From: Ed Belcher
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: March 5 Consideration of tenants displaced by renovation Date: Thursday, February 29, 2024 1:02:18 PM
Dear Council Members.
Thank you for considering the applicable new rental rate for existing tenants displaced by renovation.
Please note the existing law in Santa Ana:
Capital Improvements in City of Santa Ana by Ordinance
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2023/12/Capital- Improvement-Petition-Revised-12-13-23.pdf
See Page 13 which says in part:
Relevant Factor in Deciding a Capital Improvement Petition Calculating Capital Improvements.
Capital Improvement costs must be amortized over the useful life of the Capital Improvement, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the current rent for the purposes of such computation.
The rent for any time period shall not include any Capital Improvement passthrough amounts.
Note that the passthrough amount remains separate from the rent. When the cost of the improvement has been fully amortized, those surcharges to renter cease.
The details and itemized cost of the improvement is submitted by the landlord in a petition to the City of Santa Ana before improvement begins.
FYI
“The maximum allowable rent increase for the period September 1, 2023 through August 31, 2024, is 2.54%. According to the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
percentage increase in CPI from May 2022 through May 2023 was 3.18%. Since 80% of the change in CPI through May 2023 is 2.54%, which is less than 3%, the allowable rent increase for the period effective September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024, will be 2.54%.” Thank you again,
Ed Belcher, 5350 Calle Real, APT 1C, Goleta 9311
Santa Barbara Association of REALTORS® | 1415 Chapala Street | Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 963-3787 | (805) 966-9664 FAX | www.sbaor.com REALTOR® is a registered trademark that identifies a professional in real estate who subscribes to a strict code of ethics as a member of the National Association of REALTORS®
March 5, 2024
Mayor Paula Perotte
Councilmember Stuart Kasdin
Councilmember James Kyriaco
Councilmember Luz Reyes-Martin
Councilmember Kyle Richards
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
RE: Introduction and first reading, by title only, of a Tenant Protections Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.19, Tenant Protections, of Title 8, Health and Safety, of the Goleta Municipal Code
Dear Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers,
The Santa Barbara Association of REALTORS® (SBAOR) represents about 1,300 REALTORS® throughout the South Coast and our mission includes engaging in real estate related community issues affecting our members and/or their clients who are homeowners, housing providers, tenants, and commercial owners. As one of the leading organizations in the South Coast primarily focused on housing, we oppose the amendments to the above-mentioned Municipal Code sections. The Santa Barbara Rental Property Association (SBRPA), with over 1,000 members representing over 22,000 rental units, is the premiere organization for housing providers, suppliers, and the rental housing community.
We request that the Council adopt Option 2 for Section 8.19.060(C): “Where applicable, the monthly rental rate shall be established in accordance with the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (California Civil Code § 1950.50 et seq.).” As we have noted in a previous letter and comments, if you go with Option 1, we question the legality of it.
Option 1 specifically states the “The rental price for the unit shall be set at no more than the total rental rate charged for the unit at the time of the notice of Termination of Residential Tenancy plus 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower”, but throughout the ordinance it also states that this is to be implemented following a termination of Residential Tenancy”. If the housing provider has issued a no-fault just cause termination and has followed all the proper notifications and provided the relocation assistance, then the legal obligation between the two parties (housing provider and tenant) has been severed.
Therefore, how can the total rental rate charged for the unit at the time of the notice of Termination of Residential Tenancy plus 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower, be the determined rental rate when per Costa Hawkins the rental rate can go to market rate once the lease is terminated? We have no issue with the first right of refusal to re-rent, but NOT at the same rate. If the same rate is required for the first right of refusal, property owners will not remodel because they will not be able to recoup their costs. This section is rent control and not just first right of refusal to re-rent.
We request that the Council exempt from the provisions of the ordinance all properties with four units or fewer.
These units are considered small “mom and pop” housing providers and they have been inundated with new confusing regulations over the last few years. With more and more of them either selling or considering selling their rental properties, this means there will be less rental housing in our City. This will translate to higher rents for tenants already struggling with a lack of supply of rental housing.
Santa Barbara Association of REALTORS® | 1415 Chapala Street | Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 963-3787 | (805) 966-9664 FAX | www.sbaor.com REALTOR® is a registered trademark that identifies a professional in real estate who subscribes to a strict code of ethics as a member of the National Association of REALTORS®
We would like to remind you that since 2019, there have been a multitude of new tenant protection laws enacted on the state and local levels, including, but not limited to:
• State enacted the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482 - 5% + CPI rent cap & just cause) • Santa Barbara City removed the sunset date from the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 - rent caps & just cause will remain in perpetuity
• Santa Barbara City and County enacted a mandatory offer of a one-year lease ordinance • Santa Barbara City and County enacted a Just Cause & Relocation Ordinance • Eviction moratorium due to COVID-19
• Santa Barbara City and County added Substantial Remodel requirements • State limited security deposits to one month’s rent
• State Amended the Tenant Protection Act which tightens up requirements for no fault evictions; adds damages, penalties, attorney fees and enforcement mechanisms for violations • City of Goleta implements Tenant Protections via Emergency Ordinance
Instead of focusing on proposals that will end up hurting the very people you hope to help, the City should focus on solutions to the overarching problem. The lack of supply.
The majority of economists agree that the answer to the housing crisis is more supply due to the high demand and not additional restrictions to the market. Instead of trying to implement even more onerous regulations, the City of Goleta should look into a robust education campaign which our organizations are will to help with. The City also should look at more ways to encourage and promote new housing stock. As the California Legislative Analyst’s Office states in Perspectives on Helping Low-Income Californians Afford Housing “the key remedy to California’s housing challenges is a substantial increase in private home building in the state’s coastal urban communities. An expansion of California’s housing supply would offer widespread benefits to Californians”.
SBAOR and SBRPA request you adopt Option 2 for the Rights of First Refusal After Substantial Remodel, exempt from the provisions of the ordinance all properties with four units or fewer. and use resources to educate the community on the existing policies regarding tenant protections, affordable housing, and the creation of housing instead of spending resources on creating more arduous policies.
Sincerely,
Michele Allyn Betty Jeppesen
SBAOR 2024 President SBRPA 2024 President
From: Jennifer Smith
To: Paula Perotte; Kyle Richards; Stuart Kasdin; Luz Reyes-Martin; James Kyriaco; City Clerk Group Cc: Peter Imhof; Winnie Cai
Subject: Item C.3 Support - Tenant Protection Ordinance Date: Monday, March 4, 2024 8:55:24 PM
Attachments: Council_Agenda_Report_-_TENANT_PROTECTION_ORDINANCES__[ORDINANCE_INTRODUCTION].pdf Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and City staff:
I write to support the Tenant Protection Ordinance, with
a few comments/recommendtions:
- Support proposed Early Tenant Alert Notice
- Support proposed Tenant Anti Harassment provisions
- Support Option 1 for Right of First Refusal with an additional recommendation:
It appears that the Goleta City Attorney's office may have concern about the applicability of Costa Hawkins. The City of Santa Barbara City Attorney's office did an analysis
in its staff
memo to council regarding right of first refusal and continued implementation of a max rent increase of 10% or 5% plus CPI, whichever is lower, following a no-fault eviction for substantial renovation.
The City Attorney's recommendation noted the following:
"Limit the rent for a re-rental following a no-fault eviction based on substantial remodel to an increase of 10% or 5% plus CPI, whichever is lower, of the rent at the time of the no-fault eviction.
For purposes of the right of first refusal to re-rent following a termination of tenancy for a substantial remodel, which by definition includes any recovery of possession, is considered for all purposes to be a temporary interruption of the tenant’s right to a unit, and the exercise of the right to re-rent is considered a continuation of the pre-existing lease subject to the potential of a limited rent increase."
See Page 4,
Council Agenda Report Tenant Protection Ordinances [Ordinance Introduction] January 9, 2024 (attached).
The City of SB attorney's office proposed the following ordinance language:
For purposes of this paragraph, a no-fault just cause termination of tenancy shall be deemed for all purposes to be a temporary interruption of the tenant’s rights to the unit and the exercise of the right of first refusal to be a continuation of the pre-existing lease subject to the rent increase authorized by this paragraph For more information, I recommend contacting:
Daniel S. Hentschke
Assistant City Attorney
Santa Barbara
Office 805-564-5408
- Recommend that the proposed ordinance apply to the rental of condos (see Applicability part M currently exempts condos).
To the best of my knowledge, the County of SB and The City of SB do not generally exempt condos (unless new construction or owner-occupancy rules apply). Local ordinances may be more protective than state law. Based on the staff report I'm not sure if this is an error? Thank for your leadership in addressing our housing affordability and instability crisis.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Smith
7270 Tuolumne Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
cell 415-205-1091
--
Jennifer Smith
[email protected]
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE:January 9, 2024
TO:Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:City Attorney’s Office
SUBJECT:Tenant Protection Ordinances [Ordinance Introduction] RECOMMENDATION: That Council:
A. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Santa Barbara Municipal Code by Amending Sections 26.50.010, 26.50.040, 26.50.060, 26.50.070 and by Adding Section 26.50.080 Relating to Just Cause Eviction; by Adding Section 26.50.055 to Provide a Tenant Right of First Refusal to Re-rent Following a No-Fault Just Cause Eviction; by Adding Section 26.50.075 Relating to Occupancy Following a Substantial Remodel, and by Adding Chapter 26.60 Relating to Protection of Tenants from Harassment; and
B. Introduce and subsequently adopt, by reading of title only, an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Amending the Santa Barbara Municipal Code by Amending Sections 26.40.020 and 26.40.030 Relating to Required One-Year Lease Offers to Residential Tenants.
BACKGROUND:
The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Stats. 2019, ch. 597; AB 1482) established statewide just cause eviction and relocation assistance protections for residential tenants, but also authorized cities to enact more protective local regulations which supersede state law.
On December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5979 to establish local regulations that were more protective than the provisions of Civil Code Section 1946.2 as it existed at that time. On March 21, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6107 as an urgency measure further amending Municipal Code Chapter 26.50 to strengthen tenant protections regarding no-fault just cause eviction. Shortly thereafter, the County Board of Supervisors adopted similar tenant protection measures applicable to unincorporated areas, and on July 11, 2023, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance to provide tenants a right of first refusal to re-rent a unit following a no-fault just Council Agenda Report
Tenant Protection Ordinances [Ordinance Introduction]
January 9, 2024
cause eviction. During the current legislative session, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 567 further amending Civil Code Section 1946.2 to provide additional tenant protections. The bill was signed by the Governor and is chaptered as 2023 Statutes, Chapter 290. The proposed ordinance will continue to provide greater protections than under Civil Code Section 1946.2 by providing higher relocation assistance amounts than state law, making permanent the temporary protections provided under Civil Code Section 1946.2, which are scheduled to sunset in 2030, and having an earlier effective date than some of the provisions adopted by Senate Bill 567. Further, the proposed ordinance adds a new Municipal Code chapter designed prevent tenant harassment, which is modeled after similar ordinances of other California cities including Oakland and Lost Angeles.
On October 27, 2023, a copy of the draft ordinance amending Chapter 26.50 relating to just-cause evictions and the addition of Chapter 26.60 relating to tenant harassment was distributed for review and comment to interested persons, including tenant and rental owner organizations and representatives. On December 5, 2023, the Ordinance Committee considered the matter and after public input continued it for further consideration at its meeting on December 12, 2023. The Committee directed the City Attorney to include amendments responding to suggestions by Legal Aid, the League of Women Voters, and Councilmember Jordan for consideration at the December 12 meeting. On December 12, 2023, the Committee considered a draft ordinance including additional amendments as distributed and described at that meeting. Following further public input, the Committee unanimously approved and recommended for introduction and adoption the draft ordinance as presented at the December 12 meeting. The Committee also unanimously directed the City Attorney’s Office to draft and present directly to the City Council an additional ordinance amending Chapter 26.40, which relates to required one-year lease offers to residential tenants. Both ordinances are presented with this Agenda Report.
DISCUSSION
Staff recommendation A. Ordinance amending Chapter 26.50 relating to just-cause evictions and adding Chapter 26.60 relating to protecting tenants from harassment.
This report is organized by subject matter. The ordinance sections and page numbers that correspond to the subject matter are noted in parenthesis following each subject heading.
Updates to Existing Just Cause Provisions (Sections 2 – 6, 8, Pages 2 – 14.) Currently, Municipal Code Section 26.50.010 precludes owners of rental units from terminating a tenancy except for just cause. Just cause is either at-fault just cause or no- fault just cause as defined in Municipal Code Section 26.50.070. Section 2 of the proposed ordinance will incorporate the definitions of at-fault just cause and no-fault just cause as adopted by Senate Bill 567. The amendment also declares existing law through Council Agenda Report
Tenant Protection Ordinances [Ordinance Introduction]
January 9, 2024
an express statement that a termination of tenancy subject to the just cause requirement includes any attempt by an owner to recover possession of a rental unit, including through expiration of a lease or failing, choosing not to renew a lease, or court proceeding.
Ordinance Section 3 clarifies that the exclusion of deed restricted units from operation of Chapter 26.50 does not apply to tenancies assisted by Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers where the housing is not otherwise restricted.
Ordinance Section 4 amends Municipal Code Section 26.50.040 to add a requirement for notification of a tenant’s right of first refusal to re-rent in connection with a no-fault just cause termination of a tenancy. It also adds a requirement to provide all notices required under Civil Code Section 1946.2 as amended by Senate Bill 567. Further, it clarifies that the dollar amount of tenant relocation assistance must be included in the notice.
Existing remedies for violations of the just cause requirements include defense to an unlawful detainer action, civil damages, and administrative or criminal enforcement.
Section 5 of the proposed ordinance amends Municipal Code Section 26.50.060 clarifying that it is the owner’s burden to plead and prove just cause and to add civil damage awards mirroring those under amendments made by Senate Bill 567, including the potential for a court to award for up to three times actual damages in civil cases where the owner’s conduct is willful or done with fraud, malice, or oppression. The amendment also clarifies that an incomplete notice is void.
Just cause for termination of a tenancy is defined in Municipal Code Section 26.50.070.
Several amendments to the definitions of no-fault just cause are proposed in Section 6 of the draft ordinance starting at page 8. First, Subsection B. 2. a. amends requirements for no-fault just cause based upon recovery of a rental unit for the purpose of occupancy by the owner or a member of the owner’s family. The amendment will require the intended occupant of the unit to move into the rental unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates and to live at the unit for at least 12 consecutive months, otherwise, the tenant will have the right to re-rent the unit on the same terms as when the tenancy was terminated along with reimbursement of moving expenses. An exception exists where the intended occupant moves into the rental unit within 90 days but dies before having occupied the unit for 12 months. Second, Subsection B. 2. b. would be amended to require an owner seeking to permanently withdraw a rental unit from the market to file a notice with the Community Development Department specifying the intended new use. This will help enforce the good faith and permanent removal elements of this reason for removal. Third, Subsection B. 2. d. relating to demolition or substantial remodel of unit is amended to add a requirement for an opinion from an independent construction expert that the work cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place and that the work requires the tenant to vacate the unit for at least 30 consecutive days. That subsection is also amended to delete the requirement for early tenant alter notices because the notices were causing confusion and not serving their intended purpose.
Fourth, with respect to the definition of substantial remodel, Subsection G of Section
26.50.070 will be amended to make it clear that any days where a tenant could continue Council Agenda Report
Tenant Protection Ordinances [Ordinance Introduction]
January 9, 2024
living in a rental unit without violating health, safety, and habitability laws cannot be counted when determining if the work requires a tenant to vacate for at least 30 days.
Section 8 of the draft ordinance adds Municipal Code Section 26.50.075 to preclude an owner from re-renting a unit that has been substantially remodeled until all the permitted work has been inspected and certified as complete by the Building Department.
Finally, Section 9 of the draft ordinance will add Municipal Code Section 26.50.080 to preclude a new owner of property having five or more rental units from initiating no-fault just cause evictions to demolish or substantially remodel a unit for a period of one year following the owner’s acquisition of the property.
Right of First Refusal to Re-rent following a No-fault Just Cause Eviction (Section 7, page
12.)
The new right of first refusal to re-rent is modeled after the recently adopted County ordinance. It is contained in Section 7 of the proposed ordinance, which adds Section
26.50.055 to the Municipal Code to do the following:
Require an owner to give written notice to tenants of the right of first refusal at the same time the tenant is given notice of the termination of tenancy and notice of right to relocation benefits.
Give tenants who are evicted for no-fault just cause a right of first refusal to re-rent the unit or a comparable unit for a period of two years. Require tenants who wish to take advantage of the right of first refusal to keep the owner apprised of the tenants’ contact information.
Require owners to make the offer to re-rent in the form of a written lease that complies with the City’s existing requirements under Chapter 26.40. Require owners to establish the rental price in accordance with Civil Code § 1954.53, when applicable.
Limit the rent for a re-rental following a no-fault eviction based on substantial remodel to an increase of 10% or 5% plus CPI, whichever is lower, of the rent at the time of the no-fault eviction. For purposes of the right of first refusal to re-rent following a termination of tenancy for a substantial remodel, which by definition includes any recovery of possession, is considered for all purposes to be a temporary interruption of the tenant’s right to a unit, and the exercise of the right to re-rent is considered a continuation of the pre-existing lease subject to the potential of a limited rent increase.
The right to re-rent is additional to rights to re-rent under Civil Code Section 1946.2 (b)(2)(A)(vi) [right to re-rent if an intended family member fails to occupy a unit as their primary residence for at least 12 months] and 1946.2 (b)(2)(D)(iv) [right to re-rent if substantial remodel is not commenced or completed].
Council Agenda Report
Tenant Protection Ordinances [Ordinance Introduction]
January 9, 2024
Tenant Protection from Harassment (Section 10, Pages 13 - 17.) Section 10 of the proposed ordinance will add a new Municipal Code Chapter 26.60 to protect tenants from willful harassment by owners and owners’ agents, contactors, subcontractors, or employees. Examples of activities that could constitute prohibited harassment include:
Reducing or eliminating housing services required by a lease, contract, or law, including the elimination of parking if provided in the tenant’s lease or contract, or access to common areas or amenities.
Failing to perform and timely complete legally required repairs and maintenance. Failing to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance once undertaken or failing to follow appropriate industry standards designed to minimize exposure to noise, dust, lead paint, mold, asbestos, or other building materials with potentially harmful health impacts.
Abusing the owner's right of access into a rental housing unit as established and limited by California Civil Code Section 1954, including entering or photographing portions of a rental unit that are beyond the scope of lawful entry or inspection. Threatening a tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm. Misrepresenting to a tenant that the tenant is required to vacate a rental unit or enticing a tenant to vacate a rental unit through intentional misrepresentation or the concealment or omission of a material fact.
Repeatedly offering unwanted payments or other inducements to a tenant to vacate.
Threatening to report a tenant or other persons to any local, state, or federal agency on the basis of their perceived or actual immigration status. Inquiring as to the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective tenant, additional tenant, occupant, or prospective additional occupant of a rental unit. Refusing to acknowledge or accept receipt of lawful rent payments. Engaging in activity prohibited by federal, state, or local housing anti-discrimination laws.
Retaliating, threatening, or interfering with tenant organizing activities, including forming or participating in tenant associations and unions. Retaliating, threatening, or interfering with a tenant’s right to appear at Council meetings or file complaints with the City.
Interfering with a tenant's right to privacy, including video or audio recording that captures the interior of a tenant's bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The items are stated in full in proposed Section 26.60.010.
Enforcement of the anti-harassment protections would be by civil proceedings brought an aggrieved tenant. Remedies that a judge could impose in a civil case include:
Council Agenda Report
Tenant Protection Ordinances [Ordinance Introduction]
January 9, 2024
Actual damages or a minimum amount of $1000 per violation, whichever is greater. In the court’s discretion, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Up to three times the actual damages upon a showing that the owner has acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.
An award may also be entered for punitive damages for the benefit of the tenant against the owner. Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation, tenant relocation, and other appropriate relief.
Injunctive relief and any other remedy provided by law.
Staff Recommendation B. Ordinance amending Municipal Code Sections 26.40.020 and 26.40.030 relating to required one-year lease offers to Residential Tenants.
The second ordinance amends Chapter 26.40, which was adopted in 2019. The first proposed amendment is to Section 26.40.020 to remove confusing, limiting language.
After amendment, the section will clearly state that a failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter 26.40 is a defense to a legal action brought to recover possession of a unit.
The second proposed amendment is to Section 26.40.030, to amend the definition rental unit so that the types of units covered under Chapter 26.40 and Chapter 26.50 are the same.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
These ordinances are not subject to environmental review pursuant to the State CEQA Sections 15060(c)(3) pertaining to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and 15061 (b)(3), the common sense exception, because the ordinances have no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment directly or indirectly in that it merely regulates existing physical development.
PREPARED BY:Daniel S. Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney SUBMITTED BY:Tava Ostrenger, Acting City Attorney
APPROVED BY:City Administrator's Office
From: Karen Rice
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Santa Barbara Tenants Union
Subject: Strengthen renter protections
Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 5:28:33 PM
Dear City Council,
As a renter and resident of Goleta, I thank you for the protections you passed in December. All of us renters feel the weight that a landlord's whim could make the place we call home untenable and throw our lives into chaos, especially any renter with kids, disabilities, or other life circumstances that make moving difficult.
Please continue to strengthen the protections for renters, specifically keeping the rent cap after substantial renovations are made. Don't let more long-time Goletans, especially Lantine folks be pushed out of their homes.
Thank you again for the protections you've passed before, and please continue to listen to the SB Tenants' Union, as they are made up of all of us affected (myself included).
Best,
Dr. Karen Rice