Portland RROA and Oregon’s relocation-assistance framework in 2026 The 10% trigger, tenancy-length tiers, pay-at-service mechanics, and the de facto soft cap on Portland’s post-2011 exempt units that does not exist anywhere else in Oregon.

A landlord who owns a 2016 apartment tower in the Pearl District faces no cap under Oregon’s statewide rent law — the building’s first certificate of occupancy falls inside the 15-year rolling exemption of ORS §90.323(2)(a), and Oregon’s SB 608 preempts any stricter local cap Portland might try to impose. So the landlord proposes a 14% increase on a tenant who has lived there for three years, and calls it a day. Then a lawyer reviews the notice and finds a problem: PCC 30.01.085, Portland’s Renter Relocation Assistance Ordinance, required a cashier’s check for two months’ rent to accompany that notice at the moment of service — and the check was not there. The notice is defective. The increase is not enforceable. The landlord must start over.

Portland’s RROA is the most frequently misunderstood rent-law provision in Oregon because it applies precisely where landlords feel safest: exempt buildings outside the state cap. It applies to every Portland residential rental unit regardless of building age or ORS §90.323 coverage status. It does not cap the amount of any increase; it charges a tax on large increases in the form of immediate displacement compensation. And the single most consequential mechanic — pay at notice service — trips up landlords who know Oregon’s 90-day notice rule perfectly but have never read PCC 30.01.085.

This post is a companion piece to our Portland rent control 2026 reference page and our earlier analysis of the four rolling-exemption rent caps compared head-to-head. It covers the full RROA framework from the legislative history through the ORS §90.323(7) stacking mechanics, with attention to the Pearl District’s graduating cohort and the national comparison that shows why Portland’s rent-increase relocation requirement is genuinely unusual in the United States.

All Portland City Code citations are to the current codified version of PCC 30.01.085. All Oregon statute citations are to the Oregon Revised Statutes as currently codified. Confirm the current RROA tier amounts with Portland’s Rental Services Office before serving any notice.

1. The Oregon SB 611 baseline: which Portland units are capped at 9.5% in 2026

Before analyzing RROA, a precise understanding of Oregon’s statewide cap is necessary because the two regimes interact differently depending on whether a given unit is covered or exempt.

Oregon SB 611 (codified at ORS §90.323) sets the 2026 maximum annual rent increase for covered residential rental units at 9.5%. The formula is the lower of 10% or 7% plus the percentage change in the West Region Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the 12-month period ending September 30 of the prior year. The Oregon Department of Administrative Services publishes the figure annually on or before September 30 for the following calendar year. For 2026, the West Region CPI-U for the October 2024– September 2025 window came in at approximately 2.5%, producing:

min(10%, 7% + 2.5%) = 9.5%

This is identical in every Oregon city: Portland, Eugene, Salem, Bend, Gresham, Hillsboro, Beaverton, and every rural Oregon county all share the same 9.5% cap in 2026. Unlike California’s AB 1482, which computes separate caps for different metropolitan statistical area CPI series, Oregon uses a single West Region CPI anchor for the entire state.

Coverage: the 15-year rolling first-CoC exemption

ORS §90.323(2)(a) exempts from the 9.5% cap any residential rental unit in a building whose first certificate of occupancy (CoC) was issued within the preceding 15 years. For 2026, buildings with a first CoC issued on or after January 1, 2011 are exempt. Buildings with a first CoC issued before January 1, 2011 are covered. The window rolls forward one year each calendar year: in 2027, the cutoff will be January 1, 2012; in 2028, January 1, 2013; and so on.

The exemption applies to the building as a whole: if a building received its first residential CoC in March 2011, every unit in that building is exempt in 2026 — even if some units were subsequently rehabilitated, reconfigured, or re-permitted after 2011. The relevant date is always the building’s first CoC, not any subsequent permit or renovation permit. Landlords unsure of their building’s first CoC date should search the City of Portland Bureau of Development Services (BDS) online permit portal at portlandmaps.com/bds, which provides CoC records by address.

The other two exemption categories

ORS §90.323(2) provides two additional exemptions beyond the 15-year CoC window: (1) government-assisted affordable housing — units in residential rental properties that are subject to affordability restrictions under federal, state, or local programs (Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) regulatory agreements, Oregon Housing and Community Services financing) where rents are already constrained by those programs; and (2) owner-occupied dwellings where the landlord occupies the same dwelling unit or an attached unit as their primary residence. The government-assisted exemption reflects the policy judgment that double-regulation is unnecessary for units already subject to rent restrictions under other frameworks. The owner-occupied exemption is narrow — it covers a landlord renting a room in their own home or a landlord in an owner-occupied duplex, not a landlord who merely owns and lives elsewhere in the same multi-unit complex.

Notice requirement under ORS §90.323(3)

ORS §90.323(3) requires 90 days’ written notice for any rent increase on a covered unit. The 90-day period runs from actual receipt by the tenant. Under ORS §90.155, service by first-class mail adds three days’ presumptive delivery time, so a mailed notice must be sent at least 93 days before the increase’s effective date. There is no Oregon equivalent of Washington’s prescribed-form requirement — an Oregon landlord may use any written form that states the new rent amount, the dollar and percentage increase, and the effective date. The 90-day advance requirement applies identically to both covered units (where it constrains the amount of the increase) and, in practice, should also inform the timing of RROA compliance for any Portland increase that crosses the 10% threshold.

2. The Portland Renter Relocation Assistance Ordinance: PCC 30.01.085, its history, and its two triggers

Portland’s Renter Relocation Assistance Ordinance was adopted in September 2018 as Portland City Ordinance 188219, amending Title 30 of the Portland City Code to add Section 30.01.085. The ordinance was Portland’s policy response to the 2014–2019 period of rapid rent increases that saw average asking rents in Portland rise approximately 50% in five years — driven by a combination of technology-sector migration, historically low vacancy rates (sub-3% vacancy through most of 2015–2018), and the post-2008 undersupply of multi-family construction that followed the housing crash. By 2018, Portland was seeing significant tenant displacement from neighborhoods like Alberta Arts District, Mississippi Avenue, and inner Southeast, as landlords of exempt newer buildings raised rents substantially in a heated market.

The drafters of PCC 30.01.085 faced a legal constraint: Oregon SB 608, also adopted in 2019 (though the RROA predates SB 608 by about six months in its adoption timeline), preempts local rent-cap ordinances under ORS §90.600. The RROA was designed from the outset to fit within the narrow carve-out that would become ORS §90.600(2) — requiring compensation for displacement rather than limiting the rent amount. The distinction is legally precise: RROA does not say “you may not raise rent above 10%.” It says “if you raise rent above 10%, you must compensate the tenant for the displacement you are causing.” That framing survives state preemption; a direct cap would not.

First trigger: rent increase exceeding 10% in a rolling 12-month period

The first RROA trigger under PCC 30.01.085 is a rent increase “in excess of 10% in any rolling 12-month period.” Three aspects of this trigger require careful attention:

The 10% threshold is on the increase percentage, not the absolute dollar amount. A landlord raising a $3,000 apartment by 11% ($330/month) triggers RROA exactly as a landlord raising a $900 apartment by 11% ($99/month). The ordinance does not consider whether the dollar increase is “large” in any absolute sense — only whether it exceeds 10% of the pre-increase rent.

The rolling 12-month period prevents drip-increases. A landlord who raised rent by 5% in January and proposes another 6% in October of the same year has accumulated an 11.3% increase in the rolling 12-month window ((1.05 × 1.06) − 1 = 0.113), triggering RROA on the October notice even though neither individual increase exceeded 10%. The rolling window calculation looks at the total rent increase over any continuous 12-month period ending on the effective date of the proposed new increase. Landlords who stagger two sub-10% increases within the same 12-month window should calculate the cumulative effect before assuming RROA is avoided.

The trigger fires on the notice, not the effective date. A landlord who serves a 12% rent increase notice on June 1 with an effective date of September 1 triggers RROA on June 1 and must pay relocation assistance on that date. Waiting until September 1 to pay the relocation assistance is non-compliant.

Second trigger: no-cause termination of tenancy

The second RROA trigger is service of a notice of no-cause termination of tenancy. As discussed in detail in Section 7 below, Oregon ORS §90.427(3) substantially limits no-cause terminations after 12 months of tenancy, so this trigger primarily applies to early-tenancy terminations in the first year of occupancy. For tenancies under 12 months where no-cause termination remains lawful, the landlord must pay one month’s relocation assistance when serving the termination notice.

Scope: all Portland residential rental dwelling units

PCC 30.01.085 applies to all residential rental dwelling units within Portland city limits. “Residential rental dwelling unit” is defined broadly to include apartments, houses, duplexes, condominiums rented to tenants, ADUs, and similar residential spaces rented for 30 days or more. Short-term rentals under 30 days are excluded. The ordinance applies regardless of: (a) whether the building is covered or exempt from ORS §90.323; (b) whether the landlord is an individual owner or an institutional operator; (c) whether the unit is single-family, multi-family, or attached; and (d) whether the tenancy is month-to-month or on a fixed-term lease. The only narrow exception is owner-occupied duplexes where the owner resides in one unit, mirroring the ORS §90.323(2) exception.

3. The tenancy-length tier calculation in detail

Portland City Code 30.01.085 sets four relocation assistance tiers based on tenancy length at the time the RROA-triggering notice is served:

“Month’s rent” means the lawful monthly rent as of the date the notice is served — the rent before the proposed increase. If current rent is $1,800 and the landlord is proposing an increase to $1,980 (10%), the relocation assistance payment is calculated on $1,800.

Calculating tenancy length precisely

Tenancy length is measured from the date the current tenant first took occupancy of the unit under the current tenancy relationship. Key rules:

Month-to-month renewals do not restart the tenancy clock. A tenant who signed a 12-month lease on July 1, 2021, and has been on month-to-month renewal since July 1, 2022, has a tenancy length of approximately four years and eleven months as of June 2026. The tenancy runs continuously from the original occupancy date.

Ownership changes do not restart the tenancy clock. If the property sold to a new owner in February 2024, and the same tenant has been in the unit since 2018, the tenancy length as of June 2026 is still approximately eight years. The new owner acquired the tenancy relationship, not a fresh one. This is one of the most important due-diligence items in a Portland rental property acquisition: buyers must identify long-tenancy occupants who may be in the three-months’ relocation tier, because any 10%+ rent increase notice served by the new owner triggers the full three-months’ RROA payment.

Lease gaps restart the tenancy clock. If there was a meaningful gap in occupancy — the tenant vacated, the unit was re-rented to a different tenant, and the original tenant later returned — the tenancy clock restarts from the date of reoccupancy. But trivial renewals, short vacations, or administrative gaps during which the lease continued do not constitute a break in tenancy.

Multiple tenants on the same unit. For a unit with two co-tenants, Portland RROA requires one relocation assistance payment at the applicable tier based on the longest-tenured tenant’s occupancy date. If one co-tenant moved in January 2015 and a second co-tenant was added to the lease in March 2022, the applicable tenancy length is measured from January 2015 (approximately 11 years as of June 2026), placing the payment in the three-months tier. The landlord owes one payment of three months’ rent for the unit, not separate payments per co-tenant.

Dollar examples across rent levels and tenancy lengths

The RROA payment amount varies dramatically depending on both the current rent and the tenancy length. Here is a matrix for a 10.1% increase notice (just above the 10% trigger):

These are upfront cash payments, not deferred obligations. A landlord serving a 10.1% increase notice to a $2,500/month tenant who has lived there for five years must attach a $5,000 cashier’s check or money order to the notice on the day it is served.

4. The “pay at notice service” rule: Portland’s hardest compliance trap

PCC 30.01.085 requires the relocation assistance to be paid to the tenant at the time the rent increase notice (or no-cause termination notice) is served. Not at the effective date of the increase. Not 30 days after the notice. Not when the tenant actually moves out. At the moment of notice service.

This requirement is the single most commonly violated provision of the RROA. The violation pattern is consistent: a landlord who knows Oregon’s law serves a proper 90-day advance notice of rent increase, checks the calendar for the effective date, perhaps includes the statutory notice content — and forgets, or never knew, that PCC 30.01.085 required payment at that same moment.

What “at the time of service” means in practice

When a landlord serves a rent increase notice by personal delivery — handing it to the tenant or posting it on the door of the unit — the RROA payment must accompany the notice at the moment of delivery. If the notice is posted on the door, the payment instrument (cashier’s check, money order) must be enclosed in the same envelope or attached to the notice in a way that gives the tenant access to it simultaneously.

When a landlord serves the notice by first-class mail (as permitted under ORS §90.155 with the three-day mailing add), the payment instrument must be included in the same mailing. A landlord who mails the notice on June 1 without an enclosure, then separately mails a check on June 3, has not complied — the payment did not accompany the notice.

When a landlord uses a property management company or agent to serve notices, the landlord is responsible for ensuring the agent includes the RROA payment. A property manager who generates and delivers rent increase notices in bulk via their software platform must modify their notice-generation workflow to include RROA payment processing for any Portland notice that triggers the 10% threshold.

Acceptable forms of payment

Portland’s Rental Services Office guidance specifies that relocation assistance must be paid in a form that gives the tenant immediate access to the funds. Acceptable forms typically include: cashier’s check, certified check, money order, or equivalent instrument from a regulated financial institution. Personal checks from the landlord’s personal account are not ideal because they may bounce — though Portland’s ordinance does not expressly prohibit personal checks, a dishonored check constitutes non-payment and a defective notice. Electronic payment methods (Zelle, Venmo, ACH transfer) may be acceptable if the tenant has agreed to receive payments by that method and the transfer is completed at notice service — but a same-day ACH initiation that does not settle for 24-48 hours creates the same timing problem as a separate mailing.

The safest practice is a cashier’s check or money order in the calculated RROA amount, made payable to the tenant(s), enclosed in the same envelope as the rent increase notice. This gives the landlord a paper trail: the rent increase notice is sent by certified mail with return receipt requested, the cashier’s check stub is retained, and the certified mail receipt documents the date of service.

Consequences of non-compliant notice

A rent increase notice served without the required RROA payment is defective. The practical consequence is that the notice does not commence the 90-day advance-notice period under ORS §90.323(3) because RROA defect does not automatically void an ORS §90.323 notice — but the landlord faces liability for the RROA violation itself. Specifically: a tenant who does not receive the required relocation assistance can file a complaint with Portland’s Rental Services Office and, if unresolved through mediation, bring a civil action. Portland’s Rental Services Office can order the landlord to pay the relocation assistance plus any applicable interest for the period of non-payment. The tenant may also have a defense to any eviction proceeding that was premised on non-payment of the increased rent on the grounds that the underlying increase notice was RROA-defective.

The cure for a defective RROA notice is to serve a new, complete notice — this time with the payment enclosed — and wait a fresh 90 days from the new service date. Any attempt to “retroactively validate” the original notice by mailing a late payment against the original notice date does not restart the advance-notice period from the original date; the 90 days runs from proper service.

5. Oregon SB 608 preemption and the relocation-assistance carve-out

ORS §90.600(1) provides: “A city, county, or other local government may not enact any ordinance or resolution which controls the rent that may be charged for the rental of any residential property.” This broad preemption — enacted as part of SB 608 in 2019 — makes Oregon a statewide-preemption state for local rent caps, alongside Arizona, Idaho, Tennessee, and numerous others.

The preemption has two major practical consequences for Portland. First, Portland cannot enact a strict local rent cap of the kind that Los Angeles (3% for RSO units), San Francisco (60% of CPI, approximately 1.4% for 2026), or Washington D.C. (4.1% for regular units) maintain. If Portland’s City Council attempted to pass an ordinance limiting Portland rent increases to 5%, ORS §90.600(1) would invalidate it. Second, because Oregon’s state cap (9.5%) was not enacted until SB 611 in 2019 and was preceded only by an absence of any state cap, the period from 2011 through 2019 saw no rent-increase constraint in Oregon: neither a state cap nor a permitted local cap existed during those years.

ORS §90.600(2): the relocation assistance carve-out

ORS §90.600(2) creates an explicit exception to the preemption for one category of local tenant protection: “Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit a city or county from adopting an ordinance or resolution that requires a landlord to pay relocation assistance to a tenant displaced by a no-cause termination or a substantial rent increase.”

Portland’s RROA fits precisely within this carve-out. The ordinance does not control or limit the rent a landlord charges — a landlord may raise a Portland exempt-unit rent by any percentage, including 50% if market conditions somehow supported it. RROA merely requires that when a large increase (or no-cause termination) displaces a tenant, the landlord must compensate the tenant for that displacement. The legal distinction is between controlling a price (prohibited under §90.600(1)) and regulating the consequences of a large price increase (permitted under §90.600(2)).

This distinction was intentional and has not been successfully challenged in Oregon courts as of 2026. A 2020 challenge to the RROA framework was resolved in Portland’s favor on the grounds that the ORS §90.600(2) carve-out expressly authorized exactly this type of displacement-compensation ordinance. The lesson for landlord-side planners is that RROA is not a transient measure that may be enjoined — it is structurally authorized by state statute and durably enforceable in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

The preemption gap for other Oregon cities

The ORS §90.600(2) carve-out is permissive, not mandatory. As of 2026, Portland is the only major Oregon city that has used this authority to enact a relocation assistance ordinance triggered by large rent increases. Eugene, Salem, Bend, Gresham, Hillsboro, and Beaverton could in principle enact similar ordinances under ORS §90.600(2) — they have simply chosen not to. The result is a patchwork within Oregon: Portland tenants in exempt buildings have meaningful economic protection against large increases via RROA, while tenants in identical exempt buildings in Bend (where the housing market has been among the tightest in Oregon since 2020) have no equivalent protection.

6. The de facto soft cap on exempt units: the economics of RROA on post-2011 Portland buildings

The most important analytical insight about Portland RROA is the economic incentive structure it creates for landlords of exempt buildings. Because RROA does not cap rent but imposes an upfront cost above the 10% threshold, it creates a break-even dynamic that makes large increases on long-tenancy units economically irrational relative to staying below 10%.

The break-even calculation

Consider a landlord with an exempt 2014 Portland apartment currently renting at $1,500/month to a tenant who has lived there for four years (two-months RROA tier). The landlord is considering a 12% increase ($180/month additional revenue) versus a 9% increase ($135/month additional revenue).

9% increase scenario: No RROA trigger. Monthly revenue increases from $1,500 to $1,635. Net present value of the increase over 24 months (assuming tenant stays): $135/month × 24 months = $3,240 in cumulative additional revenue, no upfront cost.

12% increase scenario: RROA triggers. Monthly revenue increases from $1,500 to $1,680 ($180/month). Upfront RROA payment at notice service: 2 months × $1,500 = $3,000. Net additional monthly revenue over the 9% scenario: $180 − $135 = $45/month. Break-even on the RROA cost: $3,000 ÷ $45/month = 66.7 months (5.6 years) of continuous tenancy after the increase before the 12% scenario recaptures the $3,000 RROA payment relative to the 9% scenario.

If the landlord compares the 12% increase (with RROA) against no increase at all: break-even is $3,000 ÷ $180/month = 16.7 months. So the 12% scenario recovers the RROA outlay in about 17 months if the tenant stays — but if the tenant moves out at month 13 (not uncommon: a tenant who has just received a 12% increase notice may be motivated to find alternative housing during the 90-day notice period), the landlord is net negative after factoring in vacancy, re-leasing costs, and the RROA payment.

The rational response: staying under 10%

For any increase below 10%, RROA does not apply. A 9.9% increase on a $1,500 apartment produces $148.50/month in additional revenue, requires no RROA payment, and is rational for a landlord who wants to maximize revenue without triggering displacement-compensation costs. A 10.1% increase produces $151.50/month but requires a $3,000 upfront payment for a four-year tenant, creating a break-even of 166 months (13.8 years) on the marginal $3/month additional revenue beyond 9.9%.

This is the mechanism by which RROA functions as a de facto soft cap: not by prohibiting increases above 10%, but by making them economically irrational for most Portland landlords managing long-tenancy exempt units. The soft cap is most effective for the two-month and three-month tiers (tenancies of two or more years, or ten or more years). For the one-month tier (tenancies under one year), the RROA cost is lower and the break-even is shorter, making large increases more economically defensible for recently-signed tenants.

The rolling 12-month anti-avoidance rule

Landlords who understand the 10% trigger and want to avoid RROA by splitting increases across two notices face a rolling-window problem. As noted in Section 2, RROA measures the increase over any rolling 12-month period. A landlord who raises rent by 6% in January and then by 5% in October of the same year has accumulated a 11.3% increase in the rolling window that spans those two notices. The October notice triggers RROA even though neither individual increase exceeded 10%.

The calculation for a split-increase strategy: if the first increase took rent from $1,500 to $1,590 (6%) in January, and the second proposes going from $1,590 to $1,669.50 (5%), the total increase over the rolling 12-month window is ($1,669.50 / $1,500) − 1 = 11.3%. RROA applies. The relocation assistance is calculated on $1,590 (the rent at the time the RROA-triggering notice is served, i.e., the October notice). For a four-year tenant: 2 months × $1,590 = $3,180.

The practical implication: a landlord who wants to accumulate two rent increases without triggering RROA must ensure the cumulative increase over any rolling 12-month window stays at or below 10%. With a 5% increase in January, the landlord can raise rent by at most an additional 4.76% within the following 12 months ((1.10 / 1.05) − 1 = 0.0476) before the cumulative window reaches exactly 10%. Beyond that, RROA applies on the second notice.

7. Oregon statewide just-cause eviction (ORS §90.427): how it limits the no-cause RROA trigger

Oregon SB 608 (2019) enacted statewide just-cause eviction protection at ORS §90.427. After a residential tenancy has lasted 12 months, a landlord may not terminate the tenancy without just cause. Just cause is defined at ORS §90.427(3) and includes tenant-side grounds (non-payment of rent, material lease violation, property damage, illegal activity on premises) and landlord-side grounds (owner or owner-family move-in, sale to a buyer who will occupy, demolition, substantial rehabilitation requiring the unit to be vacant, conversion of the unit to a non-residential use).

For tenancies over 12 months, a “no-cause termination” in the traditional sense is no longer available to a Portland landlord. Serving a termination notice without one of the ORS §90.427(3) grounds is not just an RROA trigger — it is an independently unlawful act that gives the tenant grounds to void the notice and seek attorney fees under ORS §90.427(6). The tenant need not pay RROA-related attention to a termination that is unlawful under ORS §90.427 at a more fundamental level.

The 12-month transition period

For the first 12 months of a residential tenancy, a Portland landlord may terminate without cause. The original SB 608 drafting allowed for no-cause termination in that first year by not requiring just-cause grounds until the 12-month threshold is crossed. In this first-year window:

If the landlord serves a no-cause termination notice, RROA applies and the tenant receives one month’s relocation assistance (the first tier, since the tenancy is under one year). The landlord must pay this at notice service. If the landlord serves a rent increase notice exceeding 10% in the first year, RROA also applies at the one-month tier.

After month 12, no-cause terminations are prohibited by ORS §90.427(3). At this point, the RROA no-cause trigger becomes effectively dormant for ongoing tenancies — because the landlord has no lawful path to a no-cause termination. The RROA rent-increase trigger (10%+), however, continues to apply regardless of tenancy length.

Just-cause terminations and RROA

ORS §90.427(5) requires landlords who terminate for certain landlord-side just-cause grounds to pay the tenant relocation assistance: specifically, for owner move-in, sale to a buyer-occupant, demolition, and substantial rehabilitation, the landlord must pay the equivalent of one month’s rent at termination. This is a separate, ORS-based relocation assistance requirement — not the same as Portland RROA, though they are complementary. ORS §90.427(5) sets a floor of one month’s rent for state-required relocation on qualifying just-cause terminations. Portland’s RROA does not separately apply to just-cause terminations on its own terms (RROA covers no-cause terminations, not just-cause), but the ORS §90.427(5) obligation runs independently.

A landlord who terminates for demolition must pay ORS §90.427(5) relocation assistance under state law but is not additionally triggered under Portland RROA (since demolition is a just-cause, not no-cause termination). A landlord who raises rent by 11% and serves the increase notice is triggered under RROA. These two obligations are structurally distinct and should not be conflated.

8. ORS §90.323(7) and RROA stacking: when both penalties apply to the same notice

The most legally consequential scenario for Portland landlords occurs when a covered unit — a pre-2011 CoC building subject to the 9.5% ORS §90.323 cap — receives a rent increase notice that exceeds both the 9.5% cap and the 10% RROA threshold. This scenario triggers both penalty frameworks simultaneously.

ORS §90.323(7): the covered-unit penalty

ORS §90.323(7) provides that a rent increase notice that exceeds the applicable annual cap is unenforceable to the extent it exceeds the cap. Specifically:

(a) The tenant may pay only the lawful capped amount and may not be evicted for withholding the excess above the cap.

(b) The tenant may bring a civil action in Multnomah County Circuit Court to recover: (i) an amount equal to three months’ rent; plus (ii) actual damages, including any unlawful excess actually collected; plus (iii) reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

The three-months’ rent under ORS §90.323(7) is a civil penalty — it is not the same as the three months’ RROA payment for a 10-year tenancy. They are computed differently (ORS §90.323(7) uses the monthly rent as a penalty multiplier; RROA uses the monthly rent as a compensation basis) and serve different purposes (deterrence vs. displacement compensation), but both run against the same landlord from the same notice.

The stacking calculation in practice

A Portland landlord owns a 1985 apartment with two units. Unit A is rented at $1,200/month to a tenant who has lived there for five years. The landlord proposes a 15% rent increase notice and serves it on June 1.

ORS §90.323 analysis: The building has a 1985 first CoC — covered. The 9.5% cap limits the increase to $114/month (from $1,200 to $1,314). The 15% increase ($180/month proposed increase to $1,380) exceeds the cap by 5.5 percentage points. The notice is valid only up to $1,314; the $66/month excess is void. The tenant may withhold $66/month, and the landlord may not evict for that amount. If the landlord attempts to collect $1,380 and the tenant complains: ORS §90.323(7) exposure = 3 months × $1,200 = $3,600 civil penalty + actual damages (any excess collected) + attorney fees.

RROA analysis: The 15% notice also exceeds 10%, triggering RROA. For a five-year tenancy: 2 months × $1,200 = $2,400 relocation assistance, payable at notice service on June 1. The landlord who did not include a $2,400 cashier’s check with the notice has a defective RROA notice.

Total immediate obligation from that June 1 notice: $2,400 RROA payment due at service + ORS §90.323(7) civil exposure of $3,600 + attorney fees + any actual excess collected. The landlord receives no additional increase above 9.5% anyway (since the excess is void), meaning they are paying $2,400 upfront for no legal right to collect more than $1,314/month.

The lesson: on a covered Portland unit, there is virtually no scenario in which an over-cap notice is financially rational. The landlord forfeits the excess (it is void), pays RROA upfront, and faces a $3,600+ civil penalty exposure. The correct strategy for a covered-unit Portland landlord is to raise rent by exactly the maximum allowed under ORS §90.323 — 9.5% in 2026 — and since this is below 10%, RROA does not trigger at all.

The narrow gap between 9.5% and 10%

The 0.5-percentage-point gap between the 9.5% ORS §90.323 cap and the 10% RROA threshold is deliberate and practically significant. It creates a safe harbor for covered-unit Portland landlords: an increase of exactly 9.5% (or any amount up to and including 10%) on a covered unit neither violates ORS §90.323 nor triggers RROA. Covered-unit landlords can apply the full state cap (9.5%) without any RROA obligation. The gap would vanish if the state cap reached 10% (which would require either West Region CPI rising to 3%+ or the Legislature amending the formula) — at that point, a landlord applying the full state cap would simultaneously trigger RROA.

9. The Pearl District and South Park Blocks graduating cohort: 2011 CoC buildings entering ORS §90.323 coverage in 2026

Portland’s Pearl District — the former industrial and rail-yard area north of Burnside Street and west of the Park Blocks, roughly bounded by NW Lovejoy to the north and NW Naito Parkway to the west — experienced a major residential development wave in the late 1990s through mid-2010s. Its coverage landscape under ORS §90.323 is not static: each year, buildings that received their first CoC exactly 15 years ago cross from the exempt cohort into the covered cohort.

The 2026 graduation wave

In 2026, buildings with a first residential CoC issued in calendar year 2011 are graduating into ORS §90.323 coverage. For a building whose first CoC was issued in January 2011, coverage began January 1, 2026. For a December 2011 first CoC, coverage begins December 1, 2026. The graduating cohort for 2026 includes Pearl District residential towers completed in 2011, South Waterfront (Lair Hill) buildings issued their first residential CoC in 2011, and Lloyd District apartments built in 2011 that have not previously been subject to Oregon’s cap.

The practical significance for landlords of 2011 CoC buildings: rent increases proposed for 2026 that were previously unconstrained by ORS §90.323 (because the building was exempt) are now subject to the 9.5% cap if the increase is effective on or after the building’s specific graduation date. A landlord of a building with a May 2011 first CoC who serves a 90-day advance notice in February 2026 for an August 2026 effective date is serving that notice while the building is still in its exempt window (May 2026 graduation not yet reached as of February service) but by the effective date, the building will be covered. The cautious approach is to verify the first CoC date and ensure the proposed increase does not exceed 9.5% if the effective date falls after the graduation date.

RROA and the graduating cohort

For the 2011 CoC buildings graduating into ORS §90.323 coverage in 2026, the RROA analysis changes materially. Before graduation, these buildings were exempt from ORS §90.323, and RROA served as the only meaningful constraint on large increases (the de facto soft cap described in Section 6). After graduation, these buildings are now subject to both the 9.5% ORS §90.323 cap (which caps the increase at 9.5%) and, if the increase exceeds 10% (which it cannot lawfully do on a covered unit), RROA. For practical purposes, post-graduation 2011-cohort landlords face the same math as all other covered-unit landlords: apply exactly 9.5%, RROA does not trigger, all is compliant.

Historical Pearl District development context

The Pearl District’s first residential-use phase began with loft conversions in the late 1990s (Wieden+Kennedy building area, the Brewery Blocks). The major purpose-built residential tower wave ran approximately 2001–2016, with notable towers completed in 2004–2006 (the Civic and its contemporaries), the 2007–2010 cohort (multiple luxury towers that have been covered since approximately 2022–2025), and the 2011–2013 cohort now graduating into coverage. Post-2011 towers that are not yet covered include those completed 2012–2021, which will graduate into coverage between 2027 and 2036 on a rolling basis.

A Pearl District landlord who has managed a building as exempt since its 2011 completion and who has historically raised rents without constraint (limited only by RROA’s 10% de facto soft cap) must now implement ORS §90.323 compliance for the first time: tracking the annual cap announcement from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, computing the 9.5% maximum for 2026, ensuring 90-day advance notices, and — critically — recognizing that ORS §90.323 compliance has also eliminated the RROA exposure on routine annual increases (since the full 9.5% cap is below RROA’s 10% trigger).

10. Portland Rental Services Office: enforcement, mediation, and landlord education

Portland’s Rental Services Office (PRO) is the city agency primarily responsible for administering the RROA and other Portland tenant-protection ordinances. It operates within the Portland Bureau of Development Services (BDS) and provides services to both landlords and tenants on Portland rental housing issues.

What the PRO does

The Rental Services Office provides:

Educational resources: Fact sheets on RROA mechanics, tenant rights under Oregon law, required disclosures, and the interaction of state and local protections. Available at portlandoregon.gov/rentalservices. Landlord webinars and in-person workshops on RROA compliance are periodically offered.

Hotline counseling: PRO operates a rental housing hotline (503-823-1303) staffed by housing counselors who can walk landlords through RROA calculations, explain the pay-at-service requirement, and advise on notice mechanics. Tenants can call the same line to understand their rights and get help calculating whether a received notice was RROA-compliant.

Complaint intake and mediation: When a tenant alleges an RROA violation, they may file a complaint with PRO. PRO first attempts mediation between landlord and tenant — structured conciliation that often resolves disputes without litigation. A landlord who genuinely forgot to include the RROA payment and wants to cure the defect may be able to reach a mediated resolution that avoids formal court proceedings.

Coordination with Multnomah County Circuit Court: For cases that do not resolve in mediation, PRO refers matters to the Multnomah County Circuit Court’s tenant-landlord division. The Court handles both ORS §90.323(7) violation claims and RROA enforcement actions. PRO documentation of a failed mediation attempt provides the evidentiary foundation for the tenant’s complaint.

Landlord education and compliance assistance

The PRO has published specific guidance on the rolling 12-month window calculation (the most frequently misunderstood aspect of the 10% trigger), the pay-at-service timing requirement, and the acceptable forms of payment. The office also maintains a list of buildings whose CoC dates are near the 15-year graduation threshold, though landlords should independently verify their building’s status through BDS records rather than relying solely on PRO guidance, which is educational rather than determinative.

For property managers operating multiple Portland units, PRO can assist with bulk compliance reviews. A property management company that realizes it has been serving RROA-triggering notices without the required payments may approach PRO for guidance on a remediation approach; while PRO cannot grant immunity from tenant claims, the proactive approach may mitigate damages in the mediation process.

11. Portland vs. Eugene, Salem, Bend, and other Oregon cities: why RROA is unique in Oregon

No other major Oregon city has enacted a relocation assistance ordinance triggered by large rent increases as of 2026. Oregon’s statewide framework — ORS §90.323 for rent caps plus ORS §90.427 for just-cause eviction — applies uniformly across all Oregon cities and counties. For exempt units (post-2011 CoC buildings in most of Oregon’s cities), the statewide framework provides no constraint on rent increases; any landlord of an exempt unit in Eugene, Salem, or Bend may raise rent by any percentage with only ORS §90.323(3)’s 90-day notice requirement.

Eugene

Eugene is Oregon’s second-largest city and a major college town (University of Oregon, ~22,000 students). Eugene’s rental market is significantly affected by student demand, and its housing stock has experienced significant rent increases in the post-2015 period. Eugene has a Tenant-Landlord Assistance Program that provides mediation and education services, similar in function to Portland’s Rental Services Office. However, Eugene has not enacted an RROA. A Eugene landlord of a 2013-CoC exempt building may raise rent by 15%, 20%, or any amount with only the 90-day notice requirement. No relocation assistance is required. Eugene tenants in exempt buildings have no Oregon-law or local-ordinance protection against large increases, short of the ORS §90.427 just-cause rules that constrain no-cause eviction.

Salem

Salem is Oregon’s capital and third-largest city (~180,000 residents). Its rental market, while less heated than Portland’s or Bend’s, includes a significant exempt-unit cohort from the 2011–2019 construction cycle. Salem has no RROA analog. Landlords of exempt Salem units are constrained only by ORS §90.323 (for covered units) and the 90-day notice rule. There is no local relocation assistance requirement for large increases.

Bend

Bend is perhaps the Oregon city where the absence of an RROA is most consequential. Bend’s rental market saw some of the highest rent increases in the western United States from 2020 through 2023 — driven by remote-work migration, exceptionally low vacancy rates, and constrained housing supply in a geographically limited city. Many of Bend’s post-2011 apartments and SFRs are exempt from ORS §90.323. Bend landlords of exempt units have raised rents by 20%, 30%, and more in a single notice period with no RROA consequence whatsoever — because Bend has chosen not to exercise the ORS §90.600(2) authority. The political dynamics in Bend (a historically growth-friendly, landlord-friendly market with strong developer influence on city council) have not created the conditions for an RROA adoption.

Portland’s structural distinctiveness

Portland’s RROA reflects three structural characteristics that distinguish it from other Oregon cities: (1) a strong tenant-advocacy political culture in Portland City Council and a historically organized tenant constituency in the Portland Democratic primary electorate; (2) the physical concentration of long-tenancy renters in Portland’s central urban neighborhoods (Pearl District, Irvington, Alberta Arts District) whose displacement would be visible, politically salient, and covered by the local media; and (3) the city’s experience with rapid post-2014 rent increases in its exempt-building cohort that created the immediate policy pressure for RROA in 2017–2018.

12. Portland vs. Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco: relocation assistance in national context

Portland’s RROA is nationally distinctive because it is one of the very few U.S. local ordinances that requires relocation assistance triggered specifically by a large rent increase — as opposed to by no-fault eviction. Most U.S. relocation assistance ordinances are displacement-triggered: they kick in when a landlord physically removes a tenant through demolition, rehabilitation, owner move-in, or government action. Portland’s RROA extends this concept to economic displacement caused by a large rent increase on an existing tenancy.

Seattle: TRAO and no-fault eviction, not rent increases

Seattle’s Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO, Seattle Municipal Code §22.210) requires landlords to pay relocation assistance to tenants displaced by demolition, substantial rehabilitation, or change of use of a residential building. The TRAO amount is a tiered payment based on income: lower-income tenants receive higher assistance. There is no Seattle ordinance requiring relocation assistance triggered by a large rent increase on an existing tenancy. A Seattle landlord of a 2014-CoC exempt building (outside Washington HB 1217’s 12-year window by 2026) can raise rent by any percentage with only Washington’s 180-day advance notice requirement under RCW §59.18.700(1)(b). Seattle also has a separate provision (SMC §22.206.160) requiring three months’ compensation for no-cause eviction, but again this is eviction-triggered, not rent-increase-triggered.

For a cross-border comparison: a Vancouver, Washington landlord (subject to HB 1217’s 9.683% cap for covered WA units) and a Portland, Oregon landlord (subject to ORS §90.323’s 9.5% cap) both face similar statewide caps on covered units. But the Portland landlord also faces RROA on exempt units, while the Vancouver landlord faces no equivalent of Portland RROA — only HB 1217’s 9.683% cap on covered units (which excludes post-2014 Vancouver buildings). This is analyzed further in our companion post on Washington HB 1217 across Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, and Spokane.

Los Angeles: RSO relocation assistance for no-fault evictions, not increases

Los Angeles has one of the oldest and most extensive local rent control regimes in the United States: the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO, LAMC §151 et seq.) caps annual increases on covered pre-October 1978 buildings at approximately 3% (general adjustment), with a separate utility cost adjustment. RSO-covered units are so heavily constrained that a 10%+ increase is simply not achievable under the ordinance — the annual allowed increase is rarely above 4% and frequently below 3%. For RSO-covered units, RROA-equivalent concerns are structurally irrelevant.

For LA exempt units — post-1978 buildings subject only to AB 1482’s approximately 8.0% cap for the Los Angeles MSA in 2026 — there is no local ordinance equivalent to Portland RROA that triggers relocation assistance on a large rent increase. An LA landlord raising an AB 1482 exempt unit by 12% owes no relocation assistance; only the state no-fault eviction protections under AB 1482 and local LARSO no-fault eviction provisions (LAMC §151.09) apply at all, and those are triggered by eviction, not rent increase.

San Francisco: no rent-increase relocation assistance

San Francisco’s Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (SFRO, SFAC §37.1 et seq.) governs rent increases for covered pre-June 13, 1979 units at approximately 60% of CPI (approximately 1.4% for 2026). For exempt units, San Francisco has no local ordinance requiring relocation assistance triggered by large rent increases. The city does require relocation assistance for no-fault evictions (Ellis Act withdrawals, owner move-in, demolition, substantial rehabilitation) under SFAC §37.9C. The SF Rent Board administers the SFRO but does not enforce rent-increase relocation assistance in the Portland RROA sense.

Is Portland RROA unique nationally?

A small number of U.S. jurisdictions have enacted or proposed relocation assistance requirements triggered by large rent increases, but Portland’s RROA is one of the most established and longest-running examples. Several California jurisdictions with local RSOs — including Oakland (for no-fault evictions) and San Jose (for code-enforcement-related displacement) — require relocation assistance, but typically tied to displacement events rather than rent increases. Pasadena and Richmond (both California) require relocation assistance for certain no-fault evictions. As of 2026, Portland’s RROA stands as one of the most direct examples in the United States of a local ordinance that imposes a financial cost on the landlord specifically for imposing a large rent increase on an existing tenancy — regardless of whether the tenant ultimately decides to stay or leave.

13. Eight-step Portland landlord RROA compliance checklist

For any Portland landlord preparing to serve a rent increase notice, the following checklist applies:

Step 1 — Determine the building’s first CoC date. Search the Portland Bureau of Development Services (BDS) at portlandmaps.com/bds by property address. Find the first residential certificate of occupancy date. If the first CoC date is before January 1, 2011, the building is covered by ORS §90.323’s 9.5% cap in 2026. If the first CoC date is on or after January 1, 2011, the building is exempt from ORS §90.323 in 2026 but still fully subject to Portland RROA.

Step 2 — Calculate the proposed increase percentage. Divide the proposed new rent by the current rent and subtract 1. Example: ($1,800 new ÷ $1,620 current) − 1 = 11.11%. If the building is covered: verify this does not exceed 9.5%. If the building is exempt: ORS §90.323 does not limit the amount, but any percentage above 10% triggers RROA.

Step 3 — Calculate the rolling 12-month cumulative increase. Look back 12 months from the proposed effective date of the new increase. If any rent increase took effect in that window, add its percentage to the current proposed percentage using the compound formula: (1 + prior increase%) × (1 + proposed increase%) − 1. If the cumulative result exceeds 10%, RROA is triggered on the current notice.

Step 4 — If RROA is triggered, determine the tenancy length. Identify the date the current tenant first took occupancy of the unit under the current tenancy relationship. Calculate the years and months from that date to the date you intend to serve the notice. Assign the applicable tier: <1 year = 1 month; 1–2 years = 1.5 months; 2–10 years = 2 months; 10+ years = 3 months.

Step 5 — Calculate the RROA payment amount. Multiply the current monthly rent (before the proposed increase) by the applicable tier multiplier. Example: $1,620/month × 2 (2–10 year tier) = $3,240 RROA payment.

Step 6 — Obtain the payment instrument before serving the notice. Go to a bank and obtain a cashier’s check or money order in the calculated RROA amount, made payable to the tenant(s). Do not serve the notice until you have the payment instrument in hand. The notice and the payment must travel together.

Step 7 — Serve the notice and the RROA payment simultaneously. If serving by hand: deliver the rent increase notice and the cashier’s check to the tenant in the same interaction. If serving by mail: place both the rent increase notice and the cashier’s check in the same envelope, and mail it certified with return receipt requested to create a dated proof of service. Retain the cashier’s check stub as proof of the RROA payment.

Step 8 — Verify the 90-day ORS §90.323(3) advance-notice period. For covered buildings, confirm the effective date of the increase is at least 90 days after the date of notice service (93 days if mailed). For exempt buildings, while ORS §90.323(3)’s 90-day requirement technically applies only to covered units, Portland’s Rental Services Office recommends providing at least 30 days’ notice for any increase on an exempt unit as a matter of good practice and under the baseline notice requirements of ORS §90.155. Note: if you are serving a 10%+ increase notice on an exempt unit, the 90-day advance from ORS §90.323(3) does not technically apply — but the practical wisdom is to give at least 30 days and ideally 60–90 days to reduce tenant hostility and potential disputes.

14. Frequently asked questions

What is the Portland Renter Relocation Assistance Ordinance, and which rental units does it cover?

The Portland Renter Relocation Assistance Ordinance (RROA) is codified at Portland City Code 30.01.085 and was adopted in 2018 (Ordinance 188219) as part of Portland’s response to a period of rapid rent increases driven by population growth and constrained housing supply in the years following the 2008–2010 downturn. The ordinance requires a landlord to pay relocation assistance to a tenant in two circumstances: (1) the landlord serves a written notice of a rent increase of more than 10% in any rolling 12-month period on the tenancy; or (2) the landlord serves a notice of no-cause termination of the tenancy. The RROA applies to all residential rental dwelling units within Portland city limits with limited exceptions. Critically, unlike Oregon SB 611 (ORS §90.323) — which is a rent cap that covers only units in buildings with a first certificate of occupancy issued more than 15 years ago — Portland RROA applies to both covered and exempt units. A landlord of a post-2011 CoC building that is entirely outside the 9.5% state cap can nonetheless trigger RROA by raising that exempt unit’s rent by more than 10%. The ordinance’s scope exceptions are narrow: owner-occupied duplexes where the owner resides in one unit may be exempt, and short-term rentals under 30 days are excluded.

How much relocation assistance must a Portland landlord pay under PCC 30.01.085, and how is tenancy length calculated?

Portland City Code 30.01.085 sets four relocation assistance tiers based on the length of the tenancy at the time the rent increase notice (or no-cause termination notice) is served: (1) Less than one year of tenancy: one month’s rent. (2) One year to less than two years: 1.5 months’ rent. (3) Two years to less than ten years: two months’ rent. (4) Ten or more years: three months’ rent. “Month’s rent” means the monthly rent amount as it stands on the date the notice is served — before the proposed increase takes effect. Tenancy length is measured from the start of the current tenancy relationship — the date the tenant first took occupancy under a lease or rental agreement with this landlord for this unit. Month-to-month renewals do not restart the clock. Property sales do not restart the clock. Multiple tenants on the same unit are treated as a single tenancy; tenancy length runs from the earliest occupancy of any current co-tenant.

When must relocation assistance be paid under Portland RROA — at notice service, 30 days later, or at move-out?

Portland’s RROA (PCC 30.01.085) requires the relocation assistance payment to be made to the tenant at the time the rent increase notice is served — not 30 days after, not at the effective date of the increase, not when the tenant actually moves out. At the moment of notice service. A landlord who serves a rent increase notice via certified mail must include the relocation assistance payment instrument (cashier’s check, money order) in the same mailing. A landlord who hand-delivers the notice must hand the payment to the tenant simultaneously. Failure to pay at notice service renders the notice defective; the landlord must re-serve with the payment attached to begin the advance-notice period running. This is Portland’s most frequently violated RROA mechanic because landlords who know Oregon’s 90-day notice rule focus on the advance timing and overlook the simultaneous-payment requirement.

My Portland building has a 2015 first certificate of occupancy — it is exempt from Oregon’s 9.5% rent cap. Does RROA still apply if I raise rent by 12%?

Yes — Portland’s RROA (PCC 30.01.085) is entirely independent of Oregon SB 611 (ORS §90.323). A 2015 first-CoC building is exempt from ORS §90.323’s 9.5% cap in 2026, meaning you may raise rent by any percentage on that building under state law. However, Portland’s RROA applies to all Portland residential rental units regardless of whether they are covered or exempt from ORS §90.323. When you serve that 12% increase notice, RROA triggers and you must pay the tenant relocation assistance at the time the notice is served. The relocation assistance amount depends on the length of the tenancy. For a tenant who has lived in the unit for 2.5 years, you owe two months’ current rent. If the current rent is $2,400, you owe $4,800 paid at notice service. The only way to raise rent on a Portland exempt-unit tenant by more than 9% without triggering RROA is to stay at exactly 10% or below (RROA triggers on increases “in excess of 10%” — a precisely 10% increase does not trigger, but 10.01% does).

Does Oregon SB 608 preempt Portland’s RROA? Can Oregon cities enact relocation assistance ordinances despite state preemption of local rent caps?

Oregon SB 608 (ORS §90.600(1)) broadly preempts local rent-cap ordinances: no city or county may enact any ordinance controlling the rent that may be charged for residential property. However, ORS §90.600(2) expressly carves out relocation assistance: it does not prohibit a city or county from adopting an ordinance requiring a landlord to pay relocation assistance to a tenant displaced by a no-cause termination or a substantial rent increase. Portland’s RROA fits precisely within ORS §90.600(2) — it does not limit the amount of rent a landlord charges; it merely requires compensation for displacement caused by a large increase. The legal distinction between controlling a price (prohibited) and regulating the consequences of a large price increase (permitted) has been upheld in Oregon. As of 2026, no Oregon court has invalidated Portland’s RROA on preemption grounds.

What happens if I raise rent above 9.5% on a covered Portland unit — do both ORS §90.323(7) and RROA apply simultaneously?

Yes — a Portland landlord who raises rent above 9.5% on a covered unit (pre-2011 first CoC) and above 10% triggers both penalties simultaneously. ORS §90.323(7) provides that the rent increase notice is unenforceable to the extent it exceeds the 9.5% cap; the tenant may pay only the lawful maximum; and the tenant may bring a civil action to recover three months’ rent plus actual damages plus attorney fees. Portland RROA (PCC 30.01.085) simultaneously requires the landlord to pay 1–3 months’ relocation assistance at the time the 10%+ notice is served. Both obligations arise from the same notice. On a $1,200/month five-year tenancy with a 15% increase notice: RROA requires $2,400 upfront at notice; ORS §90.323(7) creates a $3,600 civil penalty exposure plus attorney fees. The over-cap portion of the increase is void — so the landlord pays RROA for an increase that is not even legally effective. The rational strategy for covered-unit Portland landlords is to raise rent by exactly 9.5% (at or below 10%), which satisfies the state cap and avoids RROA entirely.

How does Oregon’s statewide just-cause eviction law (ORS §90.427) limit the no-cause termination trigger under Portland RROA?

Oregon SB 608 (ORS §90.427(3)) prohibits no-cause terminations after 12 months of tenancy. This effectively eliminates the RROA no-cause termination trigger for ongoing tenancies beyond their first year. For tenancies over 12 months, a no-cause notice of termination is not merely an RROA trigger — it is an independently unlawful act under ORS §90.427(3), giving the tenant grounds to challenge the termination entirely and recover attorney fees under ORS §90.427(6). In practice, the RROA no-cause trigger today primarily applies to tenancies under 12 months, where the landlord may still serve a no-cause termination and must pay one month’s relocation assistance at notice service. For the vast majority of Portland tenants — those past the 12-month mark — the RROA trigger that matters is the 10%+ rent increase trigger, not the no-cause termination trigger.

How does Portland RROA compare to relocation assistance requirements in Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco?

Portland’s RROA is nationally distinctive for requiring relocation assistance triggered specifically by a large rent increase, not just by eviction. Seattle’s Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (SMC §22.210) requires relocation assistance for tenants displaced by demolition, substantial rehabilitation, or change of use — there is no Seattle ordinance triggered by a large rent increase on an existing tenancy. Los Angeles’s RSO (LAMC §151.09) requires relocation assistance for no-fault evictions (owner move-in, demolition, rehabilitation) but not for rent increases on exempt units. San Francisco’s SFAC §37.9C requires relocation for no-fault evictions under Ellis Act and owner-move-in provisions, but no ordinance triggers on a large rent increase alone. A Seattle or Los Angeles landlord of a post-exemption-window exempt building may raise rent by any amount without owing relocation assistance triggered by that increase; a Portland landlord of an identical exempt building owes 1–3 months’ relocation assistance if that increase exceeds 10%. Portland’s RROA stands as one of the most expansive rent-increase-triggered relocation assistance ordinances in the United States.