Written CommunicWaD
Item # PLYName_
Joseph A Reaso-
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
Telephone
Honorable Mayor & City Council 03/19/24
I am of the naive opinion if the City Council is made aware of a situation which is detrimental to the community, Council Members will doing everything possibleto remedy the problem.
First, a few facts on which The City Council, City Staff, everybody attending the Council Meeting and I can all agree. 1) Rents in our community are becoming increasing
unaffordable for the average tenant.
2) Chula Vista’s homelesspopulation is at an all time high. 3) In the first year enforcement of The “Tenant Protection Ordinance” City Staff has not been able levy a single fine against a Landlord or Tenant for violating provisions of the TPO.
4) Despite the seemingly lack of “Bad Actors”, City Staff insists on retaining the authority to levy $2,500.00 to 5,000.00 daily fines against reputable Landlords and
Tenants who make simple clerical errors. ( Seetext of
TPO Clauses 9.65.080C2 and 9.65.060E below)
5) With City Staff’s constant treat of substantial fines for inadvertent errors, prudent Landlords must raise rents in preparation of possible future fines.
This entire situation can be mitigated with the addition of the following Clauseto The “Tenant Protection Ordinance”:
Notice to cure must first be given before an
administrative citation or civil penalty may be issued” The Logic behind such a clause is simple. Obviously, with so few “Bad Actors’, there is no need to threaten hundreds of good intention Landlords and Tenants with massive $ 2,500.00 to 5,000.00 daily fines. Such a threat forces Mom & Pop property owners to take the precaution of raising rents on thousands of hard working Tenants who already are facing a difficult time getting by.
Remember... It is not merely the fine which causes a rent increase but also the THREAT of a fine which triggers such an action. It is important to note, NOTHING in state law prohibits issuing a warning of non compliance.
Obviously, upon receiving a warning, the vast majority of good intention individuals would gladly come into compliance, while the few unscrupulous Tenants and Landlords will attempt to circumvent the law. An added bonus of such a notification procedure is that a warning simplifies the process of identifying and levying fines against “Bad Actors’.
Remember, the Purpose of The “ Tennant Protection
Ordinance”’ is to protect tenants. It’s purpose is NOT to force an increase in rents caused the City Council’s delay in correcting an obvious flaw in the TPO. Thank You.
Joseph17. Rado
Page2 of 5
PS: Staff Supplied Supporting Data:
A) Areas where we all can agree:
1) Threatening Landlords and Tenants who have made inadvertent mistakes with $5,000.00 daily fines is causing the most harm to tenants. Clause9.65.080C2: “Civil penaltiesfor violationsof this chapter_may_be_assessed_ at a rate not to exceed $5,000 per violation per day. When a violation occurs it is not required that a warning or notice to cure must first be given before an administrative citation or civil penalty may be issued.” and clause r r r,
at suchtime(s) and with suchdetails as shall be required by City in the attendant Administrative Regulations. Translation: Tenant makes a mistake, Landlord getsa $5,000.00 daily fine.
2) Landlords of the *36,033 rental units (*Staff supplied data) must raiserentsin orderimpoundfunds to paythe potential finesof those who havemadeinadvertenterrors.
B) The City Council is probably unawarethat City Staff is not required receive Council’s direction when modifying The TPO’s Administrative Regulations:
City Staff is authorized to change rules at will regarding the enforcement of the “Tenant Protection Ordinance” without consulting The City Council. Most tenants who voluntarily move away may be unaware they may required to complete forms informing city staff the details of a relocation. See Clause9.65.060E above. Such an absent of action a tenant’s part forces landlords to substantially raise rents in preparation of potential $5,000.00 daily fines to follow.
C) City Council waswarneda yearagotheTenantProtectionOrdinance would causea massiveincreasein homelessness. Although there are many causesfor homelessnessin our community, most can agree, high rentsis a hugecontributing factor. I canstateunequivocally TheTenant ProtectionOrdinanceis what is forcing this Landlord to raiserents.
D) Conclusions Drawn From City Staff Supplied Data:
1) ChulaVista Population: 283,972 ( Chula Vista - U.S. CensusBureau QuickFacts)
2) Averagenumberof individuals in eachhousehold: 3.31 (Chula Vista - U.S. CensusBureau QuickFacts)
3) Percentage Chula Vista housing which are rentals. 42% ( Data compiled by City Staff )
4) Number of ChulaVista RentalUnits: 36,033
Population of Chula Vista (283,072) divided by the averagenumber of people residing in each Residence (3.31) equals 85,792 multiplied the percentage of residences which are rentals ( 42%) equals the approximate number of Chula Vista rental units. ( 36,033) 5) Approximate numberof Chula Vista renters: 119,268 ( CVPopulation 283,972 x 42% = 119,268)
6) Approximate Average Monthly Chula Vista Rent: $3,047.00 ( See attached CV Staff provided “ Relocation Assistance” Pic below - Averageof Line 2ndfrom bottom)
7) With no right to cure, amount of daily fine levied if Landlord or Tenantinadvertently makes a paperwork error when Tenantterminates lease and moves: $5,000.00 ( Clauses 9.65.060 E and 9.65.080 C2 of Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance”’ )
Page4 of 5
8) Maxim averagemonthly rent increaseallowed . . $304.70 ($ 3047.00 x 10%. California AB-1482 5% plus inflation Max 10%)
9) Averagenumberof monthsrequired for Landlord to impound a | day fine: 16.41 ($5000.00 divided by $304.70)
10) $10,979,255.00: The approximate total monthly maximum rent increase levied on Chula Vista Renters if Landlords are forced to impound funds to the pay daily fines: ( 36,033 Rental Units multiplied by the 10% max allowed rent adjustment $304.70 = $ 10, 979, 255 .00 ) 11) 596 New Homeless: Approximate number of Homelesscreated if one half of one percent of Chula Vista renters are forced out of their homesby the rent increasescausedby the TenantProtectionOrdinance:
CV Population 283,972 x 42% = 119,268 x 5% = 596)
Se 7A | HOUSING Divisic IN Relocation Assistance
U.S. Departmentof Housing and UrbAvon bain ee an Development Smallket Rent (April 2022) San DiegoCounty, CA AdvisorySmallArea FMRsBy Unit Bedrogms Efficienc 1 z
Greaterof: (1} 2monthscontractedrentoramonths elderly/disabled: or (2} 2 monthsSAFMIRor 3 monthselderly/disabled 3 4y Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroam
51,850 $ 2,040 $ 2,620 § 3,640 $ 4,450 Exhibit2
1,430 $ 1,580 $ 2,030 $ 2,820 $ 3,450 COmbarisonofSurveyDatavs. AFR $1,440 $ 1,600 $ 2,050 $ 2,850 $ 3,490 2,110 $ 2,340 $ 3,000 $ 4,170 $ 5,100
2,360 $ 2,610 $ 3,350 $ 4,650 $ 5,700
sates $ 3397
san Sino 32368a ; 71S | $ 1986 $
2,360 | $2610 S3as0 Sage degng
1,925. $ 2,130 $ 2,733 $ 3,797 $ 4,648 es
1,628 $ 1,802 $ 2,311 $ 3,210 $ 3,527