From: Jose Lopez <
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 7: 50: 31 PM
To: acardenas@chulavistaca. gov < acardenas@chulavistaca. gov> Subject: Suggested amendments for Chula Vista TPO
Dear Council member Cardenas,
Sorry for sending this until now. Thank you for trying to help protect tenants from No Fault evictions.
Here are some recommended amendments we would like to see, in order to improve the TPO.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Jose Lopez
Director
ACCE San Diego
Warning:
External
Email
WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Lopez - Received10/25/22
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 9.65 OF THE CHULA VISTA
MUNICIPAL CODE
I. IMPOSE AN UNEQUIVOCAL RIGHT TO RETURN AT THE SAME RENT
FOLLOWING ALL NO- FAULT EVICTIONS, INCLUDING SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION.
Section 9.65.030 (Residential Rental Complex definition) – Delete in its entirety.
Section 9.65.070(B)(1) – Alter asfollows:
1. No Fault Terminations Tenancy in Unit in a Residential Rental Complex.
When an Owner terminates a Tenancy of a Residential Rental Unit in a Residential Rental Complex for No-Fault Just Cause, the Owner shall provide notice and relocation assistanceto the Tenant as follows:
Section 9.65.070(B)( 1)(a)(iii) – Alter as follows:
iii. Notice of Right to Receive Future Offer Return. The Tenant’s right to receive an offer to renew the Tenancyon the sameterms in the event that the Residential Rental Unit is offered again for rent or leasefor residential purposes within two (2) ten (10) yearsof the date the Tenantvacatedthe Residential Rental Unit was withdrawn from the rental market, and that to exercise such right, the Tenant: (a) must notify the Owner in writing within sixty (60) thirty ( 30) days of the termination notice vacating the Residential Rental Unit of such desire to consider an offer to renew the Tenancyin the event that the Residential Rental Unit is offered again for rent or leasefor residential purposes; (b) furnish the Owner with an addressor email addressto which that offer is to be directed; (c) and advise the Owner if they want the offer directed to a different addressor email addressat any time of a changeof addressto which an offer is to be directed.
Section 9.65.070(B)(2) – Delete in its entirety.
Section 9.65.070(C)(5) – alter asfollows:
5. If the Residential Rental Unit in a Residential Rental Complex is offered for rent or lease for residential purposes within two ( 2) ten (10) years of the date the Tenancy was terminated Tenant vacated the Residential Rental Unit, the Owner shall first offer the unit for rent or lease to the Tenant displaced from that unit by the No Fault JustCausetermination if the Tenant (a) advised the Owner in writing within sixty ( 60) thirty ( 30) days of the termination notice of the Tenant vacating the Residential Rental Unit of the Tenant’s desire to consider an offer to renew the Tenancy; and (b) furnished the Owner with an addressor email addressto which that offer is to be directed. The Owner shall offer to renew the tenancy on the same terms in effect at the time of termination. The Owner shall have the right to WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Lopez - Received10/25/22
screen the Tenant using industry accepted methods and shall communicate such minimum screening criteria in the offer for the new Tenancy, subject to the terms of any attendantAdministrative regulations.
II. IMPLEMENT ALL OF THE ELLIS ACT’ S AUTHORIZED PROTECTIONS.
Section 9.65.070(C)( 6)– Delete in its entirety
Section 8.65.075 – Add Section below:
A. System of Control on Rents. The city of Chula Vista adopts California Civil Code section 1947.12 and PenalCode section 396 asits local systemof control on rents. This section does not impose any rent limitations on Landlords that are not already applicable under statelaw.
Ellis Act Regulations – Chula Vista Should Adopt a comprehensiveEllis Act Implementation Ordinance. ACCE provided language for an Ellis Ordinance on May 10, 2022. The City’s Ellis regulations should, at minimum, adopt all protections authorized by the Ellis Act.
III. MANDATE THAT AN OWNER OR RELATIVE MUST INTEND TO LIVE IN
THE UNIT FOR THREE YEARS TO UTILIZE THE OWNER MOVE- IN CAUSE FOR EVICTION.
Section 9.65.060 (C)(1) - Alter asfollows:
1. Intent to Occupy by Owner or Family Member. The tenancy is terminated on the basisthat the Owner or Owner’s Family Member intends to occupy the Residential Rental Unit. For leasesenteredinto on or after July 1, 2020, Intent to occupy by Owner or Family Member shall only be a No Fault Just Causebasisfor termination if the Tenantagrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the leaseallows the owner to terminate the leaseif the Owner of Family Member unilaterally decided to occupy the residential real property. The Owner or their Family Member must in good faith intend to move into the unit within ninety (90) days and occupy the Residential Rental Unit for three consecutive years as their principal residence.
IV. PROHIBIT EVICTIONS FOR FAILING TO ABIDE BY UNAGREED TO LEASE TERMS.
Section 9.65.060(B)( 2) – Alter as follows:
2. A breach of material term of the lease, as described in paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, violation of a provision of the lease after being issued a written notice to correct the violation.
For purposes of this subdivision, a term of a leasethat was unilaterally imposed by the Landlord after the commencement of the tenancy shall not be considered WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Lopez - Received10/25/22
a material term of the lease” unless the change to the lease was required by law or was accepted in writing by the Tenant after being advised in writing that the Tenant need not voluntarily agreeto the change in tenancy.
V. ENACT STRONG REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING MANDATORY TRIPLE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’ S FEES.
Section 9.65.080(D)(1) – Alter as follows:
1. Civil Action. An aggrieved Tenant may institute a civil action for injunctive relief, direct money damages, and any other relief allowed by law, including the assessmentof civil penalties in the amount of no less than $2,000 and no more than $ 5,000 per violation per day, or three times the Tenant’s actual damages including damagesfor mental or emotional distress), whichever is greater.If the aggrieved Tenant is Elderly or Disabled, additional civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation per day may be assessedat the discretion of the court. This remedy is not exclusive A Tenant may also pursue damages as set forth in Section
9.65.070(C)(6) any attendant administrative regulations. The statuteof limitations for all remedies in this subdivision shall be three (3) years. Irreparable harm shall be presumedthrough violation of this chapter.
Section 9.65.080(D)(3) – Alter as follows:
3. Attorney’ s Fees. The court may shall award reasonableattorney’s fees and costs to a party prevailing tenant who prevails in any action described in paragraphs1 and 2 above. The court may award a prevailing owner reasonable attorney’s fees if the Tenant’s action was devoid of merit and brought in bad faith.
Costsshall be awardedaccording to statelaw.
Pleasenote that the code of civil procedure governs unlawful detainer proceedings. As such, local ordinances cannot prescribe attorney’s fees in unlawful detainers.1 For this reasonwe suggestremoving this remedy from the ordinance. 1 Larson v. City & Cty. of S.F., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1263, 1297 (2011) WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Lopez - Received10/25/22
WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Kuta - Received10/25/22
Written Communications
Item6.2 - Kuta - Received10/25/22
From: Victor Cao <
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 1: 50 PM
To: Mary Salas < MSalas@chulavistaca. gov>; John McCann < jmccann@chulavistaca. gov>; Jill Galvez jmgalvez@chulavistaca. gov>; Steve C. Padilla < spadilla@chulavistaca. gov>; Andrea Cardenas acardenas@chulavistaca. gov>
Cc: Kerry Bigelow < KBigelow@chulavistaca. gov>; CityClerk < CityClerk@chulavistaca. gov>; Melanie Woods < Stacey Kurz < SKurz@chulavistaca. gov>
Subject: CAA Oppose Item 6. 2 Tenant Protection Ordinance Mayor Salas and Members of City Council,
CAA has summarized significant legal, operational, and procedural issues with the proposed Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance in the attached letter. CAA recommends that Chula Vista City Council reject the Tenant Protection Ordinance. I would appreciate if the city clerk could enter CAA’s opposition letter into the public record for Item 6. 2 docketed for the October 25, 2022 City Council meeting.
Melanie Woods, CAA’s San Diego Vice President of Public Affairs, is currently out on leave. Please feel free to reach out to me directly if you have any questions about CAA’s concerns.
Respectfully,
VictorCao SeniorVicePresident, LocalPublicAffairs
CaliforniaApartmentAssociation
[email protected] 949-474-1411
Questions about COVID- 19: Visit our Resource Page
CAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening Warning:
External
Email
WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Cao - Received10/25/22
CaliforniaApartment Association
3349MichelsonDrive, Suite200
Irvine, CA92612
October 25, 2022
Mayor Salas
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Oppose Item 6.2 Tenant Protection Ordinance
Mayor Salas & Members of the Chula Vista City Council:
The California Apartment Association (CAA) remainsopposed to the proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance (“TPO”). CAA is the nation’s largeststatewidetrade associationrepresentingowners, investors, developers, managers, and suppliersof rental housing. Our membership is diverse representingindividual "mom-and-pop" owners of rental housing to the largestapartment operators throughout SanDiego County and California. Our membership provides over 70,000 rental homes acrossSanDiego County.
As it hasbeenalreadystated, the Stateof California hasbeenheraldedfor having the “strongest tenant protections in the nation” through the adoption of AB 1482 (Chiu) in 2019. This legislation establisheda statewide, consistentstandardto protect rentersfrom excessiverent increasesand arbitrary evictions. Establishing new lawsand policies will only createinconsistenciesfor landlords, tenants, and courts acrossthe state. CAA haspreviously held constructive discussionswith city staff on methods to enhancelandlord and tenant’s understandingof their rights and responsibilities, but a yearhasgone by without any meaningful effort towards proactive educationefforts.
Recognizingsignificant legal, operational, and procedural issueswith this ordinance, CAA recommendsthe Chula Vista City Council reject the TPO for reasonsincluding, but not limited to, the reasonsoutlined in this letter.
1. The definition of substantialrehabilitation is $40 per squarefoot, which doesnot include planning, engineering, or insurancerelatedcostsaspart of the valuation. While the valuation was derived by the city’s building department analysisof permit activity, it is also important to recognize that the city’s housing stock is over 40 yearsold. Historical permit activity may be biasedtowards new construction and/ or projects that are not representativeof complex rehabilitations of aging multifamily properties. proceed with amendments.
2. Prior versions of the TPO limited relocation assistanceto tenants who have establishedat leastone-yearof tenancy. In the current version, no-fault relocation assistancehasbeen expandedto all tenants (e.g. new residentswho do not have an establishedtie to Chula WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Cao - Received10/25/22
2 Vista’s community or new residentsfrom another state). CAA hasseveralmember testimonialsabout how relocation assistanceis ridden with fraud and abusein cities like Los Angelesand Alamedawhere suchpoorly constructed lawsexist.
3. The ordinance stipulatesthat an owner or their family member can only move into their own property if the tenant agreesin writing prior to the termination or had agreedto it asa condition of the lease. This createsa considerableburden to an owner who is experiencing an emergency. Not only doesan owner carry the trauma and expenseof caring for a loved one in an emergency, but the City would then require additional money be paid to relocatea tenant; money that could be otherwise usedfor ongoing care. The City puts the owner in the position of calculatingthe health and displacementof their own family member againstthe financial and litigation risk involved with having to relocatea tenant. CAA encouragesCity Council to recognizethat there arecircumstanceswhere owners makebestdecision to prioritize their loved onesover others they haveno relation to. There areunique circumstanceswhere ordinance unreasonablyinterferes into the familial obligations and property rights of owners.
4. The Reporting Requirementsin Section9.65.060(F) of the ordinance provides a backdoor and blank check for an invasion of privacy for both the owner and tenant. The TPO does not haveany explicit reporting requirements. Instead, the TPO delegatesauthority to city staff and defersthe development of such requirementswithout explicit approval of the city council. Reporting requirementsunder this scenariorequirementsmay changewithout much notice and owners could be held in violation for failing to meet arbitrary requirementsand deadlines. CAA requestsCity Council declineto entertain the Tenant Protection Ordinance until specific reporting requirementsareexplicitly written out and areavailablefor public inspection.
Consideration of City’s Private Vendor Survey Data and Methodology is Problematic The city conducted the July2022renter and stakeholdersurveyinappropriately. On July14, 2022 city staff requestedthat various trade associationssendan online surveyon the city’s behalf. The administration of the surveywasa disingenuousand the effort towards stakeholderoutreachwasa veiled attempt to validatethe city’s presumptions about substantialremodelsand evictions.
The administration of the surveywashighly questionable. The surveyonly contained biased, predeterminedmultiple-choice questions. The vendor relied on their own internet-basedplatform, SurveySavvy. Independent consumersand reviewershavescoredthe vendor’s platform, SurveySavvy, a 1.8 out of 5 starsand severalreviewersallegedthey were scammed.1 Lastly, the surveysamplesizewasclearlyflawed and not representativeof Chula Vista or rental housing organizationsquoted in the researchreport. For example, respondentswho haveno business interest or establishedresidencyin Chula Vista were ableto take the survey. The surveywasclearly susceptibleto manipulation.
CAA did not distribute the surveydue to its poor designand lack of stakeholderon developing useful questions. Had CAA beenproperly consulted, the surveywould haveincluded the ability of 1 Adkins, Tonia, Stephanie Galloway, and Julie Kelley. “Surveysavvy Is Rated ‘Poor’ with 1.8 / 5 on Trustpilot.” Trustpilot, August 26, 2022. https:// www. trustpilot. com/ review/ surveysavvy. com.
WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Cao - Received10/25/22
3 owners to statethe purpose of substantialremodelsor renovations, project cost and/ or financial burden, or other relevantinformation. Frustrated participants lackedany ability to provide any meaningful feedbackin their own words. The city hasno needto rely on private vendors to manufacturedatawhen ample public datawasalreadyavailable.
City, County, State, and Federal Data is Available to Make Informed Policy Decisions The City of Chula Vista hasmeaningful and relevantdatadocumented in its 2021-2029 Housing Element. The Housing Element statedthat CSA SanDiego had ample funding of nearly $300,000 to carry out investigationsand other enforcement activities to prevent or eliminate discriminatory housing practices” (pageAE- 2). While CSA SanDiego hasreported an averageof 264 casesannually over the pastthree years, the City’s Housing Element highlights that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development only found 29 harassmentcasesspecific to Chula Vista in a five- yearperiod (2014-2019). To put into context, harassmentallegationsin Chula Vista amounted to 1 in 2,733 households. In other words, a confirmed incidenceof harassmentis lessthan one percent of all householdsin Chula Vista. By comparison, there were nine times more incidents of a person being hit by lightning in the entire United Statesthan a Chula Vista residentbeing a victim of housing-relatedharassment.
According to reporting by CalMatters, evictions throughout SanDiego County havebeenon the declinesince2010.2 CAA’s assertion, backedby actualeviction filings, is that 1 in 113 householdsin SanDiego County experiencedan eviction. This analysisis backedby a CalMattersdataset, which contained exactly9,230 casefiles requestedfrom SanDiego County courts and comparing them to over 1.3 million householdsthat exist in the county. Whereasthe city’s vendor is reliant on a poorly assembledextrapolations, Chula Vista City Council hasthe ability to considerfacts.
Reports of substantialrehabilitation areequallyaslow. The 2019 United StatesCensusfound that 48% of Chula Vista’s housing stock is over 40 yearsof ageand yet, lessthan 70 multifamily properties underwent substantialrehabilitation over the last reporting period.3 Proponents of the Tenant Protection Ordinance havevolleyedwild allegationsagainstrental housing owners’ useof substantialrehabilitation with no evidence. Proponents rely on anecdotesthat arestill unverified and demandthat the city to passdraconianhousing laws. Smallmom-and-pop owners areunlikely to spendin excessof $40 per squarefoot, pay relocation fees, and be expectedto navigateoverly complicated eviction proceduresin order to makeimprovements to their property. Putting up such regulatorybarriers will only exacerbatereinvestment into Chula Vista’s aginghousing stock.
The fact is that city, county, state, and federaldatashowsthere hasnever beenan epidemic of harassmentor evictions basedon substantialrehabilitation.
Conclusion
At prior City Council meetings, Councilmembersexpressedconcernsabout increasingrents, the financial hardship of residentsand a desireto addressthe bad actors. The proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance doesnot addressany of the concernsin any substantialway. Instead, the proposed ordinance would (1) inhibit any substantialinvestment that improves the quality of life for 2 Matt Levin, “A California Housing Crisis Mystery: Rents Are Way up This Decade, but Eviction Filings Are Way Down,” CalMatters, December 22, 2019, https:// calmatters. org/projects/ california- eviction- filings- up-housing- crisis- mystery/. 3 Stacey Kurz, “Ordinance: Consideration of Establishing Residential Landlord and Tenant Provisions,” Ordinance: Consideration of Establishing Residential Landlord and Tenant Provisions § ( 2022), https:// pub- chulavista. escribemeetings. com/ filestream. ashx? DocumentId= 19446.
WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Cao - Received10/25/22
4 tenantsand updatesthe City’s agingstock and (2) penalizeinnocent activities often part of normal property managementoperationswith excessivecriminal and civil penaltiesagainstits own taxpayers. Adoption of the ordinance would discourageownership, development, and maintenance of rental housing, putting rentersand quality housing at-risk in the long-term.
The city had an opportunity to educatetenantsand owners about the abundanceof existing lawsfor over a year. Instead, the city hassquanderedtime and resourcesin what is the epitome of “a solution in searchof a problem.” For thesereasons, CAA opposesthe proposed ordinance and strongly encouragesyou to vote NO.
Respectfully,
Victor Cao
Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs
WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Cao - Received10/25/22
From: Molly Kirkland <
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 2: 56 PM
To: Mary Salas < MSalas@chulavistaca. gov>; John McCann < jmccann@chulavistaca. gov>; Jill Galvez jmgalvez@chulavistaca. gov>; Steve C. Padilla < spadilla@chulavistaca. gov>; Andrea Cardenas acardenas@chulavistaca. gov>
Cc: Glen Googins < GGoogins@chulavistaca. gov>; CityManager < CityManager@chulavistaca. gov>; Housing Advisory Commission < HAC@chulavistaca. gov>; Stacey Kurz < SKurz@chulavistaca. gov>; Richard D' Ascoli < George Ching <
Subject: PSAR/ SCRHA Letter - Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance Hello,
On behalf of the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS (PSAR) and the Southern California Rental Housing Association ( SCRHA), I am submitting the attached letter regarding the pending Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance.
If you have any questions, please don’ t hesitate to contact our organizations.
Thank you,
Molly Kirkland, Director of Public Affairs
Southern California Rental Housing Association
5675 Ruffin Road, Suite 310 | San Diego, CA 92123
Office: 858. 278. 8070 | Direct:
Warning:
External
Email
WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Kirkland - Received10/25/22
October 19, 2022
The Honorable Mary Casillas Salas and Councilmembers
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Sent Via Electronic Transmission
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
On behalf of the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS®(PSAR) and the Southern California Rental Housing Association ( SCRHA), we are writing to respectfully request that the hearing to consider the Residential Landlord & Tenant Protection Ordinance be delayed until there is time for the City’s Housing Advisory Commission and all Stakeholders to thoroughly study and provide input on the new version of the ordinance.
Our organizations sincerely appreciate the efforts of city staff over the course of the last year.
The communication and stakeholder outreach has been a process that other jurisdictions should emulate. However, due to circumstances beyond city staff’ s control, the second hearing on the ordinance has been rescheduled at least five times since July. Additionally, numerous new drafts have been provided to stakeholders, the most recent iterations without track changes to make changes easily identifiable.
As trade organizations with thousands of members, we do our very best to keep members informed and let them know how they may participate in the public process. Our organizations have shared information in anticipation of hearings only to have to notify them of cancellations.
It has become tantamount to “ crying wolf” in their eyes and some housing providers fear this is being done purposely to dilute their grassroots participation. While our organizations don’t necessarily agree with those sentiments, the process thus far has left all stakeholders and their constituencies disenfranchised. The Council had great wisdom in establishing a Housing Advisory Commission. Considering the drastic changes made to the proposed ordinance since the last time it was presented to the Housing Advisory Commission, it is critical that the Commission’ s value be leveraged. Why wouldn’ t the council have its own experts review the ordinance?
Again, we understand that there have been some circumstances beyond city staff’ s control that have necessitated the hearing schedule changes. The tragic loss of a key city staff person has certainly left a void. However, prior to that, stakeholders were informed that at least one delay was in an effort to make sure that all councilmembers could be in attendance at the hearing.
On June 28 stakeholders were notified that the hearing scheduled for July 12 was moved to July WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Kirkland - Received10/25/22
26 because staff had been informed that not all Councilmembers would be in attendance at the July 12 meeting and had therefore been asked to wait until the next meeting to present the revised Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance. Given that one councilmember must recuse themselves from voting, this approach seems to indicate that the proposed ordinance will only come forward when there are enough councilmembers present who may support the ordinance. This special treatment of this particular ordinance has only served to reinforce the concerns of some in the community as it relates to transparency and a fair public process overall.
It has become clear that all councilmembers do not see the proposed ordinance as an emergency as some have suggested. Therefore, our organizations respectfully request that the ordinance be shelved so as not to require staff to devote valuable time and energy to creating new regulation and instead allow them to focus on education and outreach. Our organizations remain committed to educating the entire community of rights and responsibilities.
Furthermore, a new Mayor, new Councilmembers, and a new City Attorney will be in place in the coming months. An ordinance like this could create permanent regulations and should be considered by those who will be in office during the time in which the law may take effect, especially considering the responsibilities that the ordinance would place on the City Attorney .
Inviting input from the Housing Advisory Commission and allowing the next round of elected leaders to continue the deliberation you have started would reassure concerned constituents that this is a public process.
If you have any questions, please contact George Ching, PSAR Government Affairs Director at 619- 421- 7811 or Molly Kirkland, SCRHA Director of Public Affairs at 858- 278- 8070.
Sincerely,
Rich D’Ascoli Alan Pentico
Executive Director Executive Director
CC:
Glen Googins, City Attorney
Maria V. Kachadoorian, City Manager
Housing Advisory Commissioners
Stacey Kurz, Housing Manager
WrittenCommunications
Item6.2 - Kirkland - Received10/25/22