Written.f ions //
tem # Name
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
Telephone
HonorableMayor and City Council Members, 04/09/24
I am appearing before you tonight with a deep senseof
urgency and disappointment. Despite my best efforts, I have been unable to impress upon you the critical nature of the situation facing our community. In my 75 years of life, I never imagined witnessing a City Council that would, through
inaction, causeimmense financial harm to a significant portion of our homelessandvulnerablerental population.
The delay in addressing the glaring flaws within the
Tenant Protection Ordinance" has had devastating
consequencesfor our residents. As you arewell aware:
Chula Vista is home to 119,268 vulnerable renters.
Our community grappleswith an escalatinghomeless
crisis.
The averagemonthly rent of $3,047.00 is unattainablefor manyresidents.
The flawed ordinancecompelslandlordsto continually
raiserents dueto the threat of hefty fines ranging from 2,500.00 to $5,000.00 for minor clerical errors made
by tenants.
It perplexesme why thereis difficulty in instructing staff to verify the accuracy of presentedfacts. A brief review of past Council statementsindicates unanimous reservationsregarding certain clauses of the TPO. Council Member Jill Gavez's
foresight was evident as she voted against the Ordinance, foreseeing the financial turmoil it would unleash upon our community. The measurewas passedwith the expectation that this Council would rectify its flawed clauses. The time for that rectification is long overdue.
Let us not forget that it is not only the actual fines but also the looming threat of fines that drive rent increases. This issue can be mitigated swiftly by introducing a simple clause to the TenantProtection Ordinance": "Notice to cure must precede the issuance of an administrative citation or civil penalty.” Importantly, state law does not prohibit the issuance of warnings for non-compliance. A warning systemwould prompt the vast majority of well-intentioned tenants and landlords to rectify issuespromptly, while identifying andpenalizing any bad actorsmore efficiently.
The primary objective of the "TenantProtectionOrdinance" should be to protect tenants, not inadvertently causerent hikes dueto Council inaction.
I implore you to fulfill your duties promptly. Please
instruct staff without delay to rectify this injustice and provide relief to the least fortunate members of our community. Thank you for your immediate attentionto this matter.
Respectfully,
Josephf7 Raso
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. ee ee
violation per day, When a1 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 at such time(s) and with such details as shall be sepainedby Ci “ty itin the attendant Administrative Regulations. ' Translation: Tenant makes a mistake, Landlord gets a $5,000.00 daily fine.
2) Landlords of the * 36,033 rental units (* Staff supplied data) must raiserentsin order impound funds to pay the potential fines of those who have made inadvertent errors.
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 Clause 9.65.060E 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 was warneda year ago the TenantProtection Ordinance would cause a massive increasein homelessness. Although there are many causesfor homelessnessin our community, most can agree, high rentsis a huge contributing factor. I can stateunequivocally The Tenant ProtectionOrdinanceis what is forcing this Landlord to raiserents.
D) Conclusions Drawn From City Staff Supplied Data:
1) Chula Vista Population: 283,972 ( Chula Vista - U.S. CensusBureau QuickFacts)
2) Averagenumber of individuals in eachhousehold: 3.31 ( Chula Vista - U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts)
3) Percentage Chula Vista housing which are rentals. 42% ( Data compiled by City Staff )
4) Number of Chula 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 of Chula Vista rental units. ( 36,033) 5) Approximate number of Chula Vista renters: 119,268 ( CV Population 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 Tenant inadvertently 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” )
8) Maxim averagemonthly rent increaseallowed . . $304.70 ($ 3047.00 x 10%. California AB-1482 5% plus inflation Max 10%)
9) Averagenumber of monthsrequired for Landlord to impound a 1 day fine: 16.41 ($5000.00 dividedby $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 Homeless created if one half of one percent of Chula Vista renters are forced out of their homesby the rent increasescausedby the TenantProtection Ordinance:
CV Population 283,972 x 42% = 119,268 x 5% = 596)
Smee =
ra Relocation Assistance
U.S. Department of Housi ‘ousting and Urban Development ; SmaArea Fair Market Rent {April 2022) ti Greater of: { 1} 2 months contractedrentorgmonths elderty/disabled; or ( 2}2 months SAFMR or3 months elderly/ disabted
San Dlego County, CA Advisory Smal} Area FMRsBy Unit Bedrooms Efficienc 1 2 3 4y Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom
1, 850 $ 2, 040 $ 2, 620 $ 3, 640 $ 4, 450
reas $
1,430 $ 1,580 $ 2,030 $ 2,320
ne SAFMR
1440 $ 1,600 $ 2,050 $ 2,850
2,733
6 se ana
3, 490 $ 4,508 ‘
54.0% be teed52110 $2340 $3000 $4170 ési0g sen $ 3,332
2,360 $2610 $3350 $4650 $5700 0 $ 2,130siese 2369
92360 $2,610 $3,350 $ 4650 ssgu0
1, 925 $ 2, 130 $ 2, 733 $ 3, 797 $ 4, 648 ~~
51,628 $ 1,802 $ 2,311 $ 3,210