Imperial Beach City Council
January 15, 2025

From: Gary Brown
To: Public Comments
Subject: Tennant Protections
Date: Saturday, December 14, 2024 11:39:16 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an External source. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The attached illustrates two things:

1. Cities can and do make adjustments to protect renters.

2. There’s a balance to be struck between protecting renters and encouraging property owners to make improvements.

I trust you ,City Council, will be wise and achieve that balance.

Editorial: Los Angeles can find a fairer way to raise the rent https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-12-08/los-angeles-rent-stabilization-ordinance-increases The city's rent control law needs to do more to prevent price shocks for tenants during periods of high inflation while ensuring landlords can recoup costs.
.
d.1 12/16/24 Tenant Protections
Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

About 650,000 units in the city were built before Oct. 1, 1978, and are regulated by the rent-stabilization ordinance. That’s nearly 75% of L.A.’s apartments.

Los Angeles has one of the least affordable housing markets in the country, and that’s the driving force behind the city’s homelessness crisis. More than half of tenants in the greater L.A. region are rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than a third of their income on housing, leaving less money for savings, healthcare, transportation and other needs.

OPINION
Opinion: I believe in tenants’ rights. But L.A. is pushing out small landlords like me Jan. 16, 2024
More than 10% of tenants spend more than 90% of their income on rent, making them vulnerable to ending up on the street. So city leaders have a keen interest in keeping rents stable to help tenants stay housed.

But the city also has an interest in ensuring that landlords can charge enough money to properly maintain their units and get enough of a return on their investment to keep them in the rental business.

L.A. froze rent increases for nearly four years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, far longer than most jurisdictions. Landlords had to forgo the cumulative 16% rent increase that would have been allowed under the current formula. The 4% increase allowed on Feb. 1 was the first since the pandemic.

Meanwhile, property owners’ operating expenses, including payroll, maintenance, utilities and insurance, have increased faster than inflation in recent years. 12/16/24, 9:05 AM Editorial: Los Angeles can find a fairer way to raise the rent - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-12-08/los-angeles-rent-stabilization-ordinance-increases 2/5 d.3 12/16/24 Tenant Protections
Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

CALIFORNIA
To renovate an apartment — and not jack up the rent: These property owners have found a way
Oct. 3, 2024
It’s not easy for policymakers to balance those competing interests. But reasonable changes can be made to the formula that establishes how much owners of rentstabilized units can raise their prices each year.

The city ordinance sets an allowable annual increase in rents between a guaranteed minimum of 3% and a maximum of 8% based on the consumer price index, which measures inflation. Because inflation was low for so long, allowable increases have exceeded the CPI in 23 of the last 30 years, meaning rents were permitted to rise significantly more than inflation.

Fair market rent for a one-bedroom apartment was $490 in 1985, when the city adopted the current formula. If allowable rent increases had tracked the consumer price index, the same unit would rent for $1,500 today. With the 3% guaranteed minimum allowable rent increase, however, the rent would be $1,705, according to an analysis done by Keep LA Housed, a coalition of tenant advocates. That’s still lower than current market rent of about $2,000 a month.

OPINION
Editorial: L.A. can’t become an affordable, livable city by protecting single-family zoning
June 17, 2024
L.A. allows annual increases of as much as 8% based on inflation, which is higher than most of the other cities that have rent control. The city also allows landlords to charge an additional 1% if they cover gas and the same if they pay for electricity. At a time when tenants are already crunched by higher prices, the current formula permits landlords to raise most renters’ biggest monthly expense by a significant share. 12/16/24, 9:05 AM Editorial: Los Angeles can find a fairer way to raise the rent - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-12-08/los-angeles-rent-stabilization-ordinance-increases 3/5 d.4 12/16/24 Tenant Protections
Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

Tenant advocates have pushed the City Council to set a 3% maximum and peg increases to 60% of the consumer price index to slow rent increases over time. Landlord groups want the council to keep the formula as it is so their members can make up for the pandemic rent freeze.

The Housing Department has settled on a good compromise: setting a new maximum allowable rent increase of 5% and a new guaranteed minimum of 2%. That would prevent sharp rent hikes while helping landlords keep up with rising business fees and expenses that may not be reflected in the consumer price index. The department staff also suggested eliminating the extra 2% potentially allowed for utilities after a study found the additional rent increases likely exceed the cost of service.

Other proposals from the Housing Department need a bit more scrutiny from council members. To help landlords keep up with rising costs in years when inflation exceeds the 5% annual cap, staff suggest “banking” increases above 5% and applying them when the consumer price index falls below 5%. That could cost tenants more because the extra percentage increase would be applied to higher base rents in future years.

The Housing Department also suggests basing rent increases on a different measure of inflation that does not include housing costs, which have been a major driver of inflation. Tenant advocates warn that the proposed measure can be volatile, while landlords say it doesn’t capture enough of their costs.

Rent control is a valuable tool for keeping communities stable and preventing displacement and homelessness in an expensive real estate market. It makes sense to adjust the city’s formula for allowable rent increases to strike a better balance.

But ultimately the solution to L.A.’s housing crisis is to build more housing, especially affordable housing. The top priority of the City Council and Mayor Karen Bass should be making homebuilding faster, easier and cheaper in every neighborhood of the city. 12/16/24, 9:05 AM Editorial: Los Angeles can find a fairer way to raise the rent - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-12-08/los-angeles-rent-stabilization-ordinance-increases 4/5 d.5 12/16/24 Tenant Protections
Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

Imperial Beach Ad Hoc Committee for Tenant Protections
Housing Providers and Tenants have long standing relationships. Occasionally from time to time the relationship needs to be severed or turns sour. This is no different than any other business relationship.

The news is filed horror stories about tenants destroying rental properties; not only hoarder junk, but drugs, meth, puppy mills, farm animals, non-working cars and trucks leaking oil on the lawns, driveways, in parking lots, which runs into the waste water gutters to our beaches.

Other stories are about tenants who rent a room for one month and never leave. Or tenants who lock out the owners.

A few in our city want to create more issues for housing providers which only help bad tenants. This creates squallier, non-payments, and evictions which are costly and time consuming. What the supporters are forgetting is the individual housing providers. Every time a law is passed it makes it much harder. Because of this the acceptance of lower financial tenants has become unattainable for many of the housing providers. We would require two months security deposit on high risk tenants. Not allowed to any longer. Used to be able to see criminal history; now the counties mask it. Used to look at past evictions and court filings; now that is masked. The state and cities are protecting many of the people you wouldn’t let into your home. Why? This helps the professional scammers. Who is this hurting? Everyone!
Used to accept credit scores below 600, now minimum is 715 (national average). Applicant’s personal banking is looked at deeper. They now must have in their personal savings a minimum of 12 months’ rent. This shows job and financial responsibility stability. I’ll add that gig economy and self-employed are having a much harder time because now banking and tax records are required. Just like buying a house or car.

Private investigators are now used to deep dive the background of perspective tenants. Just trying to weed out the known problem tenants. They look at social media post, past bankruptcies, and anything else that may suggest pitfalls.

Today I rent only people with an official identification issued by the US Federal government or a State Government with the Federal E-Verify need apply. Too many scammers.

Lease agreements used to allow for mediation of disputes, just like every other business contract. That was removed by the state to protect tenants. Again, who are they protecting? Now the courts are overloaded and it takes a very long time to evict someone.

Now our own cities are working against housing providers by enacting hostile laws that adversely affect the business relationship between housing providers and their customers, who happen to be tenants.

Ideas that have been enacted include:

Anti-harassment where the tenant “feels” harassed because of anything from being told not to park on the grass, or in someone else’s parking spot to asking where the rent is? City of Los Angeles took it much farther by also enacting the “dirty looks” as harassment. Punishment to the housing providers is a f.2 12/16/24 Tenant Protections
Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

minimum of $2,000 plus attorney fees. And the lawsuits can be filed by renters, renters organizations, or by the City of Los Angeles and the landlord has to pay attorney fees even if it’s the LA City attorney.

Harassment includes taking pictures for obtaining quotes or for cause. It’s called evidence. Nobody likes it. It’s a necessary business practice. Tenants can remove personal pictures easily enough.

As part of a normal business Housing providers need to perform inspections from time to time. This requires access. Some tenants feel this is harassment. Some feel the right to change the locks or refuse entry to the housing provider, realtors, repair people and even city code enforcement inspector’s. Some tenants put wet rags in buckets under sinks to create mold.

Some tenants will call city code enforcement for a problem they created that the housing provider was never notified about. Of course these problems never show up until tenants are being evicted for nonpayment of rent. Funny how that happens… Other issues are broken electrical outlets and switches, water leaks and clogged plumbing, even toys put down a toilet, which go unreported. Broken windows, broken mirrors, holes in walls, storage of hazardous materials, these issues need to be addressed as they occur and yes the tenants need to pay for repairs as they occur; but they don’t want to.

Some tenants sneak in dogs which chew door and window trim, through walls, and poop is left on the floors, which damages the flooring, and destroys carpeting. Because of changes in state law security deposits are likely insufficient to cover damages.

Who determines what harassment is? The city? The state? Who? There is not and can never be specific rules. If a tenant is harassed they can sue for emotional distress. The city should butt out.

Housing Providers have been sued because a tenant’s dog bit or killed a neighbor. This happened in San Francisco with the housing provider paying $200,000.00 because the dog killed a neighbor.

This is what much of what the tenant protections are doing.

Where are the housing provider protections? There are none. Housing providers are forced to take large aggressive dog breeds that tenants just got as “emotional support animals”. Is it harassment when the housing provider tells the tenant to pick up after the dog poops? What is the city remedy for changing door locks? Blocking entry for inspection or repairs? Or just outright squatters? How about the city paying for housing provider legal cost to evict squatters? Just recently I needed to access without notice an upstairs rental unit because water was leaking from a fitting on the toilet. It destroyed the downstairs ceiling. The failure was a direct cause of the tenant incorrectly installing a bidet. Unapproved plumbing alterations water damages and repairs cost of $25,000. I have receipts. How much of the tenants one month security deposit did this cover? So what is the remedy? Lawsuit and garnish wages? (Good luck with that). f.3 12/16/24 Tenant Protections
Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

State and cities require low flow shower heads; how often do I need to remove the high flow shower heads and reinstall the low flow shower heads as required? Also required are smoke and CO2 detectors.

Also required is the permeant battery 10 year life expensive devices. Used to be the batteries were stolen for other things. Now, because they will get dust and need periodic cleaning, they get thrown away and the tenant says it was never provided.

Where are my city protections for these issues? None exist yet the city wants to fine me for harassing my tenant when I am constantly fixing the same things for the same tenants.

One thing the city could do is refuse to send out code enforcement to look at anything without the housing provider being notified 30 days in advance and provided an opportunity to make repairs. Tenants weaponized Code Enforcement. Don’t let that happen.

Housing providers are required by law and morally should provide a safe home. Recently some IB tenants were threating to withhold rents until the Tijuana poop odors were cleaned up. Some feel it’s the housing provider’s responsibility to remove the vagrants hanging outside and all the vandalizing and breaking into cars should be paid by the housing providers. Where are the housing provider’s rights on this? These are social issues that have gone unchecked by city law enforcement or just out of our cities ability.

Some cities want their regulations in 12pt font. This makes it harder from a management standpoint. If the word processor is set for 12pt, and it prints 12pt but it copied at 11.9pt then what? It makes the lease agreement invalid and the tenants get all of their money back. Yes, it’s that level of stupidity.

Any city specific notices should be written on city letterhead and available on line as an addendum PDF and available for a free printed copy. San Diego requires the tenant’s protections be provided to the tenants in print, all 70 pages. It immediately goes into the trash. Simply if the city requires it, the city should provide it at city cost. Fair is fair.

Some cities have implemented residential vacancy taxes. San Francisco just lost a lawsuit about this.

They will appeal it of course. SF was taking an estimated $9 million annually. Why does this matter? Because every time the state or city makes it harder to do business, more vacancies occur. These houses and apartments go unfilled. Thus contributing to less available housing.

In 2020 I worked in much of Imperial Beach for the US Census. I was shocked to learn how many homes and apartments in Imperial Beach are kept vacant. I started keeping a count it added up over 200 units. I only went to the homes that did not respond to the census. Some of the owners were past housing providers who chose to keep them off of the market. By implementing more friendly policies Imperial Beach could see some additional housing become available.

What is more favorable to housing providers?
f.4 12/16/24 Tenant Protections
Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

 Unpaid rent from a tenant must be placed into an interest bearing account with the city as an escrow holder within three days of a late notice being served by a housing provider. If the tenant doesn’t perform the city is to remain silent regarding eviction.  During normal business hours if tenant refuses housing provider or their agents access for any reason the housing provider will notify the city and the city is to remain silent regarding eviction.  Other issues the city needs to remain silent on include:

A) Unknown persons who are staying there.

B) Animals that were not previously approved by the housing provider. Including any emotional support animals.

C) Any criminal activity on or off the property.

D) Storage of dangerous items on the property.

E) Changing of locks or rekeying without the housing providers written permission F) Anything the violates the lease agreement.

Part of the city’s effort will interferes with housing provider’s ability to evict nonperforming or underperforming tenants. Requiring a housing provider to accept back rent after eviction papers have been started is costly to the housing provider. Lawyers get $1,000.00 to just fill out and file the paperwork with the courts. This expense could be avoided if the tenants paid the rent on time and stopped pretending the housing provider is their bank. Banks and loan companies repossess cars without interference from cities and are not required to go to court. Same with furniture. It’s a business transaction.

There should be a different set of rules for people who rent rooms vs the entire apartment or home.

Currently they share the same benefits, putting the small homeowner/housing provider at much greater risk. This has led to reduced housing with bedrooms sitting empty. There are a few residents who could tell you horror stories about their own individual experiences.

I covered a lot of ground here. Point is if the city wants more housing, then make it easier on housing providers to remove bad apples, non-paying, and other issues that add to the operational cost.

In 2025 we are going to see and additional business Federal tax. This is because the state of California has defaulted on its obligations to the Federal Government on a $20B loan for COVID-19 pandemic relief. Not only will the manufacturing, farming, retail, hospitality sectors but so will the housing providers. Of course this additional tax will be passed along to every consumer and housing is no different. For this take your complaints to Governor Newsom.

My own water bill in the last 12 months increased over 20% for less water usage. EDCO has increased over 10%. SDGE is next to impossible to calculate thanks to all the other factors. Point is outside cost are driving up the rents. A shower valve replacement used to cost $300.00 two years ago. Same job today cost $1,200.00. The trades cost have skyrocketed. Property Insurance has also leaped. This too is something the state messed with. There are plenty of stories. Mostly because they know they can get it.

Where is the regulation of these costs? Who is supposed to pay these costs? The consumer always does; the tenants see it with higher rents. What can the city do? Stop adding risk and adding cost. f.5 12/16/24 Tenant Protections
Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

Yes – every residence should be maintained. The heat should work, doors and windows should lock and the roof not leak. Electrical and plumbing should be maintained. This cost a lot, but it is needed.

Because of cost many housing providers will not provide some basic amenities such as a stove and refrigerator. Why? Because accessibility has become an issue with lingering excuses for COVID, work from home interruptions, they want the service in the evening or over the weekends. Some tenants wait until Friday evening to report a plumbing problem because they don’t want the intrusion while they are working. So the solution is to minimize risk and cut cost. Law does not require housing providers to have these items, nor should it.

I have only addressed the issues that affect small time housing providers, not the corporate investors.

Although they suffer the same cost hardships usually the economies of scale make it more palatable.

Some cities have enacted renter’s boards to determine what the rent should be. Or have claw back which require the housing provide to refund rent monies. These cities also have the highest vacancy rates and lowest new builds for apartments.

The corporate investors typically will raise the rent the maximum allowable amount every year. Small housing providers don’t usually follow this model. Unfortunately, because of rent control and over reaching tenant protections such as harassment mentioned earlier the small time housing provider no longer has that luxury. Need to build a war chest for the day it’s your turn to defend yourself from bad tenants.

How would I go about addressing the issues? Have a real honest discussion with housing providers, large and small. Find ways to contain cost. Find ways to remove bad tenants quickly. These two things will protect the good tenants and go towards keeping rents from increasing as much. Talk with some of the eviction attorneys and learn what their biggest issues are, and their cost.

Nobody want’s slumlords and the issues that come from that; just like nobody wants bad tenants and the problems that come from that.

Both sides deserve balance.

Housing is not a monopoly. Housing is owned by many people from individuals to large corporations.

Housing can be shopped for amenities, cost, and location. We only have one provider for gas, electric, water, sewer and trash. These are monopolies.

Mark Williams
f.6 12/16/24 Tenant Protections
Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting

12/21/2024 Tenant Protection Ad Hoc Committee
Meeting Correspondence
a) Correspondence from Danyrea Megginson.
b) Correspondence from Suzzane Warren.
c) Correspondence from Mark Williams x 2
d) Correspondence from Geraldeen Wood-Herman
e) Correspondence from Sandra Brillhart

1 1 Comments for tenants protections December 21 2024
2 One of the things that have not been discussed that should not be controversial is public safety. 3 Imperial Beach has a lot of secondary homes that are hidden behind the main home. We also have a lot 4 of homes where the address is not clearly identified. In addition when the neighbors/sheriff/fire has 5 problems that warrant owner/property manager notification there is no easy path to contact someone. 6 To address this issue the city could/should require a few things:
7 Address displayed: Require every property, all homes or separate buildings, to have the address 8 displayed on the structure so it can been seen from the curb/driveway. Additionally it should be a 9 contrasting color.
10 Addressing alley homes (two or more homes on one lot): A simple sign easily seen from the street curb 11 stating the back house address (s) followed by the word “alley”. Example 1070 Alley or other clear 12 reference. Alley houses address need to be seen from the alley and idenitified on the building. This 13 should be required of all properties, owner occupied or not. 14 Condos and apartments must have each unit clearly identified by the front door. 15 Contact Information: Rental properties only with absentee owner: Require posting of a sign that can 16 been read from the curb or alley that provides either a phone number or email address to contact the 17 responsible party. Examples: [email protected] or 619-123-4567 or Managed by: ABC properties 619- 18 987-6543. Point is to have a path for the average person to reach someone for property issues. 19 Short Term Rentals, less than30 days, need a permanent sign posted outside, not just in a window, and 20 require a 24 hour contact phone number.
21 IB code enforcement would be charged with enforcement of these rules. 22 23 Health Risk from Second Hand Smoking, Cannabis, Vaping, Incense, Scented Candles 24 Imperial Beach being a health-conscious community should outright ban any substances is capable of 25 creating a smell and can be transported through the air from rental properties. This should exclude BBQ 26 and other food cooking. Make an easy path to evict if necessary the people who break this rule. Aside 27 from the property damage odor producing elements cause neighboring tenants or residents simply 28 cannot get away from it. In some people it causes medical crisis. This is true of all allergens. 29 California Prop 65 Warning for Mexican Sewage
30 I urge the city to create a lease addendum for our cities housing providers to explain the unknown 31 health risk due to the Mexican sewage issue. Help the housing providers protect themselves. c.2 12/21/2024 Tenant Protection Ad Hoc
Subcommittee Meeting

2 32 Have this available on official City of IB letterhead and available as an option to local housing providers 33 to have tenants sign to acknowledge the risk.
34 Animals (excluding legitimate service animals)
35 One of the larger problems is people sneaking in animals. The legal binding lease agreement seems one 36 sided only protecting the tenants, not the landlord. People move in clearly stating they have no pets and 37 then suddenly get their large breed “emotional support” animal. A number of issues come up including 38 the dog owners not picking up the poop, constant dog barking, dog lunging at people, dog chewing 39 walls, doors, and trim creating waste. And if the housing provider says the dog has to go, the bad 40 tenants say it’s their ESA. The city can and should address this issue and put it in the hands of the 41 housing provider, at their sole discretion to allow pets. 42 FYI – Per changes in state law housing providers are no longer allowed to collect extra security or extra 43 rent for pets. Unfortunately this means every tenant must pay more. 44 Tenant Financial Accountability
45 Often housing providers require “Renters” insurance. This is not expensive, however of for some reason 46 the home becomes unable to be occupied or the tenants property becomes damaged or stolen, the 47 tenant is covered. Renters insurance does not pay for broken windows, holes in walls, holes in doors or 48 other such damages. If the housing provider is lucky enough to find this damage while the home is still 49 occupied they will want to fix it. The means bringing in outside contractors to make repairs. Some 50 tenants feel intruded upon and change locks or just flat out refuse to allow repair people in to make 51 repairs or quote. The tenants (or their friends or pets) who caused the damage are fully accountable for 52 these cost. It’s not part of normal wear and tear. Nevertheless they don’t have the hundreds to 53 thousands to pay for the damages. Housing providers can deduct the repair cost from the security and 54 put the tenant on notice that they must refund the security deposit in 30 days, or eventually a notice of 55 eviction and eviction to follow for this. The issue is whole caused by the tenants and need to pay for this 56 damage. Legal aid and groups like ACCE don’t feel this it is reasonable to demand renters insurance; too 57 expensive. How about liability insurance for that Pit Bull the tenants lied and said they didn’t have? 58 Point is housing providers need protections and assistance from having to evict bad tenants because of 59 issues like this. An eviction is San Diego takes seven months or more; all the while not collecting rent. 60 The city should require non-paying tenants funds be deposited into a city held escrow account. Nobody 61 deserves a free ride. These funds should go to the prevailing party once the court case is resolved. 62 63 Housing Provider Limited Financial Liability
64 ACCE and other Housing Rights supporters feel that Housing Providers should pay tenants for relocation. 65 The state law already includes that and it is sufficient. c.3 12/21/2024 Tenant Protection Ad Hoc
Subcommittee Meeting

3 66 What if the property became suddenly not available due to fire, flooding, broken water pipes, electrical 67 problems, SDGE shut downs or gas leaks. Then what? The Housing Provider financial should be limited 68 to 1/30 of the month’s rent per night that the tenant cannot occupy the property. This is fair. Tenant’s 69 renters insurance will pay for additional living expenses. Housing Providers cannot obtain such 70 insurance. Where is the fairness getting much more than you paid for? Requiring Housing Providers to 71 pay for hotels or other long term housing is a recipe for bankruptcy. This also goes for periodic 72 maintenance including tenting for termites.
73 As unfair requirements are placed upon housing providers, rents go up in reaction. This makes 74 it really hard to be a compassionate housing provider. 75 It is next to impossible to separate the mega corporate owners from the small owners. Every law passed 76 has hurt small time investors. So much, that even renting out a bed room is a huge risk. When there is 77 no longer an upside the vacancy rate will increase. Simply because fewer people will take the risk. This 78 has been seen in San Francisco where the city started charging a vacancy tax. The courts ruled that the 79 city cannot charge that tax. I urge the council and committee to think of the greater good when looking 80 at issues.
81 With regards to the housing rehab issue yes it’s hard on the people living there. Yet it’s easier on the 82 city. New tenants will bring more money into the city and spend it locally. The city population will not 83 change in numbers , however the city coffers will be larger. In addition the sale of the property reset the 84 property taxes. I am estimating the new annual tax rate will be $380,000/yr. There is no way for the new 85 owners to offset this cost without higher rents. And it would be very wrong to think otherwise. 86 87 We need to also have an anti-harassment clause to protect housing providers. Other evening I 88 listen to a phone message that was left threating a housing provider. Tenant was being evicted 89 for nonpayment of rent, and one of her protesting friends, likely also a member of the group 90 ACCE called the housing provider and left a threating message because of the eviction. 91 It’s behavior like this that detours housing availability. This person who was being evicted also 92 had members of ACCE protest in front of the residence, to harass the owners, which led to her 93 “friends” throwing rocks and breaking two windows costing over $1,000.00 to repair. 94 The owners should never be harassed like this and certainly our city should demand a complete 95 criminal investigation into all parties’ present and full restitution be made for the damages. 96 c.4 12/21/2024 Tenant Protection Ad Hoc
Subcommittee Meeting

From: Mark Williams
To: Public Comments
Subject: Additional Comments for tenants protections December 21 2024 Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 4:49:04 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an External source. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Additional Comments for tenants protections December 21 2024 Here is a question about tenant protections that just doesn’t make sense. ·
If you don’t make your car payment, new or used, your car gets repossessed. ·If you don’t pay your water bill, it gets shut off.
·If you don’t pay your electric bill it gets shut off.
·If you don’t pay your cell phone bill it gets shut off. ·If you don’t pay your mortgage your house gets foreclosed on and you are removed.

Not one of the above requires a court appearance or takes a minimum of seven months just to get in front of a judge. It’s just part of life. Paying your own way.

Housing is NOT A RIGHT! It’s a need, not an obligation placed upon small investors.

How is it fair in any manner of speaking to allow non- paying people to occupy for free your property? Chances of collecting anything down the road is next to impossible.

So how is it okay for others to decide if they can stay or not? Why are others making it extremely hard to remove non-paying tenants, squatters (truly unknown persons) and others who just hang on? Why are housing providers THE ONLY ONES getting stuck with the bill for property losses, damages, and court cost? City councils like San Diego and Chula Vista have created an unstainable situation. The ignorance and self-righteousness is astounding. Decisions are pushing out the small investor and bringing in the corporate investors. The very people the cities say they don’t want to see.

Cities providing legal aid to stop an eviction are absurd. Tenant protections have gone too far.

The idea behind anti-harassment protections to the people that are taking (stealing) from others would be laughable, something from The Onion, until it’s in writing.

Best way to prevent harassment is pay the rent, on time. It’s not like it’s a surprise when it’s due.

Follow this by following the housing rules; not sneaking in pets, additional tenants, sub-letting, Airbnb, and causing waste.

I would think that cities would want responsible residents, this goes equally for tenants and landlords.

Housing providers should maintain the property to acceptable standards of safe and functional.

Sometimes that requires tenant relocation. Compensation should be 1/30 per day of the rent. That is fair because is what the housing provider earned. Anything more is unjust.

I met with other housing providers Friday morning that live in San Diego. They own a paid off property. They now have two permanent vacancies. They are just not going to risk it any more. c.5 12/21/2024 Tenant Protection Ad Hoc
Subcommittee Meeting

From: Geraldeen Wood-Hermann
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public comments
Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 4:40:56 PM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email is from an External source. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Morning
Mayor &
Council Members
My husband Bill Hermann & I Gerri Wood-Hermann Live at Swell Apartments which had their outside renovated starting last May of 2024 and are expecting each unit to be renovated inside as of January 2025 when they come to each unit we were told we need to vacate immediately That is not easy to do than if we want to come back we were told we will have to reapply with the rates increase maybe doubled
It was bad enough being forced out of the Coronado Loews Bay Resort Marina & being forced off our boat which we loved & the boating life to have to face another eviction !!!!!! Please help us tenants to be able to affordable our rent & be comfortable in our home without being concern about being able to afford rent or living in our cars
We are not against the little businesses Landlords we are talking about the “BIG” greedy investors who are just coming into our small towns & taking over NOT caring if they are pushing people to be homeless !! They should drive down town SD or interstate 5 & look at all the homeless living off the side!!! Thank U for taking the time to let us vent but please think it through who is the REAL person who needs restraints or not !!!
Very concern & grateful
for your concerns
Gerri & Bill of
s/v Stagger Wing
32’ WestSail
Sent from my iPhone
.
d.1 12/21/2024 Tenant Protection Ad Hoc
Subcommittee Meeting

From: Sandra Brillhart
To: Public Comments
Subject: Ad Hoc Tenant Protections Committee
Date: Friday, December 20, 2024 5:12:50 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an External source. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you for taking on this important and difficult issue.

I support a local tenant protection ordinance because it is becoming increasingly apparent that the State law does not do enough to protect vulnerable IB residents.

If it has not been done already, I suggest trying to get more data on the effectiveness of the existing local ordinances in achieving their desired outcomes. For example, Have they resulted in fewer no fault evictions?
Have they provided impacted residents with sufficient resources to find suitable housing and prevent homelessness?
Have they resulted in any unanticipated or negative consequences to the community? Public officials should always put the common good over private interests. Preventing homelessness and safeguarding vulnerable residents against unscrupulous and unfair practices from landlords is clearly in the public interest.

Respectfully,
Sandy Brillhart
.
e.1 12/21/2024 Tenant Protection Ad Hoc
Subcommittee Meeting

12/23/2024 Tenant Protection Ad Hoc Committee
Correspondence
a) Correspondence from Lyle Pavuk
b) Correspondence from Mark Williams
c) Correspondence from Gary Brown x 3
d) Correspondence from Paula Hall

An estimated 900,000 or more U.S. renters are formally evicted from their homes each year. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Fibonacci Blue (CC BY 2.0)
increased rates of mortality, substance abuse, suicide, and low birth weight, among other physical and mental health impacts. Since the beginning of the pandemic, federal, state, and local governments have intervened to curb the spread of the coronavirus by helping people remain housed. These interventions, along with other longer-term policies, will be needed to address eviction and its often devastating consequences.

Eviction: A Commonplace Experience for Low-Income Renter Households Nationally, an estimated 2 million renters are subject to legal eviction filings each year, with 900,000 or more of those resulting in a completed eviction; that is, removal from the home.

Researchers at the Eviction Lab at Princeton University point out that significant gaps in eviction tracking data exist, so these figures underestimate both eviction filings and completed evictions. Based on data from 2016, the most recent year available, landlords filed an estimated

3.7 million evictions, with about 8 out of every 100 renter households receiving eviction notices.

Hepburn and Rutan place the scale of evictions in context by comparing them with the 2.8 million foreclosure starts at the height of the Great Recession. As staggering as these figures are, many more renters may be forced to exit their housing without a formal filing or between the time of a filing and a judgment. Wake Forest University law professor Emily Benfer points out that more than 30 percent of tenants move after the first sign of an impending eviction — usually notice from a landlord — without ever going to court.

These national findings
build on those by
Desmond, who found
that more than one in
eight Milwaukee
renters experienced a
forced move between
2009 and 2011.

Another study found
that one in seven
children born in large
U.S. cities between
1998 and 2000
experienced at least one eviction between birth and age 15.

Informal evictions are even more difficult to quantify. A study of Washington, D.C., found that only 5.5 percent of eviction filings resulted in completed evictions; however, a forced exit from housing can happen at many points that may not be recorded. Existing information on rates of informal evictions indicates that they vary by locality. The Milwaukee study found that informal evictions occurred twice as often as formal evictions, whereas evidence from a different study on moves in New York City between 2016 and 2018 showed the opposite — roughly one informal 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 2/17

a.3 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
eviction for every two formal evictions. (See “Prevalence and Impact of Evictions,” for more information about current efforts to track evictions and the associated challenges.) Nonpayment of rent is the primary reason for eviction, which itself can arise from various causes, including rising rents combined with stagnant income growth and persistent poverty, job or income loss, or a sudden economic shock such as a health emergency or a car breakdown. Other reasons include lease violations, which can be technical in nature; property damage; and disruptions, such as police calls. Landlords, for their own reasons, may force tenants to move, either informally or through a legal “no-fault” eviction. Renters often are evicted over relatively small amounts of money — in many cases, less than a full month’s rent. As discussed below, however, the disparities in evictions suggest that factors besides the ability to pay rent affect eviction rates.

The COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigation responses drastically altered the context for evictions. On one hand, widespread impacts such as health emergencies and associated expenses, job loss, and income reductions have put many more households at risk of eviction than there were before the pandemic. On the other hand, eviction moratoria and other interventions significantly reduced the prevalence of evictions during the pandemic. In May 2021, an estimated 16.8 percent of renter households felt that eviction would be “very likely” within the next 2 months, and another 28.6 percent felt that eviction would be “somewhat likely” within the next 2 months. These figures represent an improvement from December 2020, when an estimated 17 percent and 35 percent of respondents believed that they were “very likely” and “somewhat likely,” respectively, to be evicted in the next 2 months. When pandemic-related emergency measures such as eviction moratoria expire, many cities are likely to face a backlog of filings along with a wave of new filings.

Eviction Disparities
Although eviction is relatively common among low-income renters because of increasing rental costs and stagnant incomes, studies examining both national and local data have found that African American and Latinx renters (especially women), families with children, and renters in certain geographies are at greater risk for eviction than are other renters and neighborhoods with similar income characteristics.

A study examining court records of eviction cases against 4.1 million individuals in 39 states between 2012 and 2016 found that a disproportionate share of eviction filings and judgments were against African-American renters. Overall, although African-Americans make up only 20 percent of all U.S. renters, they constitute 33 percent of renters who are evicted.

Female African-American and Latinx renters were more likely than males in the same groups to have evictions filed against them. Factors contributing to the increased rate of eviction for African-American and Latinx women include low wages, the need for larger and more expensive units to accommodate children, landlords attempting to evade increased scrutiny related to lead 9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 3/17

a.4 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
The groundbreaking Milwaukee Area Renters Study found higher rates of eviction among AfricanAmerican, Latinx, and lower-income renters and renters with children. poisoning of children, police calls related to domestic violence, and gender dynamics and abuses of power between male landlords and female tenants, including sexual harassment an assault. In a review of data from large cities, Lundberg and Donnelly found that, between 1998 and 2000, children born into poorer households were more likely to experience evictions than those born into higher-income households, and children in African American and Hispanic households were more likely to experience evictions than those in White households. AfricanAmerican and Latinx renters were also more likely to be targeted with serial eviction filings — repeated filings against the same individuals at the same address.

These studies built on the findings of local investigations. The Milwaukee Area Renters Study found higher rates of eviction for African-American, Latinx, and lower-income renters and renters with children. Neighborhood crime and eviction rates, the number of children in a household, and “network disadvantage” — defined by Desmond and Gershenson as “the proportion of one’s strong ties to people who are unemployed, addicted to drugs, in abusive relationships, or who have experienced major, poverty-inducing events (e.g., incarceration, teenage pregnancy) to increase his or her propensity for eviction” — are factors associated with an increased likelihood of eviction. In Milwaukee County, female renters in predominantly African-American and Latinx neighborhoods were disproportionately evicted.

A number of studies of
eviction filings in local
contexts, usually at the
city level, find stark
geographic disparities
and concentrations of
evictions, with a small
number of
neighborhoods and
even specific buildings
and landlords
accounting for a
disproportionate share
of evictions. These geographic disparities reflect the intersection of demographic disparities and residential segregation, but they also reveal how a small number of large-scale landlords strategically deploy eviction as a tool for rent collection and tenant control. A study of eviction filings in Washington, D.C., from 2014 to 2018, for example, found wide spatial disparities across the city’s eight wards in filings, which were concentrated in neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River with majority African-American populations, and executed evictions, with more than 60 percent occurring in the two wards east of the river. In 2018, just 20 landlords owning 21 percent of the city’s rental units accounted for nearly half of its eviction filings. Similarly, in Richmond, Virginia, researchers found that a neighborhood’s racial composition is associated 18 19
20 21
22 23
24 12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 4/17

a.5 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
with higher eviction rates after controlling for income, property values, and other factors, with higher rates of eviction in neighborhoods with a higher share of African-American residents.

Tracking a decade of evictions in 17 cities, Rutan and Desmond found that these spatial concentrations of evictions tend to be durable over time. An examination of the 100 land parcels or properties with the highest eviction rates in 3 of the cities, for example, showed that these parcels accounted for more than 1 in 6 evictions in Cleveland, Ohio, and more than 2 in 5 evictions in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and Tucson, Arizona. Among the implications of these findings is that interventions targeted at the neighborhoods, buildings, and landlords responsible for significant numbers of evictions can have a profound impact.

In some local contexts, other factors, such as property turnover and investor purchases of multifamily rental housing in gentrifying neighborhoods, have been associated with increases in eviction rates, as two studies of eviction in Atlanta found.

Devastating and Durable Impacts
Evictions are extremely disruptive experiences that have numerous negative economic, social, and health impacts for affected families and communities. Garboden and Rosen argue that even an informal threat of eviction is an expression of the landlord’s power over the tenant that can negatively affect not only renters’ financial and housing decisions but also “their sense of home and community.”
Social and Economic Impacts. Forced moves are often stressful, rushed, and undertaken with scant resources for associated expenses such as moving and storage services, application fees, and security deposits. During the eviction process, families might lose their possessions, their job, and their social networks and schools (with potentially negative implications for academic achievement). Under these circumstances, and with an eviction on record, evicted households often struggle to secure new housing. In a study based on data from New York City, Collinson and Reed found that an eviction increased the likelihood that a household would apply for a homeless shelter by 14 percentage points compared with nonevicted peers and resulted in an increase of 5 percentage points in the number of days spent in a shelter during the 2 years after an eviction filing.

When evicted households do secure new housing, writes Desmond, “they often must accept conditions far worse than those of their previous dwelling,” because many landlords will reject them, forcing them to accept units at the bottom of the market. Such moves within disadvantaged neighborhoods are associated with negative outcomes such as poor school performance, loss of social ties, increased rates of adolescent violence, and health risks. In addition, a forced move to a more disadvantaged neighborhood or substandard housing often results in subsequent voluntary moves in search of better conditions. The record of an eviction filing, however, can make securing housing more difficult and costly for these households well into the future.
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 5/17

a.6 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
KC Tenants leaders blocking the doors to the Eastern Jackson County Courthouse on January 5, 2021, in Independence, Missouri. Photo by Carly Rosin, courtesy of KC Tenants Health Impacts. Beyond these economic and social impacts, research shows that evictions are associated with numerous negative physical and mental health outcomes. “The evidence of the link between eviction and health is starting to snowball with research teasing out the mechanisms and directions [of that link],” says Johns Hopkins professor Dr. Craig Pollack.

A major life event and social stressor, eviction has been associated with an increase in all-cause mortality, higher mortality rates in several substance use categories , and a likelihood of committing suicide that is four times higher than that of people who have not experienced eviction, controlling for demographic, socioeconomic, and mental health factors. Research shows that eviction during pregnancy is associated with reduced infant weight and gestational age at birth.

These health impacts persist over time, with some studies showing effects as long as 2 years after an eviction. A study based in New York City found that in the 2 years following an eviction, people were more likely to visit the emergency room or require hospitalization for a mental health condition than were their nonevicted peers. A study of low-income urban mothers using a national U.S. sample found that those who had experienced eviction had higher rates of material hardship and depression than those who had not been evicted, and these effects persisted for as long as 2 years after the forced move.

Through its link to homelessness, eviction may lead to numerous risks, including syringe sharing (due to reduced access to sterile syringes and increased contact with the police, which can lead to the loss of injecting equipment and a greater likelihood of sharing), chlamydia and gonorrhea contraction, HIV disease progression (possibly because eviction increases stress and disrupts one’s ability to safely store medication and access care providers and pharmacies), and an increased likelihood that both male and female users of injected drugs will experience violence.

The link between eviction and health runs both ways: eviction leads to negative health conditions and higher risks, but negative health conditions and their associated costs can themselves lead to eviction and, in turn, worsen health conditions. A study of Medicaid expansion in California found that increasing the number of Medicaid enrollees was associated with reductions in the number of evictions, suggesting that access to affordable health care can interrupt the connection between poor health and housing instability.

Eviction
Intersections With
the COVID-19
Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic
and mitigation
responses resulted in
widespread job and
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 6/17

a.7 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
income loss, which were
disproportionately
experienced by renters
of color. Losses of lowincome jobs, totaling
more than 5.1 million,
were especially high in
food services, health
care, entertainment, and
other service
industries. As a result,
many households have
missed rent payments or might miss subsequent payments and therefore are at a heightened risk of eviction. U.S. Census Bureau Pulse Data from May 24 to June 7, 2021, found that 10 percent of renters reported having “no confidence” in their ability to pay the following month’s rent. In addition to the health impacts of eviction discussed above, forced moves out of housing have negative health implications specific to pandemics.

Eviction is a particular threat to health during a pandemic because, as Benfer explains, “we know that eviction results in doubling up, in couch surfing, in residing in overcrowded environments, in being forced to use public facilities, and, at the same time, not being able to comply with pandemic mitigation strategies like wearing a mask, cleaning your PPE [personal protective equipment], social distancing, and sheltering in place.” Epidemiological modeling under counterfactual scenarios comparing results with a strict moratorium against results without a moratorium suggests that evictions increase COVID-19 infection rates significantly. Given these patterns, eviction prevention has become a critical pandemic control strategy, important for mitigating both the spread of COVID-19 and its associated mortality.

Just as African-American and Latinx populations disproportionately experience eviction, members of those groups are also more likely than White peers to receive a positive COVID-19 test, become hospitalized due to COVID-19, and die from COVID-19. The populations that disproportionately experience eviction are also more likely to have comorbidities that are associated with COVID-19 infection and mortality. According to Eviction Crisis Monitor, a joint effort of Right to Counsel NYC, the Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development, JustFix.nyc, and the Housing Data Coalition, landlords have sued 32,576 households in New York City for $265,460,130 since the pandemic began, and 222,135 renters in the state have active cases in court and will face eviction when applicable moratoria expire. Analysis indicates that “Landlords are filing evictions 3.6 times faster in zip codes with the highest rates of death from COVID-19.” In these hardest-hit ZIP codes, 68.2 percent of the population are people of color, whereas only 29.2 percent of the population in the ZIP codes least affected by COVID-19 are 48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 7/17

a.8 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
people of color. Nationally, Hepburn et al. found that from March 15 through December 31, 2020, eviction filings disproportionately affected African-American and female renters.

Research suggests that eviction prevention is important for pandemic mitigation. By studying COVID-19 incidence and mortality in 43 states and the District of Columbia with varying expiration dates for their eviction moratoria, Leifheit et al. found that “COVID-19 incidence was significantly increased in states that lifted their moratoriums starting 10 weeks after lifting, with

1.6 times the incidence…[and] 16 or more weeks after lifting their moratoriums, states had, on average, 2.1 times higher incidence and 5.4 times higher mortality.” The researchers conclude that, nationally, expiring eviction moratoria are associated with a total of 433,700 excess COVID19 cases and 10,700 excess deaths. Another study estimates that, had eviction moratoria been implemented nationwide from March 2020 through November 2020, COVID-19 infection rates would have been reduced by 14.2 percent and COVID-19 deaths would have been reduced by

40.7 percent.

Addressing the Crisis Through Policy
At the onset of the pandemic, state and local lawmakers were the first to step in to prevent evictions, with 43 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia enacting eviction moratoria of varying terms. By mid-May 2020, 31 states had halted at least one part of the eviction process; however, the hold was often applied only to the latter stages, which meant that eviction filings continued, appearing on tenants’ legal records and negatively affecting their credit scores. State and local moratoria varied in the stage of the eviction process they forestalled, the stakeholder being controlled, the type of tenant or eviction covered, and the duration. Many state moratoria expired or were limited by restricting eligibility or permitting eviction for reasons other than nonpayment (which also created a loophole for landlords), removing or weakening these protections. Benfer notes that in North Carolina, for example, 71,000 families and individuals received eviction filings, and judges denied only 3 percent of these cases despite federal and state moratoria.

At the end of March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which included federal policies to protect renters. The CARES Act prohibited evictions for nonpayment of rent from all federally backed or assisted rental properties, covering an estimated 12.3 to 20 million renter households through July 24, 2020. Also protected from eviction (potentially beyond July 24, 2020) were renters living in properties granted forbearance on federally backed multifamily and single-family mortgages. Ambrose, An, and Lopez’s analysis found that, in the absence of eviction moratoria, protections based on governmentsponsored enterprise financing of rental housing would have reduced eviction filings by approximately 20 percent.

After the CARES Act protections and many state and local moratoria expired, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began a federal moratorium that became effective September 4, 2020, and, after successive renewals, was extended through July 31, 2021. The 56 57
58 59
60 61
62 12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 8/17

a.9 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
The FASTEN (Funds and Services for Tenants Experiencing Need) program in New York is a philanthropic effort to prevent eviction through rental and rental arrears assistance, landlord and tenant mediation, and legal assistance. Photo courtesy of Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.

Timely rental assistance can help households avoid eviction and its many impacts.

Photo courtesy of Friends in Deed
rationale for the order was that the moratorium would facilitate self-isolation, social distancing, and adherence to stay-at-home orders and reduce residency in congregate settings such as homeless shelters. The CDC moratorium also had significant limitations: it required tenants to initiate their protection through a written declaration and meet a number of conditions for eligibility, such as making "best efforts” to obtain government assistance and proving that they are likely to experience homelessness if evicted. In addition, Hepburn says, “there was a lot of variation in how the order was interpreted, [so] some renters were better protected than others.”
Although there was no
comprehensive national
evictions database or
tracking of tenant
declarations under the
CDC moratorium, several
studies based on
available data indicate
that state, local, and
national moratoria have
curbed eviction filings
and evictions. In a study of 63 jurisdictions, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that under federal, state, and local eviction moratoria, the rate of eviction filings was 74 percent lower in the last week of July 2020 than in the same week in 2019, but it gradually increased under the CDC moratorium. Another study by Hepburn et al. that examined available eviction filings data found that 65 percent fewer cases were filed between March 15 and December 31, 2020, than during the same period in a typical year. Based on this rate, the researchers estimate a reduction of 1.55 million eviction filings nationwide in 2020. Looking specifically at the period when the CDC moratorium was in effect, from September 4, 2020, to February 27, 2021, Hepburn and Louis tracked 163,716 eviction filings, a 44 percent reduction compared with the same period in a typical year. The rate of reduction varied considerably from city to city; reductions were greatest in cities that supplemented the CDC moratorium with their own protections. In cities without additional protections, filings were at 50.1 percent of the historical average. At the extremes, filings were 30.1 percent of the historical average in Richmond, Virginia, and 90.1 percent of the historical average in Tampa, Florida. These findings indicate that the moratoria, coupled with income supports and rental assistance, offered renters significant protections, albeit with substantial gaps. The GAO analysis concluded that improved outreach to increase tenant awareness of the moratorium would make it more effective and beneficial.

Although the CDC moratorium was
extended several times, many
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 9/17

a.10 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
analysts fear that following its
expiration, tenants will experience
an “eviction cliff” — precipitous
movement on a months long
backlog of pending evictions that
have been paused at various stages
by moratoria. Research findings
by Hepburn et al. showing that
eviction filing rates increased in the
second half of 2020 and were
higher than historic averages when
eviction protections expired — for
example, between the end of the
CARES Act moratorium in August
2020 and the start of the CDC
moratorium on September 4, 2020
— lend credence to this concern.

The December 2020 COVID-19
relief legislation and the March 2021 American Rescue Plan (ARP) have provided $46 billion in federal funding for emergency rental and utility assistance as well as various forms of income supports. ARP also provides $5 billion for emergency housing vouchers and another $5 billion for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program for housing and services for those are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness. This infusion of funds promises relief to many in need. Although this aid is substantial, it might not be enough to eliminate all the rental debt accrued during a year and a half of the pandemic, and many households remain in a precarious situation for making their upcoming rent payments unless their income has stabilized through employment or government assistance. In some cases, localities are rationing assistance through per-household caps to ensure that more households can receive aid or to prioritize those with the greatest need. Collyer notes that the income supports from ARP, such as the child tax credits, could also help households make their rent payments.

These recent responses and other policy interventions could go beyond the immediate need to address the COVID-19 pandemic and become part of a broader effort to combat the longstanding eviction crisis. Hepburn notes that because the eviction crisis derives largely from the affordable housing crisis, increasing the supply of affordable housing remains an important intervention. Collyer adds that ensuring that tenants have a stable and sufficient income is essential. Ultimately, because eviction is a symptom of a broken system of housing provision, it cannot be eliminated without addressing its root causes. Intermediate interventions that can help curb the rate of evictions include eliminating the state provision for no-fault evictions (in which landlords can evict without cause), extending fair housing legislation to include source of 70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 10/17

a.11 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
income protections, sealing records to ensure that evictions do not make securing quality housing difficult, guaranteeing a right to counsel in eviction court proceedings, establishing local eviction diversion programs, and funding emergency rental assistance programs that can make the difference between paying the rent and eviction for families. Effective long-term interventions include policies that increase the availability of diverse affordable housing options, expand access to housing vouchers and other housing assistance programs, and strengthen renter protections.

Outside of policy interventions, tenants’ associations, nonprofits, and other nongovernmental organizations are also addressing the threat of eviction. Tenants in many cities nationwide, including Kansas City, Milwaukee, and Brooklyn, are organizing and protesting to halt evictions and call for rental assistance. In some cases, tenants have successfully delayed eviction proceedings. The national Autonomous Tenants Union Network, which was founded in 2018 and formalized in 2020, has supported city-level unions that have grown rapidly during the pandemic. Public policy has also been catalyzed and supplemented by philanthropies. The pandemic has spurred philanthropies to pivot from their traditional roles and processes toward providing emergency assistance for public health needs, including support for housing (see “A Picture of Philanthropy During the Pandemic”).

Conclusion
Housing stability — specifically, the prevention of evictions — remains an essential component of COVID-19 mitigation. Keeping people safely housed reduces the spread of the virus while mass vaccination efforts continue. Although the pandemic has brought new urgency to eviction prevention efforts, evictions were widespread before the pandemic and have long been linked to adverse physical and mental health outcomes. Effective responses to keep people housed and mitigate the long-term economic, social, and health effects of eviction are critical to HUD’s mission to serve the most vulnerable members of society and, given the disproportionate impact of eviction on people and communities of color, an essential part of the Biden administration’s commitment to advance racial equity.

Related Information
A Picture of Philanthropy During the Pandemic

1. Emily Peiffer. 2018. "Why We Need to Stop Evictions Before They Happen," Housing Matters, 25 July.

2. The Eviction Lab. 2018. "National Estimates: Eviction in America," Accessed 13 May 2021.
78 79
80 81
12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 11/17

a.12 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk

3. Matthew Desmond. 2020. "On the Brink of Homelessness: How the Affordable Housing Crisis and the Gentrification of America Is Leaving Families Vulnerable," statement before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, 3.

4. Peter Hepburn and Devin Q. Rutan. 2021. "America Can't Just Build Its Way Out of an Eviction Crisis," Slate 6 May.

5. Miriam Axel-Lute and Brandon Duong. 2021. "Fixing the Harms of Our Eviction System:

An Interview with Emily Benfer," Shelterforce 4 March.

6. Matthew Desmond. 2016. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New York:

Crown, 5.

7. Ian Lundberg and Louis Donnelly. 2019. "A Research Note on the Prevalence of Housing Eviction Among Children Born in U.S. Cities," Demography 56:1, 391-404.

8. Brian J. McCabe and Eva Rosen. 2020. "Eviction in Washington, DC: Racial and Geographic Disparities in Housing Instability," Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy, 5.

9. Matthew Desmond and Tracey Shollenberger. 2015. "Forced Displacement from Rental Housing: Prevalence and Neighborhood Consequences," Demography 52, 1751; Sophie Collyer and Lily Bushman-Copp. 2019. "Spotlight on Forced Moves and Eviction in New York City," Columbia Population Research Center, 9.

10. Himmelstein and Desmond.

11. Emily Badger. 2019. "Many Renters Who Face Eviction Owe Less Than $600," The New York Times, 12 December.

12. Benjamin F. Teresa. n.d. "The Geography of Eviction in Richmond: Beyond Poverty," RVA Eviction Lab.

13. U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. "Week 31 Household Pulse Survey: May 26–June 7: Table 3b.

Likelihood of Having to Leave this House in Next Two Months Due to Eviction, by Select Characteristics." Accessed 28 June 2021.

14. Peter Hepburn. 2021. "The End of the C.D.C. Eviction Moratorium Means Trouble," The New York Times, 2 June; Mary K. Cunningham, Ananya Hariharan, and Olivia Fiol. 2021. "The Looming Eviction Cliff: Findings from the Urban Institute Coronavirus Tracking Survey," The Urban Institute, 1.

15. Peter Hepburn, Renee Louis, and Matthew Desmond. 2020. "Racial and Gender Disparities among Evicted Americans," Sociological Science 7.

16. Himmelstein and Desmond.

17. Hepburn et al.

18. Matthew Desmond. 2014. "Poor Black Women Are Evicted at Alarming Rates, Setting Off a Chain of Hardship," MacArthur Foundation Policy Research Brief, 2; See  Teresa Wiltz. 2020. "Female Renters Take on Predatory Landlords," Pew Charitable Trusts, 12 March.

19. Lundberg and Donnelly, 56.

20. Hepburn et al.
12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 12/17

a.13 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk

21. Matthew Desmond and Carl Gershenson. 2016. "Who gets evicted? Assessing individual, neighborhood, and network factors," Social Science Research.

22. Matthew Desmond. 2012. "Eviction and the Reproduction of Urban Poverty," American Journal of Sociology 118:1.

23. Dan Immergluck, Jeff Ernsthausen, Stephanie Earl, and Allison Powell. 2020. "Evictions, large owners, and serial filings: findings from Atlanta," Housing Studies 35:5, 903–24.

24. McCabe and Rosen.

25. Teresa.

26. Devin Q. Rutan and Matthew Desmond. 2021. "The Concentrated Geography of Eviction," Annals, AAPSS 693.

27. Elora Lee Raymond, Ben Miller, Michaela McKinney, and Jonathan Braun. 2021. "Gentrifying Atlanta: Investor Purchases of Rental Housing, Evictions, and the Displacement of Black Residents," Housing Policy Debate; Immergluck et al.

28. Philip M.E. Garboden and Eva Rosen. 2019. "Serial Filing: How Landlords Use the Threat of Eviction," City & Community 18:2.

29. Peiffer; Matthew Desmond and Carl Gershenson. 2016. "Housing and Employment Insecurity among the Working Poor," Social Problems; Diana H. Gruman, Tracy W.

Harachi, Robert D. Abbott, Richard Catalano, and Charles B. Fleming. 2008. "Longitudinal Effects of Student Mobility on Three Dimensions of Elementary School Engagement," Child Development 79:6.

30. Robert Collinson and Davin Reed. 2018. "The Effects of Evictions on Low-Income Households," 3.

31. Desmond 2012, 89, 118.

32. Matthew Desmond, Carl Gershenson, and Barbara Kiviat. 2015. "Forced Relocation and Residential Instability among Urban Renters," Social Service Review, 256.

33. Rudy Kleysteuber. 2007. "Tenant Screening Thirty Years Later: A Statutory Proposal To Protect Public Records," The Yale Law Journal 116, 1350; Barbara Kiviat and Sara Sternberg Greene. 2021. "Losing a Home Because of the Pandemic is Hard Enough.

How Long Should It Haunt You?" The New York Times, 7 January.

34. Craig Evan Pollack, Kathryn M. Leifeit, and Sabriya L. Linton. 2020. "When Storms Collide: Evictions, COVID-19, And Health Equity," Health Affairs Blog.

35. Interview with Craig Pollack, 7 May 2021.

36. Yerko Rojas. 2017. "Evictions and short-term all-cause mortality: a 3-year follow-up study of a middle-aged Swedish population," International Journal of Public Health 62:3.

37. Ashley C. Bradford and W. David Bradford. 2020. "The effect of evictions on accidental drug and alcohol mortality," Health Services Research 55:1.

38. Yerko Rojas and Sten-Åke Stenberg. 2016. "Evictions and suicide: a follow-up study of almost 22,000 Swedish households in the wake of the global financial crisis," Journal of Epidemiol Community Health 70:4, 409–13.
12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 13/17

a.14 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk

39. Gracie Himmelstein and Matthew Desmond. 2021. "Association of Eviction With Adverse Birth Outcomes Among Women in Georgia, 2000 to 2016," JAMA Pediatrics 175:5.

40. Collinson and Reed.

41. Matthew Desmond and Rachel Tolbert Kimbro. 2015. "Eviction's Fallout: Housing, Hardship, and Health," Social Forces.

42. Andreas Pilarinos, May Clare Kennedy, Ryan McNeil, Huiru Dong, Thomas Kerr, and Kora DeBeck. 2017. "The association between residential eviction and syringe sharing among a prospective cohort of street-involved youth," Harm Reduction Journal 14:1.

43. Linda M. Niccolai, Kim M. Blankinship, and Danya E. Keene. 2019. "Eviction from Renteroccupied Households and Rates of Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Country-level Ecological Analysis," Sexually Transmitted Diseases 46:1.

44. Mary Clare Kennedy, Thomas Kerr, Ryan McNeil, Surita Parashar, Julio Montaner, Evan Wood, and M.J. Milloy. 2017. "Residential Eviction and Risk of Detectable Plasma HIV-1 RNA Viral Load Among HIV-Positive People Who Use Drugs," AIDS and Behavior 21:3, 678–87.

45. Mary Clare Kennedy, Ryan McNeil, M.J. Milloy, Huiru Dong, Thomas Kerr, and Kanna Hayashi. 2017. "Residential eviction and exposure to violence among people who inject drugs in Vancouver, Canada," The International Journal on Drug Policy 41.

46. Pollack et al.

47. Heidi L. Allen, Erica Eliason, Naomi Zewde, and Tal Gross. 2019. "Can Medicaid Expansion Prevent Housing Evictions?" Health Affairs 38:9.

48. Urban Institute. "Where Low-Income Jobs Are Being Lost to COVID-19," Accessed 4 June 2021.

49. U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. "Week 31 Household Pulse Survey: May 26–June 7: Table 2b.

Confidence in Ability to Make Next Month's Payment for Renter Occupied Housing Units, by Select Characteristics," Accessed 10 June 2021.

50. Emily A. Benfer, David Vlahov, Marissa Y. Long, Evan Walker-Wells, J.L. Pottenger Jr., Gregg Gonsalves, and Danya E. Keene. 2021. "Eviction, Health Inequity, and the Spread of COVID-19: Housing Policy as a Primary Pandemic Mitigation Strategy," Journal of Urban Health 98.

51. Interview with Emily Benfer, 10 May 2021.

52. Anjalika Nande, Justin Sheen, Emma L. Walters, Brennan Klein, Matteo Chinazzi, Andrei H. Gheorghe, Ben Adlam, Julianna Shinnick, Maria Florencia Tejeda, Samuel V. Scarpino, Alessandro Vespignani, Andrew J. Greenlee, Daniel Schneider, Michael Z. Levy, and Alison L. Hill. 2021. "The effect of eviction moratoria on the transmission of SARS-CoV2," Nature Communications 12.

53. Benfer et al.

54. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. "COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Disparities in COVID-19 Illness"; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. "COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Disparities in COVID12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 14/17

a.15 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk
19-Associated Hospitalizations"; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. "COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Disparities in Deaths from COVID-19."

55. Emily Benfer, Gregg Gonsalves, Danya Keene, and David Vlahov. 2021. "Housing Policy & Health Equity During the Covid-19 Pandemic," Public Health Post, 3 May.

56. Lucy Block. 2021. "220,000 Tenants on the Brink and Counting," Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development, 17 March.

57. Peter Hepburn, Renee Louis, Joe Fish, Emily Lemmerman, Anne Kat Alexander, Timothy A. Thomas, Robert Koehler, Emily Benfer, and Matthew Desmond. 2021. "U.S. Eviction Filing Patterns in 2020," Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 7, 1–18.

58. Kathryn M. Leifheit, Sabriya L. Linton, Julia Raifman, Gabriel L. Schwartz, Emily A. Benfer, Frederick J. Zimmerman, and Craig Evan Pollack. 2020. "Expiring Eviction Moratoriums and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality," American Journal of Epidemiology.

59. Kay Jowers, Christopher Timmins, Nrupen Bhavsar, Qihui Hu, and Julia Marshall. 2021. "Housing Precarity and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impacts of Utility Disconnection and Eviction Moratoria on Infections and Deaths across US Counties."

60. Emily Benfer. 2021. "How Policymakers (and Courts) Sabotaged Eviction Moratoria," The Appeal, 2 April; Interview with Emily Benfer.

61. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2021. "COVID-19 Housing Protections:

Moratoriums Have Helped Limit Evictions, but Further Outreach Is Needed," 6.

62. Brent W. Ambrose, Xudong An and Luis A. Lopez. 2021. "Eviction Risk of Rental Housing: Does It Matter How Your Landlord Finances the Property?" Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 6.

63. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021. "Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19."

64. Interview with Peter Hepburn, 7 May 2021.

65. Aaron Shroyer. 2021. "Tracking the Impact of the CDC Eviction Moratorium," PD&R Edge.

66. U.S. Government Accountability Office.

67. Hepburn et al.

68. Peter Hepburn and Renee Louis. 2021. "Preliminary Analysis: Six Months of the CDC Eviction Moratorium," Eviction Lab.

69. U.S. Government Accountability Office.

70. Kristian Hernández. 2021. "Some States Ban Evictions After National Moratorium Ends," Pew Charitable Trusts, 9 June; Cunningham, Hariharan, and Fiol.

71. Hepburn et al., 5.

72. National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2021. "Frequently Asked Questions: Eligibility for Assistance Based on Immigration Status."

73. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2021. "Fact Sheet: Housing Provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021."

74. Interview with Emily Benfer.
12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 15/17

a.16 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk

75. Interview with Sophie Collyer, 7 May 2021.

76. Interview with Peter Hepburn.

77. Interview with Sophie Collyer.

78. Interview with Emily Benfer; Interview with Peter Hepburn.

79. Will Fischer. 2021. "For Struggling Renters: Housing Vouchers for All Who Need Them," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

80. Michelle Conlin. 2021. "'This is not justice.' Tenant activists upend U.S. eviction courts," Reuters, 8 February.

81. Laura Jedeed and Shane Burley. 2021. "As an Eviction Crisis Looms, Tenant Organizing Explodes Across the Country," Truthout, 25 January.

Evidence Matters Home              Next Article
The contents of this article are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.

About PD&R
PD&R Mission
Organization Chart
PD&R Events
PD&R Guidelines & Brochures
HUD Secretary's Awards
Disclaimer of Liability and
Endorsement
Reference
Contact Us
First Time Visitor
HUD User eBookstore
HUD User Archives
Webstore
Research
Case Studies
Datasets
Periodicals
Regulatory Barriers
Clearinghouse
Research & Reports
Note: Guidance documents, except when based on statutory or regulatory authority or law, do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. Guidance documents are intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Accessibility | Contact Info | Privacy Policy | FOIA | Web Management and Web Policies | Inspector General | No Fear Act | PaymentAccuracy.gov
12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 16/17

a.17 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk

HUD USER
P.O. Box 23268, Washington, DC 20026-3268
Toll Free: 1-800-245-2691
TDD: 1-800-927-7589
Local: 1-703-964-0670 Fax: 1-202-708-9981
12/23/24, 12:20 PM Affordable Housing, Eviction, and Health | HUD USER https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/Summer21/highlight1.html 17/17

a.18 Submitted by Lyle Pavuk

1 1% Solution to Housing Issues
2 City of Imperial Beach can create a voluntary fund to aid both tenants and landlords for Imperial Beach 3 properties.
4 The fee 1% (random number; this needs evaluation) would be charged to the tenants rent, collected by 5 the landlord forwarded to the city. This would be a separate fee, not part of the rent. 6 The fund would be used to assist displaced tenants who are only moving within the city. This fund could 7 be used for security deposits, moving expenses, utility deposits, or other related cost. The fund could 8 also be used to assist tenants with temporary housing during repairs for hotel cost and meals. The fund 9 is limited to its use only to assist, not intended to fully pay the tenants cost. 10 In cases where the property was damaged by fire, earthquakes, or flooding, an offset of the expenses 11 will be ducted from any gifts the tenants receive from nonprofits such as the Red Cross. 12 Tenants may not receive compensation if their landlord does not participate in the program or is being 13 evicted for non-payment of rent, or other issues related to not honoring the rental agreement. 14 This fund will also be used to assist landlords in covering cost associated missed rent due to evictions, 15 which can take months, property damages caused by tenants (or their friends) that exceed security 16 deposits and vandalism to private property.
17 To participate with this program the City will create a lease/rental agreement addendum that both the 18 landlord and tenants sign. A copy is retained by the city. 19 Landlords participating in the fund will forward to the city on a monthly bases, quarterly, semi-annual, 20 or annual basis as determined by the city.
21 22 I suggest a special committee be created that consist of both landlords and tenants that live in Imperial 23 Beach get together to review the applications at a minimum of a monthly basis. Each of the four council 24 members and the mayor shall choose two people, a landlord and a tenant from within their district. 25 This group of volunteers will determine the validity of each claim that is submitted after the fact and 26 how much reimbursement is warranted following specific guidelines as to the amount. 27 This helps everyone and is fair. It will also help identify the problems faced and strikes a balance. 28 It’s not an immediate solution, there isn’t one that is fair to everyone, however it starts the process of 29 understanding the problems faced today.

b.2 Submitted by Mark Williams
From: Gary Brown
To: Public Comments
Subject: Tenant Protections and housing
Date: Sunday, December 22, 2024 9:19:31 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an External source. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Guiding principle: To the maximum extent feasible protect tenants AND refrain from harming incentives for property owners and investors to repair, maintain, modernize and build housing.

1. Should there be a moratorium ?
No, IF Council adopts, in the very near future, an ordinance that sufficiently protects tenants and property rights as well as address the imminent evictions in Hawaiian Gardens and other large complexes.

Is a special meeting of City Council necessary to take action? Yes, IF you need more time to create a satisfactory ordinance and take actions to protect tenants at Hawaiian Gardens and other complexes in the city.

You'll be the ones to define "sufficiently protect."

2. Increase relocation assistance ?
Yes, one month's rent or allowing a tenant to stay a month without paying rent is not sufficient in today's extremely tight housing market. Keep in mind:
a. Please review San Diego's ordinances to see how much they require landlords to pay tenants.
b. Many years ago The US Department of Housing & Urban Development required rental assistance payments equal to 4
years of rental payments for renters IF HUD funds were used in a project. I don't know what the requirements are today. Relocation payments were calculated on a complex formula that I've forgotten. You may want to check with HUD's local office to see the current calculations and requirements.

In any case the few months' rent required by SD or CV is a token amount in today's market.

So additional ways to help may include:

1. Provide a longer lead time for people to search for a home.

2. Require landlords to allow x% of the refurbished units, if substantial work is done, to be affordable or available at no more than y% increase in rent to low-moderate income people, with current tenants getting a first right-ofrefusal. This would help a few of the existing tenants.

Just as cities require a percentage of newly built units

c.1 Submitted by Gary Brown
be "affordable," this would require a percentage of
substantially renovated units be "affordable."
This also integrates affordable housing into market
rate complexes.

3. Require earlier notice of intent to purchase and need to relocate or be evicted (Consistent with # 1 above);
Large corporations have spent many months if not
years examining a project for financial feasibility,
assembling investors and capital, working with
architects, examining environmental hazards, review
of building codes, making cost estimates of improve-
ments and negotiating the purchase of the property.

Given this long front-end time commitment, it may be
reasonable to require the seller or purchaser to notify tenants that a sale is pending at least a month before
close of escrow. This would allow more time for tenants to find a place, BUT it might also precipitate a panic
among renters.

3. Tighten up the definition of "substantial rehab" beyond the state's definition.

Please use a definition similar to San Diego's or Chula Vista's rather than the state's.

The goal is to minimize the necessity to move or maximize the amount of work to be done before a no fault eviction is allowed.

4. Vacant units
Someone mentioned a high number of vacant units in the city. Coronadao has a high percentage of second homes that aren't used for much of the year. A Canadian city places a higher
property tax on homes that aren't inhabited for x months per year. This might encourage people to rent out their properties or sell them. There could also be a higher tax or fee on vacant "unfit" dwellings to incentivize owners to rehab or sell them.

5. Notice of legal assistance
Please consider requiring owners to inform tenants about organizations designed to provide legal assistance.

For example: Require landlords to inform tenants about the available help from the Legal Aid Society of San Diego when landlords issue a notice to vacate property. ( The City of IB could create a list of law firms that are interested in helping tenants and require the list to be attached to the notice of vacation.)

6. Legal Assistance
I think the City of Vista contracts with a group that provides legal assistance to renters.

7. Regs not to be applied to "mom & pop" operations
Most or all of the above ideas are made for investors in "large" properties or apartment complexes.

c.2 Submitted by Gary Brown
How might mom & pop operations be defined in an easily applied, workable way? Ownership within what area? Perhaps the number of units managed or owned within just IB or a wider jurisdiction such as SD County or within a certain radius of IB? Define by number of units or value of assets?
Should it be defined as owning or managing properties that in total exceed $xyz in assessed value?
What is sufficient evidence to be defined as a small investor? Will a statement or attestation from owners be acceptable evidence ? How to define "owner" when corporate bodies create different LLCs that are different assemblies of investors ?
A large complex could be defined as anything equal to or greater than XY units. Mom & pop operations could be defined as anything less than XY units in a complex, but this has the fallacy of allowing a property owner with many times XY units, perhaps all duplexes or single family units, to be called a mom & pop operation. For example, one of IB's major property owners has a large number of single family units that he's bought and rehabbed over his lifetime. Should he be considered a mom & pop operation? He's a very hard worker, has restored many houses, but would he work his way through many regulations? After much frustration, I think the rules/regulations you create should be applied to large apartment complexes. Large could be anything greater than X units, (8?).

The rules would not apply to any complex containing less than X units or any owner who may own many more than X units, but they aren't in a complex, one piece of property, that contains X or more units.

Please see how SD and CV have designed their regs and to whom they are applied.

8. Counseling and referrals
Should a city provide or arrange for counseling services to housing and even homeless shelters if nothing can be found?

9.EVICTIONS:

Landlords expressed frustration with the "bad apple" tenants.

State laws seem to be affecting their abilities to evict and re-rent their properties.

Can cities assist in clearing these hurdles when bad apple tenants are encountered?

10. COSTS OF PROPERTY MAINTENANCE:

Does IB have remaining redevelopment or covid funds that could help repair units available to low-moderate-income people?
What long term agreements could be struck to ensure units would stay available to low-mod income people for X years?
Could property owners receive a property tax break for X years if they substantially rehabbed units and kept rents affordable for Y years? What would the fiscal impact be on the city? IB should work with other cities and Cal Cities to bring back a redevelopment program under

c.3 Submitted by Gary Brown
state law.

11. HOUSING PRODUCTION:

Should emphasize a regional approach, not just in IB. IB by itself is too small to affect housing within our region. Can SANDAG help?
Is IB's processing of new construction and substantial rehab as efficient as possible? Is it fast and accurate ?
Are development and permitting fees reasonable and comparable with other similar cities? Some cities have used consultants to examine their processes.

Could there be a regional approach to develop an AI system that would analyze and streamline each city's processing?
Could developers pay up-front fees over several years after a project is operational? ( The developer who spoke at Saturday's meeting told me he had almost $500,000 in up-front costs for just 4 homes- not in IB. Not all of it was city fees, but much of it was.) Perhaps the fees could be added to property taxes over several years.

Should IB, working with other cities, persuade the Coastal Commission, the Port, and the Navy to see housing production as an important piece of their missions? ( It's frustrating for one state agency to urge cities to get housing built while other state agencies don't see it as their mission to help housing.)
What other institutions have lands that could be used for housing? Native American properties? School districts? Water districts? Cities and the County? Is IB willing to allow higher building heights and greater densities if developers agree to build affordable units ? Workforce housing?
What is IB doing to encourage ADUs and compliance with state laws to develop affordable housing?
Will IB continue its work with Cal Cities to encourage the state to provide long term funding for homelessness and housing?

BRING BACK REDEVELOPMENT

FEASIBILITY
You have an excellent staff. Please ask them to review the feasibility and practicality of ideas.

Can ideas be executed with minimum costs and efforts?

FOLLOW-UP
Whatever you decide, this will not be the last time you'll address housing. Today's solutions will not be final. This is a long term effort.

Whatever you decide, please set up a system of routine monitoring and evaluation to measure achievements, what's going well and not-so-well. Perhaps you will create a housing advisory group with representatives of the many stakeholders.

This will allow you to adjust as conditions change.

c.4 Submitted by Gary Brown
THANK YOU !
And finally, thank you for your courage, persistence, and tenacity to even attempt to address such a complex topic.
.

c.5 Submitted by Gary Brown
From: Gary Brown
To: Public Comments
Subject: Chapter 9.65 CVMC, Residential Tenant Protection Date: Monday, December 23, 2024 9:07:05 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an External source. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

In my previous email I raised questions about defining ownership, tenants, an apartment complex, applicability of the law and other things.

I should have read the Chula Vista before starting my email. It resolves many questions. https://chulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/9.65
.

c.6 Submitted by Gary Brown
From: Gary Brown
To: Public Comments
Subject: Tenant Protections and Housing
Date: Monday, December 23, 2024 9:28:21 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an External source. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

In my previous email I raised questions about defining ownership, tenants, an apartment complex, applicability of the law and other things.

I should have read the Chula Vista before starting my email. It resolves many questions. https://chulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/9.65
During public hearings there was the idea of applying the regulations to the big guy corporations and not to the mom & pop operations. I think section 9.65.040 "Residential tenancies not subject to this chapter" tries to do this in a better way than defining the applicability by simply number of units.

I hope the ordinance will help in your deliberations.
.

c.7 Submitted by Gary Brown

9.65.010

9.65.020

9.65.030

9.65.040

9.65.050

9.65.060

9.65.070

9.65.080

9.65.090
Chapter 9.65

RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTION
Sections:

Title and purpose.

Promulgation of administrative regulations.

Definitions.

Residential tenancies not subject to this chapter.

Harassment and Retaliation Against Tenant Prohibited.

Just cause required for termination of tenancy.

Requirements upon termination of a tenancy.

Enforcement and remedies.

Sunset Clause.

9.65.010 Title and purpose.

A. Title. This chapter shall be known as the Chula Vista Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance and may be referred to herein as the Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance.

B. Purpose. Subject to the provisions of applicable law, the purpose of the Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance is to require Just Cause for termination of residential tenancies consistent with California Civil Code Section 1946.2, to further limit the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy, to require greater tenant relocation assistance in specified circumstances, and to provide additional tenant protections. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as to prevent the lawful eviction of a tenant by appropriate legal means. (Ord. 3565 § 2, 2024; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2022).

9.65.020 Promulgation of administrative regulations.

The City Manager is authorized to establish, consistent with the terms of this chapter, Administrative Regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. Administrative Regulations shall be published on the City’s website, and maintained and available to the public in the Office of the City Clerk. Administrative Regulations promulgated by the City Manager shall become effective and enforceable under the terms of this chapter 30 days after the date of publication on the City’s website. (Ord. 3565 § 2, 2024; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2022).

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 1 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.8 Submitted by Gary Brown

9.65.030 Definitions.

When used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them below.

Words and phrases not specifically defined below shall have the meanings ascribed to them elsewhere in this Code, or shall otherwise be defined by common usage. For definitions of nouns, the singular shall also include the plural; for definitions of verbs, all verb conjugations shall be included. Any reference to State laws, including references to any California statutes or regulations, is deemed to include any successor or amended version of the referenced statute or regulations promulgated thereunder consistent with the terms of this Chapter. “Administrative Regulations” means regulations that implement this chapter authorized by the City Manager pursuant to CVMC 9.65.020.
“Bad Faith” or “in Bad Faith” means with the intent to vex, annoy, harass, coerce, defraud, provoke or injure another person. This includes the intent of an Owner to induce a Tenant to vacate a Residential Rental Unit through unlawful conduct.
“City” means the City of Chula Vista.
“City Attorney” means the City Attorney of the City of Chula Vista, or their designee. “City Manager” means the City Manager of the City of Chula Vista, or their designee. “County” means the County of San Diego.
“Disabled” means an individual with a disability, as defined in California Government Code Section 12955.3. “Elderly” means an individual 62 years old or older.
“Enforcement Officer” means the Director of Development Services, a Code Enforcement Manager, any Code Enforcement Officer, the Building Official, any sworn Officer of the Police Department, the Fire Chief, the Fire Marshal, or any other City department head (to the extent responsible for enforcing provisions of this code), their respective designees, or any other City employee designated by the City Manager to enforce this chapter. “Family Member” means the spouse, domestic partner, children, grandchildren, parents or grandparents of the residential unit Owner.
“Housing Service” means services provided by the Owner to the Tenant in connection with the use and occupancy of a Residential Rental Unit, either pursuant to contract or as required by law, including repairs, maintenance, and painting; providing light, heat, hot and cold water; window shades and screens; storage; kitchen, bath, and laundry facilities and privileges; janitor services; pest control; elevator service; access to exterior doors, entry systems, and gates; utility charges that are paid by the Owner; refuse removal; furnishings; parking; the right to have a specified number of occupants, and any other benefit, privilege, or facility connected with the use or occupancy of any Residential Rental Unit. Housing Services also includes the proportionate part of services provided to common facilities of the building in which the Residential Rental Unit is located. “Occupant Owner” means any of the following:

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 2 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.9 Submitted by Gary Brown

1. An owner who is a natural person that has at least a 25 percent recorded ownership interest in the property.

2. An owner who is a natural person who has any recorded ownership interest in the property if 100 percent of the recorded ownership interest is divided among owners who are related to each other as Family Members.

3. An owner who is a natural person whose recorded interest in the property is owned through a limited liability company or partnership.

For purposes of the “Occupant Owner” definition, a “natural person” includes any of the following: (a) a natural person who is a settlor or beneficiary of a family trust; or (b) if the property is owned by a limited liability company or partnership, a natural person with a 25 percent ownership interest in the property. A “family trust” means a revocable living trust or irrevocable trust in which the settlors and beneficiaries of the trust are persons who are related to each other as Family Members. A “beneficial owner” means a natural person or family trust for whom, directly or indirectly and through any contractual arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise, and any of the following applies: (a) the natural person exercises substantial control over a partnership or limited liability company; (b) the natural person owns 25 percent or more of the equity interest of a partnership or limited liability company; (c) the natural person receives substantial economic benefits from the assets of a partnership. “Owner” (including the term “Landlord”) means any Person acting as principal or through an agent, having the right to offer a Residential Rental Unit for rent. As the context may require, “Owner” shall also include a predecessor in interest to the Owner.
“Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
“Residential Rental Complex” means one or more buildings located on a single lot, contiguous lots, or lots separated only by a street or alley containing three or more Residential Rental Units rented or owned by the same Owner.
“Residential Rental Unit” means any dwelling or unit that is intended for human habitation, including any dwelling or unit in a mobilehome park that is not a Mobilehome Residency Law (“MRL”) Tenancy defined by California Civil Code Section 798.12 (or a tenancy governed by the MRL). “State” means the State of California.
“Substantial Remodel” means improvements to a Residential Rental Unit meeting all of the following criteria:

1. Any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system is being replaced or substantially modified; and

2. The cost of the improvements (excluding insurance proceeds, land costs, and architectural/engineering fees) is equal to or greater than $40.00 per square foot of the Residential Rental Unit; and Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 3 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.10 Submitted by Gary Brown

3. A permit is required from a governmental agency, or the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, is required in accordance with applicable federal, State, County, or City laws and cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the Tenant in place; and

4. It is necessary for the Residential Rental Unit to be vacant for more than 60 days in order to complete the improvements.

Cosmetic improvements alone, including, but not limited to, painting, decorating, flooring replacement, counter replacement, and minor repairs, or other work that can be performed safely without having the Residential Rental Unit vacated, do not constitute a Substantial Remodel.
“Tenancy” means the lawful occupation of a Residential Rental Unit and includes a lease or sublease. “Tenant” means a tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, resident manager, or any other individual entitled by written or oral agreement to the use or occupancy of any Residential Rental Unit. (Ord. 3565 § 2, 2024; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2022).

9.65.040 Residential tenancies not subject to this chapter.

This chapter shall not apply to the following types of residential tenancies or circumstances:

A. Single-family Owner-occupied residences, including a mobilehome, in which the Owner-occupant rents or leases no more than two units or bedrooms, including, but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.

B. A property containing two separate dwelling units within a single structure in which the Owner occupied one of the units as the Owner’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the Tenancy, so long as the Owner continues in occupancy and neither unit is an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.

C. A Residential Rental Unit that is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit; provided, that both of the following apply:

1. The Owner is not any of the following:
a. A real estate investment trust, as defined in section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code. b. A corporation.
c. A limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation. d. Management of a mobilehome park, as defined in California Civil Code Section 798.2.

2. The Tenants have been provided written notice that the Residential Rental Unit is exempt from this section using the following statement:

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 4 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.11 Submitted by Gary Brown
This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed by California Civil Code Section 1947.12 and is not subject to Just Cause requirements of California Civil Code Section 1946.2 and Chapter 9.65 CVMC. This property meets the requirements of California Civil Code Sections 1947.12(d)(5) and 1946.2(e)(8) and CVMC 9.65.040(C), and the Owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate investment trust, as defined in Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a limited liability company in which at least one member is a corporation.

For a Tenancy existing before March 1, 2023, the notice required above may, but is not required to, be provided in the rental agreement. For a Tenancy commenced or renewed on or after March 1, 2023, the notice required above shall be provided in the rental agreement. Addition of a provision containing the notice required above to any new or renewed rental agreement or fixed-term lease constitutes a similar provision for the purposes of CVMC

9.65.060(B)(5).

D. A homeowner in a mobilehome, as defined in California Civil Code Section 798.9, or a tenancy as defined in California Civil Code Section 798.12. This chapter shall also not apply to a non-owner Tenant of a mobilehome.

Instead, a non-owner Tenant of a mobilehome shall retain the rights stated in the State Tenant Protection Act.

E. Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in California Civil Code Section 1940(b).

F. Any residential occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period for 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days, including ShortTerm Rental occupancies as defined in Chapter 5.68 CVMC.

G. Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 1569.2, or an adult residential facility as defined in Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures published by the State Department of Social Services.

H. Residential Property or Dormitories owned by the City, an institution of higher education, or a kindergarten and grades one to 12, inclusive.

I. Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares a bathroom or kitchen facilities with the Owner who maintains their principal residence at the Residential Rental Unit.

J. Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for individuals and families of very low, low, or moderate income as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50093, or subject to an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for individuals and families of very low, low, or moderate income as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50093 or comparable federal statutes. This exclusion shall not apply to a Tenant with a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and such Tenancies shall be governed by this chapter. (Ord. 3565 § 2, 2024; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2022).

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 5 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.12 Submitted by Gary Brown

9.65.050 Harassment and Retaliation Against Tenant Prohibited.

A. No Owner or such Owner’s agent, contractor, subcontractor, or employee, alone or in concert with another, shall do any of the following in Bad Faith to a Tenant or with respect to a Residential Rental Unit, as applicable:

1. Interrupt, terminate, or fail to provide Housing Services required by contract or by law, including federal, State, County, or City laws;

2. Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by law, including federal, State, County, or City laws;

3. Fail to exercise commercially reasonable efforts and diligence to commence and complete repairs or maintenance;

4. Abuse the Owner’s right of lawful access into a Residential Rental Unit. This includes entries for “inspections” that are not related to necessary repairs or services; entries excessive in number; entries that improperly target certain Tenants or are used to collect evidence against the occupant or otherwise beyond the scope of an otherwise lawful entry;

5. Abuse the Tenant with words which are offensive and inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction;

6. Influence or attempt to influence a Tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation, or coercion;

7. Threaten the Tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm;

8. Violate any law that prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, sexual preference, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, religion, age, parenthood, marriage, pregnancy, disability, AIDS, occupancy by a minor child, or any other protected classification;

9. Take action to terminate any Tenancy including service of notice to quit or other eviction notice or bring any action to recover possession of a Residential Rental Unit based upon facts that the Owner has no reasonable cause to believe to be true or upon a legal theory that is untenable under the facts known to the Owner. No Owner shall be liable under this section for bringing an action to recover possession unless or until the Tenant has obtained a favorable termination of that action. This subsection shall not apply to any attorney who in good faith initiates legal proceedings against a Tenant on behalf of an Owner to recover possession of a Residential Rental Unit;

10. Interfere with a Tenant’s right to quiet use and enjoyment of a Residential Rental Unit as that right is defined by State law;

11. Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a Tenant’s lawful rent payment, excluding circumstances where an unlawful detainer or other civil action is pending that could be impacted by acceptance of rent; Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 6 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.13 Submitted by Gary Brown

12. Interfere with a Tenant’s right to privacy. This includes entering or photographing portions of a Residential Rental Unit that are beyond the scope of a lawful entry or inspection.

B. No Owner shall retaliate against a Tenant because of the Tenant’s exercise of rights under this chapter. A court may consider the protections afforded by this chapter in evaluating a claim of retaliation.

C. This section shall not apply to Mobilehome Residency Law (“MRL”) Tenancies under California Civil Code Section 798.12 or mobilehome Tenants because the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1940.2 and Division 2, Part 2, Chapter 2.5 of the California Civil Code apply to such Tenancies. (Ord. 3565 § 2, 2024; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2022).

9.65.060 Just cause required for termination of tenancy.

A. Prohibition. No Owner of a Residential Rental Unit shall terminate a Tenancy without Just Cause. A Just Cause basis for Termination of Tenancy includes both “At Fault Just Cause” and “No-Fault Just Cause” circumstances as described below.

B. At Fault Just Cause. At Fault Just Cause means any of the following:

1. Default in payment of rent.

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.

3. Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The Tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after the effective date of this chapter, and after a written request or demand from the Owner, the Tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term of similar duration with similar provisions; provided, that those terms do not violate this section or any other provision of law. Addition of a provision allowing the Owner to terminate the Tenancy to allow for occupancy by the Owner or Owner’s Family Member as described in subsection (C)(1) of this section shall constitute a “similar provision” for the purposes of this subsection.

6. Criminal activity by the Tenant at the Residential Rental Unit, including any common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal threat, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the California Penal Code, on or off the property where the Residential Rental Unit is located, that is directed at any Owner, any agent of the Owner, or any other Tenant of the Residential Rental Unit or of the property where the Residential Rental Unit is located.

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 7 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.14 Submitted by Gary Brown

7. Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the Tenant’s lease, as described in paragraph (4) of section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. The Tenant’s refusal to allow the Owner to enter the Residential Rental Unit as authorized by Sections 1101.5 and 1954 of the Code of Civil Procedure and California Health and Safety Code Sections 13113.7 and 17926.1.

9. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Tenant shall not be considered to have used the premises for an unlawful purpose solely on the basis of the fact that the Owner’s Residential Rental Unit is unpermitted, illegal, or otherwise unauthorized under applicable laws.

10. The employee, agent, or licensee’s failure to vacate after their termination as an employee, agent, or a licensee as described in paragraph (1) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

11. When the Tenant fails to deliver possession of the Residential Rental Unit after providing the Owner written notice as provided in Section 1946 of the Civil Code of the Tenant’s intention to terminate the hiring of the real property or makes a written offer to surrender that is accepted in writing by the Owner but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in that written notice as described in paragraph (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

C. No-Fault Just Cause. No-Fault Just Cause means any of the following:

1. Intent to Occupy by Occupant Owner or Family Member. The Tenancy is terminated on the basis that the Occupant Owner or an Occupant Owner’s Family Member will occupy the Residential Rental Unit within 90 days after the Tenant vacates and will continuously occupy the Residential Rental Unit for a minimum of 12 continuous months thereafter as their primary residence. For leases entered into on or after July 1, 2020, Intent to Occupy by Occupant Owner or Family Member shall only be a No-Fault Just Cause basis for termination if the Tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the lease allows the owner to terminate the lease if an Occupant Owner or an Occupant Owner’s Family Member unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property.

2. Compliance with Government or Court Order. The Tenancy is terminated on the basis of the Owner’s compliance with any of the following:
a. An order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that necessitates vacating the Residential Rental Unit; or
b. An order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the Residential Rental Unit; or c. A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the Residential Rental Unit.

If it is determined by any government agency or court that the Tenant is at fault for the condition or conditions triggering the order or need to vacate under this subsection, the Tenant shall not be entitled to relocation assistance as set forth in this Chapter.

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 8 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.15 Submitted by Gary Brown

3. Withdrawal From the Rental Market. The Tenancy is terminated on the basis of the Owner’s decision to withdraw the Residential Rental Unit from the rental market.

4. Substantial Remodel or Complete Demolition. The Tenancy is terminated because of the Owner’s decision to Substantially Remodel or completely demolish a Residential Rental Unit. The Owner may not require the Tenant to vacate the Residential Rental Unit on any days where a Tenant could continue living in the Residential Rental Unit without violating health, safety, and habitability codes and law.

D. Notice to Tenant of Tenant Protection Provisions Required. An Owner of a Residential Rental Unit subject to this chapter shall provide written notice in no less than 12-point type to the Tenant as follows:

California law limits the amount your rent can be increased. See Civil Code section 1947.12 for more information. Local law also provides an Owner must provide a statement of cause in any notice to terminate a Tenancy. In some circumstances, Tenants who are elderly (62 years or older) or disabled may be entitled to additional Tenant protections. See Chula Vista Municipal Code chapter 9.65 for more information.

For a Tenancy in a Residential Rental Unit subject to this Chapter existing before the effective date of this Chapter, the notice required above shall be provided to the Tenant directly or as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement no later than March 1, 2023. For a Tenancy in a Residential Rental Unit subject to this chapter commenced or renewed on or after March 1, 2023, the notice required above shall be included as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement, or as a written notice signed by the Tenant, with a copy provided to the Tenant.

The provision of this notice shall be subject to California Civil Code Section 1632.

E. Reporting Requirements. 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 Administrative Regulations. (Ord. 3565 § 2, 2024; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2022).

9.65.070 Requirements upon termination of a tenancy.

A. Requirements Upon Termination of a Tenancy for At Fault Just Cause. Before an Owner of a Residential Rental Unit issues a notice to terminate a Tenancy for At Fault Just Cause that is a curable lease violation, the Owner shall first give written notice of the violation to the Tenant including a description of the violation (or violations) and an opportunity to cure the violation pursuant to paragraph (3) of section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in the notice, a three-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure may thereafter be served to terminate the Tenancy.

B. Requirements Upon Termination of a Tenancy for No-Fault Just Cause. Upon termination of a Tenancy for NoFault Just Cause, an Owner of a Residential Rental Unit shall provide notice and relocation assistance as follows:

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 9 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.16 Submitted by Gary Brown

1. 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 assistance to the Tenant as follows:
a. Notice to Tenant Required. The Owner shall give written notice to the Tenant at least 30 or 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination as required by California Civil Code Section 1946.1, in no less than 12-point font of:
i. Notice of Basis for No-Fault Just Cause Termination. The Owner’s decision to terminate the Tenancy and a description of the basis for said termination; ii. Notice of Right to Relocation Assistance. The Tenant’s right to relocation assistance or rent waiver pursuant to this section. If the Owner elects to waive the Tenant’s rent, the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final corresponding months of the Tenancy.

Any relocation assistance payment shall be provided by the Owner to the Tenant within 15 calendar days of service of the notice; and
iii. Notice of Right to Receive Future Offer. The Tenant’s right to receive an offer to renew the Tenancy in the event that the Residential Rental Unit is offered again for rent or lease for residential purposes within two years of the date the 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 30 days of the termination notice of such desire to consider an offer to renew the Tenancy in the event that the Residential Rental Unit is offered again for rent or lease for residential purposes; (b) furnish the Owner with an address or email address to which that offer is to be directed; (c) and advise the Owner at any time of a change of address to which an offer is to be directed; iv. Notice of Intended Occupant. If the Tenancy is being terminated on the basis of an Occupant Owner or Occupant Owner’s Family Member move in under CVMC 9.65.060(C)(1), the written notice must identify the name or names and relationship to the Occupant Owner of the intended occupant. The written notice shall additionally include notification that the Tenant may request proof that the intended occupant is an Occupant Owner or related to the Occupant Owner. The proof shall be provided upon request and may include an operating agreement and other nonpublic documents; v. Notice of Substantial Remodel or Demolition. If the Tenancy is being terminated on the basis of a Substantial Remodel or Complete Demolition under CVMC 9.65.060(C)(4), the following statement must be included in the written notice:

If the substantial remodel of your unit or demolition of the property as described in this notice of termination is not commenced or completed, the owner must offer you the opportunity to re-rent your unit with a rental agreement containing the same terms as your most recent rental agreement with the owner at the rental rate that was in effect at the time you vacated. You must notify the owner within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 10 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.17 Submitted by Gary Brown
offer to re-rent of your acceptance or rejection of the offer, and, if accepted, you must reoccupy the unit within thirty (30) days of notifying the owner of your acceptance of the offer.

The written notice shall additionally contain a description of the Substantial Remodel to be completed, the approximate expected duration of the Substantial Remodel, or if the property is to be completely demolished, the expected date by which the property will be demolished, together with one of the following:
(A) A copy of the permit or permits required to undertake the Substantial Remodel or demolition; or
(B) If the Substantial Remodel is due to abatement of hazardous materials and does not require any permit, a copy of the signed contract with the contractor hired by the owner to complete the Substantial Remodel that reasonably details the work that will be undertaken to abate the hazardous materials.

The written notice shall additionally indicate that if the Tenant is interested in reoccupying the Residential Rental Unit following the Substantial Remodel, the Tenant shall inform the Owner of the Tenant’s interest in reoccupying the Residential Rental Unit following the Substantial Remodel and provide to the Owner the Tenant’s address, telephone number, and email address. b. Notice to City Required. The Owner shall provide written notice to the City of the No-Fault Just Cause Termination of Tenancy no later than three business days after the date the Owner provides the required notice to the Tenant. Such notice to City shall be provided on a form approved by City for such purpose and in the manner specified in the attendant Administrative Regulations. The City shall acknowledge receipt of the Owner’s notice to City within three business days of City’s receipt of such notice.
c. Relocation Assistance Required. The Owner shall, regardless of the Tenant’s income or length of Tenancy, at the Owner’s option, do one of the following to assist the Tenant to relocate:
i. Provide a direct payment to the Tenant in an amount equal to the greater of: two months of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Small Area Fair Market Rents Amount for the ZIP code in which the Residential Rental Unit is located when the Owner issued the notice to terminate the Tenancy, or two months of actual then in effect contract rent under Tenant’s lease. If the Tenant is Elderly or Disabled, then the direct payment shall be in an amount equal to the greater of: three months of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Small Area Fair Market Rents Amount for the ZIP code in which the Residential Rental Unit is located when the Owner issued the notice to terminate the Tenancy, or three months of actual contract rent; or Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 11 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.18 Submitted by Gary Brown
ii. Waive in writing and not collect the payment by Tenant of then due or future rent otherwise due under the lease in an amount equivalent to the direct payment described in subsection (B)(1)(c)(i) of this section.

2. Tenancy in Unit Not in a Residential Rental Complex. When an Owner terminates a Tenancy of a Residential Rental Unit that is not in a Residential Rental Complex for No-Fault Just Cause, the Owner shall provide notice and relocation assistance to the Tenant as follows:
a. Notice to Tenant Required. The Owner shall give written notice to the Tenant at least 30 or 60 days prior to the proposed date of termination as required by California Civil Code Section 1946.1, in no less than 12-point font of:
i. Notice of Basis for No-Fault Just Cause Termination. The Owner’s decision to terminate the Tenancy and a description of the basis for said termination. ii. Notice of Right to Relocation Assistance. The Tenant’s right to relocation assistance or rent waiver pursuant to this section. If the Owner elects to waive the Tenant’s rent, the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final corresponding months of the Tenancy.

Any relocation assistance payment shall be provided by the Owner to the Tenant within 15 calendar days of service of the notice; and
iii. Notice of Intended Occupant. If the Tenancy is being terminated on the basis of an Occupant Owner or Occupant Owner’s Family Member move in under CVMC 9.65.060(C)(1), the written notice must identify the name or names and relationship to the Occupant Owner of the intended occupant. The written notice shall additionally include notification that the Tenant may request proof that the intended occupant is an Occupant Owner or related to the Occupant Owner. The proof shall be provided upon request and may include an operating agreement and other nonpublic documents. iv. Notice of Substantial Remodel or Demolition. If the Tenancy is being terminated on the basis of a Substantial Remodel or Complete Demolition under CVMC 9.65.060(C)(4), the following statement must be included in the written notice:

If the substantial remodel of your unit or demolition of the property as described in this notice of termination is not commenced or completed, the owner must offer you the opportunity to re-rent your unit with a rental agreement containing the same terms as your most recent rental agreement with the owner at the rental rate that was in effect at the time you vacated. You must notify the owner within thirty (30) days of receipt of the offer to re-rent of your acceptance or rejection of the offer, and, if accepted, you must reoccupy the unit within thirty (30) days of notifying the owner of your acceptance of the offer.

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 12 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.19 Submitted by Gary Brown
The written notice shall additionally contain a description of the Substantial Remodel to be completed, the approximate expected duration of the Substantial Remodel, or if the property is to be completely demolished, the expected date by which the property will be demolished, together with one of the following:
(A) A copy of the permit or permits required to undertake the Substantial Remodel or demolition; or
(B) If the Substantial Remodel is due to abatement of hazardous materials and does not require any permit, a copy of the signed contract with the contractor hired by the owner to complete the Substantial Remodel, that reasonably details the work that will be undertaken to abate the hazardous materials.

The written notice shall additionally indicate that if the Tenant is interested in reoccupying the Residential Rental Unit following the Substantial Remodel, the Tenant shall inform the Owner of the Tenant’s interest in reoccupying the Residential Rental Unit following the Substantial Remodel and provide to the Owner the Tenant’s address, telephone number, and email address. b. Notice to City Required. The Owner shall provide written notice to the City of the No-Fault Just Cause Termination of Tenancy no later than three business days after the date the Owner provides the required notice to the Tenant. Such notice to City shall be provided on a form approved by City for such purpose and in the manner specified in the attendant Administrative Regulations. The City shall acknowledge receipt of the Owner’s notice to City within three business days of City’s receipt of such notice.
c. Relocation Assistance Required. The Owner shall, regardless of the Tenant’s income or length of Tenancy, at the Owner’s option, do one of the following to assist the Tenant to relocate:
i. Provide a direct payment to the Tenant in an amount equal to one month of actual then in effect contract rent under Tenant’s lease; or
ii. Waive in writing and not collect the payment by Tenant of then due or future rent otherwise due under the lease in an amount equivalent to the direct payment described in subsection (B)(2)(c)(i) of this section.

C. Additional Requirements Upon Termination of a Tenancy for No-Fault Just Cause. Upon termination of a Tenancy for No-Fault Just Cause, the following additional provisions shall also apply:

1. When more than one Tenant occupies a rental unit, and the Owner opts to provide direct payment of relocation assistance to the Tenants, the Owner may make a single direct payment to all Tenants named on the rental agreement.

2. The relocation assistance or rent waiver required by this section shall be in addition to the return of any deposit or security amounts owed to the Tenant.

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 13 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.20 Submitted by Gary Brown

3. Any relocation assistance or rent waiver to which a Tenant may be entitled to under this section shall be in addition to and shall not be credited against any other relocation assistance required by any other law.

4. If the Tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to terminate the Tenancy, the actual amount of any relocation assistance or rent waiver provided pursuant to this section may be recoverable by Owner as damages in an action to recover possession.

5. If the Tenancy is being terminated on the basis of an Occupant Owner or Occupant Owner’s Family Member move in under CVMC 9.65.060(C)(1) and the intended occupant fails to move into the Residential Rental Unit within 90 days after the Tenant vacates, or fails to occupy the Residential Rental Unit as their primary residence for at least 12 consecutive months, the Owner shall offer the unit to the Tenant who vacated it at the same rent and lease terms in effect at the time the Tenant vacated and shall reimburse the Tenant for reasonable moving expenses incurred in excess of any relocation assistance that was paid to the Tenant in connection with the written notice. If the intended occupant moves into the unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates but dies before having occupied the unit as a primary residence for 12 months, this will not be considered a failure to comply with this section or a material violation of this section by the Owner. a. For a new tenancy commenced during the time periods described in subsection (C)(5) of this section, the unit shall be offered and rented or leased at the lawful rent in effect at the time any notice of termination of tenancy is served.

6. If a Residential Rental Unit in a Residential Rental Complex is offered for rent or lease for residential purposes within two years of the date the Tenancy was terminated, the Owner shall first offer the unit for rent or lease to the Tenant displaced from that unit by the No-Fault Just Cause termination if the Tenant: (a) advised the Owner in writing within 30 days of the termination notice of the Tenant’s desire to consider an offer to renew the Tenancy, and (b) furnished the Owner with an address or email address to which that offer is to be directed. The Owner shall have the right to 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 attendant Administrative Regulations.

7. With regard to termination of a Tenancy of a Residential Rental Unit in a Residential Rental Complex on the basis of a withdrawal of the unit from the rental market, as described in CVMC 9.65.060(C)(3), should the property that had been taken off the market be placed on the rental market again within two years of the termination of the Tenancy, then the Owner shall be liable to Tenant for the greater of: (i) six month’s rent to the last tenant of the Residential Rental Unit at the rental rate in place at the time the rental unit is re-rented as set forth U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Small Area Fair Market Rents Amount for the ZIP code in which the Residential Rental Unit is located; or (ii) six months of actual then in effect contract rent under the Tenant’s lease at time of termination. This section does not apply if the property is rented to Owner’s Family Member, converted to another non-rental use, or sold or otherwise transferred to a bona fide third party during the two-year period.

8. Among other remedies applicable to Owner’s failure to comply with the terms of this chapter, an Owner’s failure to strictly comply with this section shall render the notice of termination void. (Ord. 3565 § 2, 2024; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2022).

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 14 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.21 Submitted by Gary Brown

9.65.080 Enforcement and remedies.

A. Guiding Principles. The City seeks to promote good relations between Owners and Tenants, and in furtherance of such goal, provides the following guiding principles:

1. Owners and Tenants should treat each other with respect, listen to each other, and make good faith efforts to informally resolve issues. If Owners and Tenants cannot informally resolve issues, alternative dispute resolution and mediation programs should be voluntarily utilized.

2. If disputes are not able to be settled despite the use of dispute resolution or mediation programs, the primary enforcement mechanism is otherwise expected to be the Private Remedies set forth in subsection (D) of this section.

3. The City shall have the sole and unfettered discretion to determine if and when City will engage in City enforcement of this chapter. Owners and Tenants are highly encouraged to independently resolve disputes as set forth in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) of this section.

B. General Provisions.

1. The enforcement mechanisms and remedies specified in this section are cumulative and in addition to any other enforcement mechanisms and remedies available under federal, State, County, and City law for violation of this chapter or Code.

2. It shall be unlawful for any Person to violate any provision or fail to comply with the requirements of this chapter. Each day that a violation continues is deemed to be a new and separate offense.

3. Any waiver of the rights under this chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy.

C. City Attorney Enforcement.

1. Alternative Remedies. The City Attorney may require Owner and Tenant to participate in education programs related to Owner-Tenant issues, mediation, or an alternative dispute resolution program.

2. Administrative Citations and Penalties. The City Attorney or an Enforcement Officer may issue administrative citations or civil penalties in accordance with Chapter 1.41 CVMC for violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, civil penalties for violations of CVMC 9.65.050 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.

3. Civil Action. The City, or the City Attorney on behalf of the People of the State of California, may seek injunctive relief to enjoin violations of, or to compel compliance with, this chapter or seek any other relief or remedy available at law or equity, including the imposition of monetary civil penalties. Civil penalties for violations of this chapter may be assessed at a rate not to exceed $5,000 per violation per day. The City may also pursue damages as set forth in CVMC 9.65.070(C)(7).

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 15 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.22 Submitted by Gary Brown

4. Criminal Violation. An Owner who interferes or facilitates interference with a Tenant’s peaceful enjoyment, use, possession or occupancy of a Residential Rental Unit by (a) threat, fraud, intimidation, coercion, or duress, (b) maintenance or toleration of a public nuisance, (c) cutting off heat, light, water, fuel, Wi-Fi, or free communication by anyone by mail, email, telephone/cell phone, or otherwise, or (d) restricting trade (including the use of delivery services for goods or food) or tradespersons from or to any such Tenant, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for a period of not more than six months, or by both a fine and imprisonment. At the sole discretion of the City Attorney, such violation may, in the alternative, be cited and prosecuted as an infraction.

5. Subpoena Authority. The City Attorney shall have the power to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses, to compel their attendance and testimony, to administer oaths and affirmations, to take evidence, and to issue subpoenas for the production of any papers, books, accounts, records, documents or other items that may be relevant to the City Attorney’s investigation, enforcement action, or prosecution. The City Attorney may exercise such powers prior to or following the commencement of any civil, criminal, or administrative action to the fullest extent allowed by law.

D. Private Remedies.

1. Civil Action. An aggrieved Tenant may institute a civil action for injunctive relief, actual money damages, and any other relief allowed by law, including the assessment of civil penalties in the amount of no less than $2,000 and no more than $5,000 per violation per day. If the aggrieved Tenant is Elderly or Disabled, additional civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation per day may be assessed at the discretion of the court.

A Tenant may also pursue damages as set forth in CVMC 9.65.070(C)(7). a. An Owner who attempts to recover possession of a Residential Rental Unit in material violation of this chapter shall be liable to the Tenant in a civil action for actual damages. Upon a showing that the Owner has acted willfully or with oppression, fraud, or malice, an Owner shall be liable to the Tenant in a civil action for up to three times the actual damages. An award may also be entered for punitive damages for the benefit of the Tenant against the Owner.

2. Affirmative Defense. A violation of this chapter may be asserted as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer or other civil action.

3. Attorney’s Fees. The court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a party who prevails in any action described in subsections (D)(1) and (D)(2) of this section. (Ord. 3565 § 2, 2024; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2022).

9.65.090 Sunset Clause.

This chapter shall remain in effect until January 1, 2030, and as of that date is repealed unless otherwise extended by the City Council. (Ord. 3565 § 2, 2024; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2022).

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 16 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.23 Submitted by Gary Brown
The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

Disclaimer: The City Clerk’s Office has the official version of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.

City Website: www.chulavistaca.gov
To be notified when additions, amendments, or revisions are made to the code, send your e-mail address to (be sure to add "Chula Vista Municipal Code" in the subject line) [email protected].

Hosted by General Code.

Ch. 9.65 Residential Tenant Protection | Chula Vista Municipal Code Page 17 of 17 The Chula Vista Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 3582, passed November 12, 2024.

c.24 Submitted by Gary Brown

Ad Hoc on Just Cause Regulations
Meeting Summary Notes
At the December 4, 2024 Council meeting, the City Council had a general discussion of just cause evictions and formed a limited term, limited purpose ad hoc committee of Mayor Aguirre and Councilmember Fisher to further explore the topic along with obtaining public input through outreach meetings. Since then, the ad hoc has met several times and also held public outreach meetings on December 16, 2024 and December 21, 2024.

December 16, 2024 - City Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m.

Attendance: Mayor Aguirre, Councilmember Fisher, City Clerk Kelly, CAO Cortez-Martinez, City Manager Foltz, Community Development Director Openshaw, Housing Manager Rolfe, and City Attorney Lyon
• Staff provided a general overview on state law tenant protections, regional ordinances and local application
• In summary, the following verbal public comments were received:

1. Family has been in IB for 60 years and have rental properties; more difficult to manage properties in IB with restrictions on landlords; repairs are expensive and restrictions on landlords make it more difficult. Putting more restrictions on landlords is burdensome; What is needed is more housing. Substantial improvements need to be made, or else the old housing stock will remain.

2. Parents are landlords; keep 20% of money aside for remodeling/repairs; tangible changes happening now with 100 being displaced. Chula Vista has the strongest protections; asked for a ban on substantial remodels, it is not something that is groundbreaking because it has been done before.

3. State law is enough; Complained about the amount of time it takes to work with contractors which can take more than 30 days; Concern is additional expenses in state law is going to restrict when renters have been there many years; Pursuing a moratorium will give people false hope when they received legal eviction notices; He questioned if people are getting false hope when they have a legal eviction notice. A moratorium will extend wear and tear on housing units and it costs money.

4. This will stifle growth in IB; yet the City has prospered. It costs more to live in IB; If they can’t improve properties, then there will be sub-housing; He questioned if we want investors or to stifle people.

5. What the City enacts would affect the whole city and have unintended consequences; It will be more difficult for the smaller landlords; The more regulations there are the more difficult it is for the smaller landlords so they would sell to larger investors.

6. Legal issues with tenants and it costs a lot to get people out; Tenants are difficult so they cannot sell their house. Small people who rent out their homes have difficulty with insurance, structural assessments, etc.; There are things that can happen that you don’t know will happen like assessments. Be mindful of the effects of restrictions.

7. Need to get eviction attorneys to show up; Landlords don’t get help like tenants do; Protecting people who are damaging the properties, double standards; Concerned about people who are boarders that won’t and also concerned about squatters who won’t leave; Need protections that removes squatters, make squatting a criminal act.

ATTACHMENT 4

8. Expressed concern about large companies buying apartment complexes; Not talking about individual owners, concerned about companies like Blackstone buying mass complexes and driving up the cost of rent.

9. Supported stronger protections against no-fault evictions. Asked for support with stronger tenant protections.

10. There was extensive work in passing SB 567. Hawaiian Gardens is similar to what is happening in the County, choosing profit over people; There is no consideration to the most vulnerable amongst us; Need stronger protections for tenants and put an end to remodel evictions; After remodels, move the tenants back in for the same rent or no more than 5%.

11. Doesn’t like when renters are depicted as a hindrance to the growth. The only areas available are the areas that are neglected.

12. Small property owner; More housing is needed. Supply vs. Demand. If there are more rental units then the price will come down due to competition. More restrictions will make it difficult for the smaller landlords.

13. Manage property management company for family in IB since the 1950’s; they do it with a lot of pride and have people on Section 8 that are currently are housing; have single moms as tenants; provide affordable and even below market rent because of compassion; don't need government to tell us to do things anything beyond the current state law; that would be really be tying our hands further as landlords here in Imperial Beach; we are not the city of San Diego we are not the city of Chula Vista we're not LA; city of Imperial Beach has the smallest budget in San Diego County as a city so anything that stifles further growth within our community and discourages investment within our communities will hit the city's bottom line; we don't have our own Police Department; we don't have our own library system; we have a lot of areas where the community can continue to grow so I just encourage the city to be mindful in all different areas when taking on areas to kind of cycle growth in our community.

14. Spoke about the need to protect people who live in IB.

15. Rent is not that high; owners have to pay mortgage and taxes.

16. Adding more rules on housing usually has the opposite effect; Rising costs leads to further deterioration; adding yet more rules and regulations on housing usually has the opposite intended effect causing cost and delays to needed increase in building or preserving have affordable units rising costs discourage new projects from being initiated resulting in reduced housing available and ironically driving up prices for everyone else limiting profitability incentives for maintaining or enhancing existing housing will lead to further deterioration and rather than preserving affordable housing the ordinance will diminish it

17. Already have CA rules do not add more.

18. The problem now is the no-fault evictions.

19. Business owners fail because they lack funding; 3rd the major corporations buying up properties; 4th renal agencies that use AI for price fixing helps major corporations charge for rentals; stagger a policy: 90-days as an initial timeframe to find a new home; small business owners do tend to have good tenants; stability will increase spending to local economy.

20. Seems like a boxing match; Rules are rules; If we have rules by the government and want to change it, do we just say yes? How does that work? Our words count too. We have to save money, and we don’t come to you for loans.

21. Challenged the notion of a corporate landlord; A common business in CA real-estate is syndication; Individuals who don’t have the money, investors pool their money and buy the buildings; Sometimes they are owned by regular middle class common people; He understands that not all corporate landlords are created equally.

22. Corporate landlords rely on investors; They have no personal interest of their tenants; Local landlords have always been good; F&F properties is based in La Jolla- Boutique Property.

December 21, 2024 - Imperial Beach County Library at 11:00 a.m.

Attendance: Mayor Aguirre, Councilmember Fisher, City Clerk Kelly, CAO Cortez-Martinez, City Manager Foltz, Housing Manager Rolfe, and City Attorney Lyon • Staff provided a general overview on state law tenant protections, regional ordinances and local application
• In summary, the following verbal public comments were received:

1. Questioned where the economic incentive is for buying property; Big corporations can deal with small margins and will not hesitate to sue; Increases in rent and protections are important, but what about incentives for local people?

2. Wants remodeling but would like to be able to come back; the increase should only be the legal amount of 10%; In a fight with F&F.

3. Not all landlords are big companies. There are those that are small that cannot have the city dictate on them additional requirements; We are going downhill; Small landlord would be 4 or 5 units.

4. Was a renter before so he understands the situation. He made the following suggestions:

The pressure on pricing is from the military. This community is affected by the military bases and we have to have affordable housing. He said the city should engage with housing on the bases. Coronado was able to include the base housing in their RHNA numbers. Also, several landlords have said that they will only rent to military. The rank of E-1 receives $2,148 per soldier (for one person). For 2 soldiers it is $5,400. He submitted a sheet of Navy rental rates for the record.

5. Reviewed the 5 stages of a developer/landlord: Enthusiasm, Concern, Panic, Find the guilty, Punish the innocent. Need to keep it to stage 2 to survive and make it. Rather than have a dispute over City policies and practices that exacerbate the housing challenges, reduce fees, initiate housing, and increase housing. He submitted information on arguments against increasing notice periods and imposing additional rent control measures for the record.

6. Offers cheap rooms in his home; Now he has a squatter that will not leave; New renters will not rent from him; He is the innocent one being penalized; Tenant protections are hurting him; There needs to be discernment about the situation.

7. Will become homeless; needs help with F&F; and can’t afford to pay $2,000 because she is on SSI.

8. Not trying to hurt the pockets of the landlords; At a cross roads where it is fully for tenants to be able to get their way or the landlords; Why is it that companies like F&F can up the charges; Why can’t there be a middle ground where they can have a sustainable business and tenants can have the opportunity to not spend 75% of their checks on rent; A line has been drawn in the sand, why?

9. Look at the age of the housing stock; Look at the law – State law allows for substantial remodels, not cosmetic; Someone has the right to do that under state law; Chula Vista found out that one complex was that substantial remodel; Do you want people to renovate properties in IB; State law also has the first right of return, that is allowed; With remodeling the rent would be higher; Need alternate housing in the region; If a landlord does the steps, what things in state law do you want examined.

10. Family is spending most of their pay on rent; They will not have time to find new rental before eviction.

11. For private property rights; There are already state laws that protect tenants; Conduct an audit of COVID funds for affordable housing.

12. There are 2 separate issues: Owners achieved the American dream, Property ownership value has tripled in the last 12 years; No fault evictions is a separate issue; It is not new; A proven method being adopted throughout the state of California; Over 70% in IB are renters; This side should be considered.

13. Investor, owns and manages property; Owners are mom and pop - 3 units at max; Elderly people that have over time invested into property and it is their source of income; He wished there was an incentive for first time home buyers; State law currently is more than adequate for restrictions to put on landlords; He feels badly for those at Hawaiian Gardens; Would like to keep his property up; Would not like to live next door to a property with a slum lord; Scrap the idea of an overall moratorium.

14. It doesn’t matter what the landlords want because you already sided with the tenants; Leave the rules the way they are; Mayor supports tenants not the landlords.

15. Understands the tenant’s situation; he complained about the efforts it takes to repair property; There are real costs; Will not make a profit; Money only counts the day you sell the property; The only thing that changed is response days; There are no protections for owners; Does not want delays with government interference; It will create vacancies.

16. It is a business and a difficult business; Further restrictions causes further difficulties, Need fairness; He still has a handful of tenants that still owes $20,000 to $30,000 in rent; Evicting them will not get the money and it will be lost revenue; He is working with the tenants but these added burdens will be difficult; The costs will be passed on to the tenants, that is why it is called income property; Need to be able to put money back in to the properties.

He submitted information on arguments against increasing notice periods and imposing additional rent control measures for the record.

17. Not against small family owned properties; She is against big corporations; Not all tenants are bad.

18. Acting for the better of the community; Protect them from mass evictions; Be fair to mom and pop landlords and tenants.

19. Complained that Hawaiian Gardens was renovated 2 years ago and they are renovating again; Do what is good for the community Find a solution that helps the small landlords and the tenants; Opposed to large landlords.

20. Take away incentives of big corporations that they can evict everyone due to renovations; Why can’t they put the tenants up somewhere else?; Move tenants into vacant units during remodeling; Disincentive the large landlords; There is no right to housing in this country; A lawsuit is not good enough reason; Profits over people.

21. Hawaiian Gardens did everything they were supposed to do; if you stop them, they will sue City; The City would never go to a business and tell them what to charge or tell them that they have to give something for free; It is not the new owners’ fault; Moving the goal

post is not fair; Only a small percentage of the people rent from large owners; Most renters rent from small landlords; Why would you enact rules for a small percentage?; She owns 20 units.

22. Those that bought land and those that rent here, moved into the poorest city in the state; Comparing to IB is not right; Don’t compare IB to other cities that are wealth; We are at risk; We are the only city where 4 can break the bank of the city.

23. Work with each other; Need to have tenant protections; Find the greatest good for the people; Review laws

24. Increase housing for others; Renters only have to give 30-days’ notice to leave; There isn’t equality; In a boxing match.

25. The fight is with the corporation.

26. Believes there should be a difference between landlords with 5 properties and 20, a different standard should apply depending on number of units. She continued on stating that one landlord purchasing 100 units should be held to a different standard than a landlord with one or a few properties.

27. Spoke about the impacts evictions have on people. He submitted information on eviction assistance for the record.

P a g e | 1
January 15, 2025
ITEM TITLE: PRESENTATION AND FINANCIAL REPORT BY THE IMPERIAL BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE 2024 MILITARY APPRECIATION VETERANS DAY EVENT. (1040-10)
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:

Parks & Recreation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On November 6, 2024, the City Council approved a special event application for the 2024 Imperial Military Appreciation Veterans Day event that took place on November 11, 2024. As part of the special event terms and conditions, the event organizer is required to return to the City Council with a formal presentation and financial report following the event.

RECOMMENDATION:

The recommendation is that the City Council accepts and files the presentation and financial report from the event organizer and provides further direction to staff.

OPTIONS:
 Accept and file the report; or
 Request additional information and an additional report; or  Provide direction to the City Manager.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

On November 6, 2024, the City Council approved a special event application for the 2024 Imperial Military Appreciation Veterans Day event that took place on November 11, 2024. As part of the special event terms and conditions, the event organizer is required to return to the City Council with a formal presentation and financial report following the event. The presentation should include the number of attendees, benefit to the community, positive economic impact as a result of the event, beneficiary of funds, and overview of the event budget and outlook for future years.

The PowerPoint presentation of the event, which includes the financial report, is attached.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The applicant requested fee waivers for eligible fees per the Special Event Fee Waiver and Sponsorship Policy. The City Council approved waving the event fees for the event on November 6, 2024 in the amount of $1,919.00. The application fee, direct cost, and staff time are not eligible for a fee waiver or reduction per the Policy. The applicant has paid these fees in full.

P a g e | 2
ATTACHMENTS:

ATT 1 PowerPoint presentation with Financial Report

2024 MILITARY APPRECIATION DAY
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2024

PRESENTED BY THE IMPERIAL BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH:
• AMERICAN LEGION
• VFW
• FLEET RESERVE
• City Council Meeting
• January 15, 2025
• Item # 11.a
Attachment 1

INFORMATION
- NUMBER OF ATTENDEES:

APPROXIMATELY 250
- ESTIMATED RESIDENTS:

APPROXIMATELY 250
- BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY:

BROUGHT PEOPLE DOWN TO THE

BEACH TO ENJOY THE BUSINESSES

LOCATED ON SEACOAST

COST ASSOCIATED WITH Military Appreciation Day
MILITARY APPRECIATION DAY COST 2024

EVENT COST COMPANY
FENCING 0 DONATION FROM ALL AROUND FENCING
TABLES 0 DONATION FROM YE OLDE PLANK INN
CITY PERMIT 782 CITY PERMIT
SECURITY 255 SOLACE SECURITY
CITY PERMIT 193.7 ADDITIONAL FEE
LIQUOR LICENSE 75 ABC
INSURANCE 752 PURCHASED THOUGH THE CITY
BEER COST 0 DONATION FROM PLANK - AB - STONE
LABOR 0 VOLUNTEERS
SUPPLIES 0 DONATIONS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES
ICE 0 DONATIONS FROM PLANK - VFW
FOOD 0 DONATIONS FROM EL TAPATIO
FIRE INSPECTION 100 CITY
MUSIC 500 JEOFF GOFF BAND
$2,657.70
FUNDS
COWABUNGA 300
FRANK MARTIN 300
BEER SALES 800
1400
-2657.7
1400
-1257.7

QUESTIONS?
I’m here to answer any questions!

Thank you
Martin R. Mattes
Imperial Beach Chamber of Commerce
[email protected]
619-392-9811

P a g e | 1
January 15, 2025
ITEM TITLE: PRESENTATION AND FINANCIAL REPORT BY THE YE OLDE PLANK INN FOR THE 2024 WINTER COMES TO THE BEACH EVENT. (1040-10)
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:

Parks & Recreation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 2, 2024, the City Council approved a special event application for the 2024 Winter Comes to the Beach event hosted by the Ye Olde Plank Inn that took place on December 7, 2024.

As part of the special event terms and conditions, the event organizer is required to return to the City Council with a formal presentation and financial report following the event.

RECOMMENDATION:

The recommendation is that the City Council accepts and files the presentation and financial report from the event organizer and provides further direction to staff.

OPTIONS:
 Accept and file the report; or
 Request additional information and an additional report; or  Provide direction to the City Manager.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

On October 2, 2024, the City Council approved a special event application for the 2024 Winter Comes to the Beach event hosted by the Ye Olde Plank Inn that took place on December 7, 2024.

As part of the special event terms and conditions, the event organizer is required to return to the City Council with a formal presentation and financial report following the event. The presentation should include the number of attendees, benefit to the community, positive economic impact as a result of the event, beneficiary of funds, and overview of the event budget and outlook for future years. The PowerPoint presentation for the event, including the financial report, is attached.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This event required special event fees including staff fees for staff to be onsite for inspections, during event setup, and before the event began. City staff would also be required, and fees charged to event applicant for the setup and strike of street closure for the event. The fees are paid directly by the event producer prior to the event and a special event permit being issued. Any related cost including staff cost not billed before the event are invoiced after the event as a “cost

P a g e | 2
recovery” based on actual additional staff time occurred during the event. The applicant has paid these fees in full.

ATTACHMENTS:

ATT1 PowerPoint presentation with Financial Report

WINTER COMES TO
THE BEACH 2024
City Council Meeting
January 15, 2025
Item # 11.b
ATTACHMENT 1

INFORMATION
- Attendance: 734
- Estimated Local Attendance: 500
- Benefits to the Community:
- Brought 700 plus people to the beach
- Local businesses saw a significant uptick in
business that day (Per conversations)
- Normal Day Revenue for the Plank 24, Inc on a
Saturday is $8000 a day, brought in $13350 that
day. After added expenses, made a profit of
$2407.44 which we gave to Plank Employees
for Christmas Bonus
- Positive reviews and minimum complaints.
- Event ended up at 6:00 PM, everything was
cleaned up by 7:00 PM.
- IBAC assisted and made the event fun!

COST OF PLANK SUMMER KICK-OFF

PARTY/CHANGING OF THE GUARD
WINTER COMES TO THE BEACH 2024

EVENT COST COMPANY PAID
FENCING 900 ALL AROUND FENCE PAID
PORTA POTTY 282.56 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL PAID
TABLES 650 LARA RENTALS PAID
CITY PERMIT 2183 CITY PERMIT PAID
SECURITY 800 CITY WIDE SECURITY PAID
LIQUOR LICENSE 75 ABC PAID
ALCOHOL COST 2185 CREST/AB/SOUTHERN/RNDC PAID
LABOR COST 1680 PAID OUT OF PAYROLL PAID
SUPPLIES 750 HAD SOME FROM LAST PARTY PAID
MUSIC 800 IMPERIAL BEACH MUSIC COLLECTIVE PAID
INSURANCE 464 PAID TO THE CITY PAID
FIRE INSPECTION 173 PAID TO THE CITY
$10,942.56
13350 TOTAL FROM THE DAY SALES
-10942.56COST OF GOODS

QUESTIONS?
I’m here to answer any questions!

Thank you
Martin R. Mattes
PLANK 24, INC
Dba YE OLDE PLANK INN
[email protected]
619-392-9811