring theme where rental housing is viewed as a commercial entity rather than a provider of a community service.

• Selective Enforcement: Council Member Jordan’s suggestion to mandate seismic retrofits specifically for rented single-family homes—but not necessarily owner-occupied ones—creates a double standard that targets landlords for additional costs [45:51 ].
• Externalizing Costs: Discussions regarding EV charging and electrification often focused on tenant “stress” or “rights” without addressing the logistical or financial hurdles landlords face, such as outdated electrical panels or the high cost of installation in older buildings [27:50 ].

Talking Points for Your Advocacy Against Rent Control

You can use these specific points, derived from the meeting’s context, to advocate against further restrictive housing policies in Albany:

• The Burden of Competing Mandates:
  • “The council is currently discussing expanding mandatory seismic retrofits [45:44 ] and pushing for expensive electrification and EV charging mandates [29:00 ]. When you layer rent control on top of these capital-intensive requirements, you make it financially impossible for small providers to maintain their buildings. We cannot demand ‘top-tier’ infrastructure while simultaneously capping the income needed to pay for it.”
• Targeting Small Housing Providers:
  • “There is a growing sentiment in this chamber that rental properties should be treated differently than owner-occupied homes regarding safety mandates [45:51 ]. Singling out rental housing for additional costs—while also restricting rents—will inevitably lead to ‘mom-and-pop’ landlords exiting the market, leaving only large corporate entities or causing a net loss in available housing units.”
• The “Unfunded Mandate” Problem:
  • “Public commenters are asking the city to ‘encourage’ or require landlords to install EV chargers [29:00 ], despite the ‘thousands of dollars’ in logistical challenges acknowledged by the tenants themselves [27:50 ]. If the city intends to move forward with rent caps, it must also provide full subsidies for these mandated upgrades, rather than expecting landlords to absorb the costs of the city’s climate goals.”
• Preserving Housing Quality:
  • “The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan highlights the importance of building resilience [32:16 ]. However, rent control is historically proven to disincentivize the very maintenance and upgrades—like seismic retrofitting and green infrastructure—that the council says it wants to prioritize. We should be incentivizing safety, not penalizing the providers.”

Video Reference: Albany City Council – Jan. 20, 2026

View more in the APRA Archives »