Report Prepared For
On the negative side effects the
Tenant Protection Act" has on the
Homeless, Elderly, and Chula Vista' s
Rental Community as a whole.
Wjs
Your responsibility as a Council
Member to mitigate any harm brought
on to our community as a result of the
previous City Council' s actions.
06/ 27/23 V2)
Contentsa.
Previous Council' s Action:. 4
5, 000.00 Daily Fines Devastates Renters: 5
Clauses Which Need Immediate Attention: 5
Tenant Protection Act' s" Glitches Are Not
Addressed in The "Tenant Protection
Ordinance Administrative Regulations" . 6
Regarding $5, 000.00 Fines For Inadvertent Errors: 7
Additional Harmful Clauses To Be
Addressed In The Future: 0 0 & 0 OR 10
The Meer' fbreat of a $ 5, 000.00 Daily Fine
Reeks Havoc on Renters:. 0 As 0 a 0 10
More Efficient Way To Differentiate Conscientious
Owners and/or Tenants From " Bad Actors": 11
How "The Tenant Protection Act" Effects Our Tenants: I I Regarding The Homeless Bridge Shelter: 13
City Staff Supplied Supporting Data With Conclusion: 14
This updated communication is a continuation of our
efforts to inform you of. ..
1) The disastrous side effects the " Tenant Protection
Act" has on the Homeless, Elderly, and Chula Vista' s
Rental Community as a whole.
2) Your responsibility as a Council Member to
mitigate any harm brought on to our community as a
result of the previous City Council' s actions.
Also included in this report is a simple Drorposal for a means to correct the situation.
If you feel I am inaccurate with these conclusions
lease immediatetv call or E-mail so we can find some
common around to solve this blemsoutline. herein.
Also included of this report is data supplied by City
Staff, as requested by the previous City Council. which was utilized to create The " Tenant Protection Act". For your convenience, this Report was also E-mailed to you in PDF Form. To enable you confirm the accuracy of the
facts contained herein, you will also find attached to your E-mail PDF copies of:
1) Chapter 9.65 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Ordinance 3527 ( commonly known as the
Tenant Protection Act"")
2) Administrative Regulations of the Tenant
Protection Ordinance.
Previous Council' s Action:
You might recall, every member of the previous City
Council had reservations when passing this Ordinance.
Council Member Jill Gavez voted against The " Tenant
Protection Act" because she predicted the Ordinance
would force massive rent increases on our community.
The " Act" certainly had that effect on our tenants.
Being under extreme pressure to " Pass Something"
before the end of session,, the record shows all remaining Council Members expressed their concern that the
Ordinance " wasn' t perfect" but held out hope the harmful side effects could be mitigated in the future. It is long past time to fine tune this Ordinance and correct those errors.
5.,000.00 Daily Fines Devastates Renters:0
The draconian $ 5!,000.00 fines The City Council has
authorized City Staff to levy on unsuspecting Owners
which must be passed on to tenants) can not help but be devastating to renters.
When you take the time to review the enclosed facts
gathered by City Staff, I am confident you, along with
your fellow Council Members, will adopt a plan to amend the " Tenant Protection Act" in order to eliminate the
harmful side effects this ordinance has on those members of our community who can least afford.
Clauses Which Need Immediate Attention:
Clause 9.65.060E states if a tenant terminates their lease and moves away, " Owners and Tenants shall provide
City with information regarding termination of
Tenancies at such time(s) and with such details as shall be required by city in the attendant Administration
Regulations."
Additionally, failure to comply or simple paperwork
errors results in Tenants and/or Owners subject $5,000.00 daily fines WITH NO OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
CORRECTIONS. (See Clause below)
1 lause 9.65.080C2 States: " Civil penalties for violations of this chapter may be assessed at a rate not to exceed 5,000 per violation per day. When a violation occurs
is not = uired that a warning or notice to cure must
first be given before an administrative citation or civil penalty may be issuer."
i
fftV! R - -
In my conversations with Staff, I was informed that
the problems created by the glitches and poor wording of the " Tenant Protection Act" would be addressed by the
Tenant Protection Ordinance Administrative
Regulations" ( A copy of which has been E-mail to you).
Unfortunately Staff' s efforts of " Clean Up" the
glitches of the " Tenant Protection Act"" created several areas within the " Administrative Regulations" which
directlycontradict the " Tenant Protection Act". Example:
states.* " The Tenant Information Inquiry is not required to be completed by Tenant." which is a direct
contradiction to the previously mentioned Clause
9.65.060E requiring Tenants " ... to provide City with
information regarding termination ofTenancies... "
Contradictions are addressed in page 4 section " C" of
the " Administrative Regulations" which states:
C. Governing Terms in the event of Conflict: To the
extent of any conflict between these regulations and
Chapter 9.65, the terms ofChapter 9.65 shall govern. "
The above clause of the " Administrative
Regulations" brings Owners and Tenants back full circle to which good intention Owners and Tenants are faced
with huge fines and will be forced to adhere to all clauses poorly worded or not) of the " Tenant Protection Act" .
Regarding X5,000.00 Fines For Inadvertent Errors:
Staff has communicated on many occasions it is not
their intention to levy fines for inadvertent paper work errors. Three Points why that statement is simply NOT
true:
Point One:
Chula Vista residents of Mobile Home parks must
pay the City a $ 12.00 annual fee if they want to receive Rent Protection from the owners of Mobil Home Parks
who raise space fees more than permitted by City
Ordinance. Mobil Home Park residents are informed the
funds are used to staff for enforcing the ordinance.
At a recent Housing & Homeless Commission
meeting, Staff informed those in attendance: "... the City is currently staffing up the Housing & Homeless Services Department by ten positions in order to enforce the Tenant Protection Act.""
Considering Chula Vista' s policy for recouping funds
required to enforce Mobil Home Park ordinances, WE
ARE BEING VERY NAIVE IN BELIEVING WELL
MEANING OWNERS WOULD NOT FACE
SUBSTANTIAL FINES ( WHICH MUST BE PASSED
ON TO TENANTS) IN ORDER TO FUND STAFF
TIME FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE " TENANT
PROTECTION ACT" . In fact, our City Manager would
be remiss if a
funding mechanism is not created to support
a burgeoning enforcement staff.
Point Two.*
If staff had no desire to levy fines for inadvertent
errors they would have not purposely inserted the five
words underlined below.
1 Clause 9.65.08002: " Civil penalties for violations of this chapter may be assessed at a rate not to exceed
51,000 per violatt'vn per day. When a violation occurs it is not = uired that a warning or notice to cure must
first be given before an administrative citation or civil penalty may be issued."
We have been informed by City Staffthe five underlined
wards above were purposely added in order to ease
enforcement of the " Tenant Protection Act". Staff prefers not to be required to warn Owners and/or Tenants who are ire violation of the Ordinance because it is difficult to
differentiate between an inadvertent error or willful
misconduct.
With that flawed logic, the CVPD might as well ticket
everyone driving down the road as opposed separating
speeders from drivers obeying Traffic laves. Staff should realize the purpose of the " Tenant Protection Act" is to PROTECT Tenants and NOT make staff's job easier by
forcing owners to drastically raise rents.
Point Three.*
Staff continues to maintain that enforcement will be
concentrated on " Bad Actors" with no efforts to lev-y
fines
on Good Intention Owners and/or Tenants,, However
Wage 9 of 15
many believe the five underlined words above were also
added as a precaution because there is simply is not
enough " Bad Actors" to generate sufficient income to
support the burgeoning Staff assembled to enforce The
Tenant Protection Act." Staff needs the option to fine
well meaning Owners and/or Tenants who make simple
paper work errors.
Additional Harmful Clans -es To Be Addressed In The
future*
Although there are additional clauses within in the
Tenant Protection Act" which are harmful to the
community as a whole, Clauses 9. 65. 060E and
9. 65.080C2 outlined above are the most financially
devastating to individual renters. If you desire, these additional flaws can be addressed. in future
communications.
The Meer Threat of a X5.000.00 Daily Fine Reeks
Havoc on Renters:
WEEMOMM" M
Ironically, staff does not have to actually fine Owners to burden financial hardship on Chula Vista renters. The mere threat of $5,,000.00 daily lines for Owners and/ or
Tenants who make inadvertent paperwork errors ( without given an opportunity to correct said errors) is sufficient motive for prudent Owners to substantially raise rents to fund possible future fines.
1lore Efficient Wav To Differentiate Conscientious
Owners and/or Tenants From " Bad Actors":
The most efficient way to enforce " Tenant Protection
Act" is to simply warn unsuspecting Owners and/or Tenants when they are in violation of the " Act". This can be
accomplished by simply removing the following underlined words of Clause 9.65. 080C24.: "... When a violation occurs it is not required that a warning or notice to cure must first be gives before an administrative enation or civil penalty may be issued "
Once conscientious Owners and/or Tenants are informed
of their violation, they will gladly come into compliance, while unscrupulous owners and/or Tenants will attempt to find a way to circumvent the law. This simplifies the process of identifying and levying fines against `Bad Actors".
How "The Tenant Protection Act" Effects Our Tenants:
On a personal note: In my fifty years as a Chula Vista
Property Owner and Landlord, I have consistently attempted
to be a good steward of my responsibility to provide a
beautiful comfortable home for tenants at a emery reasonable rent. Many renters have been with Mary and I for 10, 20, even 30 years.
When calculating rents, Mary & I annually evaluate the
projected expenses of each property then adjust rents
accordingly. On November 1, 2022 an increase of expenses forced a modest X25. 00 monthly rent increase on a few
tenants effective January 1, 2023. Fortunately rent for most tenants remained unchanged. Ironically one tenant actually had their rent reduced by $25. 00.
with the passa9V
ge of this ordinance authorizing
5, 000.00 fines for simple paperwork errors the situation has drastically changed. We were forced to adjust some rents by as much a $ 220.00. In my half century of providing
Landlord services to our community, I HAVE NEVER seen
an action taken by the Chula Vista City Council more
financially devastating to the renters of our community an-, 110
The Tenant Protection Act".
If you doubt the financial hardship this Act has placed on our community, call me. I will provide you with Pam' s phone number. Pam is a retired elderly Chula Vista resident who has been a wonderful tenant of ours for almost twelve years. She will explain how this massive rent increase the Fags 12 of 15
Chula Vista City Council has forced upon the rental
community has effected her life.
Regardinff The Homeless Bridge Shelter0
Additionally, I am greatly encouraged by the steps The
Citi Council has taken to assist the homeless of our
community with the introduction the Homeless Bridge
Shelter near Main Street,, May I suggest that you may have a much greater chance of success in providing long term
affordable housing for the homeless if you modify the
current language ofthe " Tenant Protection Act". This "Act", as written, forces owners to substantially rise rents making the task of securing long term residences for the elderiv ani homeless all the more difficult,
Thank You and please let me know how I may be of
assistance to improve this situation.
6 */& 9 qlao
age 13 of 15
0 City Staff Supplied Su orting Data.
1} Chula Vista Population: 283,97'&J - Ie
Chula Vista - ZI.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts)
2) Average number of individuals in each household: 3.31 ( Chula Vista U.S. Census Bureau QuickFaets)
3) Percentage Chula Vista housing which are rentals. 42% ( Data compiled by City Staff )
4) Number ofChula Vista Rental Units: 36,033
Population of Chula Vista ( 283,072) divided by the average number of people residing in each Residence ( 3.31) equals 85,792 multiplied the percentage of residences which are rentals ( 42%) equals the approximate number ofChula Vista rental units. (36,033) 5) Approximate number of Chula Vista renters: 119,268 ( CV Population 283,972 x. 42%)
6) Approximate Average Monthly Chula Vista dent: 3,Q4'7. 00 ( See attached CV Staff provided " Relocation Assistance" Pic - Average Of Line 2ndfrom bottom)
With no right to cure, amount of daily fine levied if Landlord or Tenant inadvertently makes a paperwork error when Tenant terminates lease and moves: $ 5,000.00 ( Clauses 9.65.060 E and 9.65. 080 C2 of Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance ")
8) Maxim average monthly rent increase allowed. . $ 304.70 ($ 3047.00 x 10%. California AB -1482 5% plus inffation Max. 10%)
9) Average number of months required for Landlord to recoup a one day fine: 16.41 ($ 5000.00 divided by $304.70)
Conclusion.
1 0) Approximate total monthly maximum rent increase levied on Chula Vista Renters if Landlords are forced to impound funds to the pay daily fines.. $ 10,979,255.00 (36, 033 Rental Units multiplied by $304. 70) U.S. Department Of HOL singt-% and U1. ban DevelopTilent SnIall Area Fair Market Rent (April 2022) Exhibit 2
C01" Paris011 of Survey Data vs. SAFMR
S% 000
4 SOO
S4.=
733
SZOOO $ 1
sum
SLWO
SSW
so
Orw
Efficienc 1 2 3
Y
bedroom Bedroom
1, 850 2, 040 2, 620 53, 640 4.450
1, 430 1, 580 2,030 2, 820 3, 450.
1, 440 1, 600 2, 050 2, 850 3,490
2, 110 2.340 3,
2, 360 2, 610 3, 350 4, 650 5, 700
2, 360 2, 610 3, 350 4, 650 S, 700
51. 92.:5
Regional
2, 130 2, 733 53. 797.,-- 4,6 . 49
Average $ 1, 628 1, 8022, 4 " 1" 1 3, 210
Exhibit 2
C01" Paris011 of Survey Data vs. SAFMR
S% 000
4 SOO
S4.=
733
SZOOO $ 1
sum
SLWO
SSW
so
Orw