1 HOUSING
PROTECTIONS
UPDATE
Rules Committee
Housing Services Division/Community Development Department October 23, 2024
2 How Did We Get Here?
• February 2023: City Council included housing protections under Housing/Homeless Priority • July 2023: City Council requested assessing housing protections not currently in SL (stricter rent control, just cause & tenant anti-harassment, plus rent registry), existing housing protection programs & cost impacts to the City; directed to Rules Committee • Fall 2023: wide outreach to landlords, renters, & mobile home park owners and renters • November 2023: Rules Committee requested staff present on more comprehensive & current rental housing and eviction data
• April 24, 2024: Rules Committee requested further information on rent registries • October 23, 2024: Today, staff will:
o present rent registry data
o recommend preparing Rent Registry Program for future Rules Committee consideration 3 Presentation Overview
• Background
oTimeline
oExisting State/City Housing Protections
• Rent Registry Data/Findings
• Proposition 33 & Impacts on Housing Protections
• Recommendations
4 Background:
Timeline
Timeline – Housing Protections
February
City Council
Planning
Session
(Set Hsg
Protections
as Priority)
May
City Council:
Housing and
Homelessness
Priority Work
Plan
July
City Council
Housing
Protections
Overview/
Work Plan
October –
November
Community
Meetings,
Listening
Sessions,
Focus
Groups
November
Rules
Committee
Meeting
December
– April
Data
Collection
and
Analysis
April
Rules
Committee
Meeting
June –
October
Data
Collection
and Analysis
2023 2024
October
Rules
Committee
Meeting
6 Background:
Existing State/City
Housing Protections
Limitations on Rent Increases
(e.g., Rent Control)
Limitations on Evictions
(e.g., Just Cause) Rent Registry Anti-Harassment
Baseline
State
Protections
• AB 1482 caps allowable rent
increase in a 12-month period: 5% +
CPI* (10% max.). Sunsets Jan 1, 2030
• Exemptions: housing built in last
15 years, owner occupied
duplexes, single-family homes, deedrestricted affordable housing • Costa Hawkins - State law took effect
in 1995:
1) Limits cities’ ability to regulate
rents on new housing built after 1995
2) Removed regulatory barriers for
new rental housing construction
3) Exempts single family rentals,
condos, and townhomes; and
4) Prohibits vacancy control
• AB 1482 & SB 567 (Homeless Prevention Act of
2023) establishes just cause eviction
requirement if all tenants have occupied unit
for at least 1 year, or at least one tenant
has occupied for 2 years. Sunsets on Jan 1, 2030
• Landlord must have “at-fault” just cause or “nofault” just cause to evict or not renew lease. If “no-fault” just cause, landlord must pay onemonth’s rent as compensation. At-fault evictions involve conduct by the tenant (e.g. unpaid rent,
violating material lease term,
unpermitted sublease, etc.). No-fault evictions
do not involve conduct by the tenant (e.g. owner
move-in, removal of unit from rental market,
etc.)
• Exemptions: Housing built in last 15 years, ADUs,
Owner occupied duplexes, single family homes &
residential real property separate from another
dwelling unit & not owned by a corporation, real
estate trust or LLC; and deedrestricted affordable housing • N/A
• CA fair housing laws prohibit
discrimination or
harassment based on
protected characteristics and
require reasonable
accommodations and
modifications for persons
with disabilities. A housing
provider may not retaliate
against someone who
exercised their rights under
fair housing laws
• Civil Code Section 1940.5
prohibits threatening and
harassing conduct that
interferes with quiet
enjoyment of unit
• Civil Code Section 1942.5
prohibits retaliation for
landlord exercising rights
Current State Protections
8 Existing City Housing Protection Programs
• Tenant/Landlord Counseling & Tenant Legal Assistance
• Fair Housing Services
• Tenant Relocation Ordinance
• Inclusionary Zoning/Housing Ordinance
• Rent Review Board
• Mobile Home Parks
• Mobile Home Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance
• Mobile Home Park Overlay Zoning
9 Rent Registry
Data/Findings
10 Existing City Rent Registry
• City adopted Mobile Home Space Stabilization Ordinance in 2019 o Required mobile home parks submit annual rent roll data o Functions as a basic rent registry for the 9 mobile home parks • All mobile home parks must submit annual rent roll data including:
o Owner/renter
o Address
o Is unit registered as mobile home or RV with State?
o Exemption reasons
o Special circumstance household (elderly, persons with disabilities) o Move in date
o Current space rent lease effective & expiration dates o Annual space rent amount since 2018 & percent change
o Date of last rent increase
o Cost of additional charges (electric, water, trash, sewer, etc.) o Info on temporary increase of rent, or from capital replacement/improvement info (if applicable)
• Staff contracted with Baker Tilly Consulting in Summer 2024 • Selected peer Bay Area jurisdictions:
• Alameda
• Emeryville*
• Hayward*
• Union City*
• Mountain View+
• Developed a peer questionnaire for peer cities including staffing, costs • Conducted individual interviews with peers
• Provided assessments of rent registries (costs, staffing, content, pros/cons,etc) *Do not have a fully developed rent registries.
+Mountain View is not located in Alameda
County but is considered a peer for the
purposes of this engagement.
Baker Tilly Peer Research Scope
Sources:
1 2020 Decennial Census.
2 United States Census Bureau.
3 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 4 United States Census Bureau. Note: This is the owner-occupied housing unit rate from 2018-2022.
Jurisdiction Population1 Population per Square
Mile (2020) 2
Median Household
Income3
Owner-Occupied
Housing Unit Rate4
Alameda 78,280 7,491.6 $129,917 48.3%
Emeryville 12,905 10,137.5 $114,345 30.2%
Hayward 162,954 3,556.5 $105,371 56.5%
Mountain View 82,376 6.888.8 $174,156 39.6%
San Leandro 91,008 6,830.9 $97,141 57.9%
Union City 70,143 3,656.5 $138,013 66.0%
Peer cities were selected based on proximity to San Leandro and incorporated characteristics such as population, household income, and nature of the rental market. All peer cities are within Alameda County except for the City of Mountain View.
Population, Density, and Other Characteristics
1 Includes only those units built before February 1995
*estimates vary by source; city staff is still assessing • In 2021, Alameda adopted an annual rent program fee.
This rent program fee is currently approx. $161/ fully
regulated unit.
• This fee covers more than just operation of the rent
registry, such as administration of relocation payments, providing tenancy protections and other provisions.
Single family and condo rentals must register and are
subject to tenancy protection and relocation provisions only.
• Since the rent registry function is just one cost
component, Baker Tilly estimated costs would likely be
$100/unit or less to administer the rent registry
component in Alameda.
Jurisdiction Total Rental Units Total Rental Units Subject to Rent Control1
Alameda 15,519 12,437
Emeryville 877 719
Hayward 24,000 11,500
Mountain View 20,118 12,155
San Leandro 15,929* 8,548
Union City 6,940 6,123
Comparative Rental Housing Stock
14 Jurisdiction Rent Registry Information Collected**
Rent Registry Platform
Annual Cost (includes
operations/maintenance)
Alameda • Assessor Parcel Number (APN) and primary site address
• Date purchased
• Year built
• Number of rental units
• Owner name, mailing address, phone, and email
• Property manager name, mailing address, phone,
and email
• Owner type
• Unit address and number
• Number of bedrooms
• Start date of tenancy
• Occupant type
• Rent charged on effective date of rent control
• Current rent
• Date of last rent increase
• Last rent increase amount and percentage
increase
• Housing services included with rent
• Tenant name(s)
3Di
Costs paid to vendor for
FY 2023-24:
• $30,000 annual
subscription fee
• $12,000 for updates,
requested new features,
etc.
Mountain View 3Di
Annual platform cost
unavailable
Cost to purchase the 3Di
approx. $75K based on
Hayward comparison
Rent Registry Comparisons
Note: Staffing and budgetary costs dedicated to rent registry were difficult to compare because cities like Alameda & Mountain View did not break out by function/program. Therefore, staffing and administration costs were excluded in this analysis. **Largely the same information collection between both cities. 15 Platform Client Jurisdiction(s) Services, Fees, and Other Information 3Di
• Located in Alameda, Oakland
• Operates in many Northern
California cities/jurisdictions
• Subscription cost based on number of rental units rather than number of licenses needed for staff; includes additional system development fees • Estimated to cost $75,000 upfront for Hayward to purchase the platform Tolemi
• Operates throughout the country,
primarily in the Northeast (it
appears)
• Located in Boston,
Massachusetts
• Appears to be able to identify rental properties based on linkages with existing City/County systems (though unclear if rent-controlled properties will have to be manually identified)
• Appears to have more of a focus on inspection and code compliance of properties Salesforce
• San Jose (reportedly) • It was reported by Hayward that San Jose built their platform in-house and have one FTE managing the rent registry full-time, and another FTE who helps manage the rent registry as part of their duties
Citizenserve
• Operates primarily in the Midwest
and South (it appears); unclear if
they have any clients located in
California
• Subscription cost based on number of user licenses (five minimum), and comes with unlimited support and training as part of the subscription • Estimated $13,500 subscription cost and an additional $7,500 for setup and training; 1 each additional year will cost $13,500
HdL Companies
• Operates in California
(headquartered in Brea) and
throughout the country
• HdL seems to offer management of the rent registry as a service • They also offer other rent stabilization services
Rent Registry Platform Options
Some platforms charge based on user licenses, while others charge based on number of rental units. Ongoing costs can be significant.
Rent Registry Pros and Cons
• Pros
o Establishes rental housing trend data (rent increase, changes in tenancy/displacement) & better policy decisions
o Monitoring/enforcement of existing City housing protections (tenant relocation) o Tracks data for strategic planning/housing goals & reporting (Housing Element) o Data accessibility & transparency
• Cons
o Annual costs to landlords and/or renters (typically split 50 / 50) o Ongoing platform costs may be expensive
o Impacts on City budget & existing staff capacity
o Takes time to register all regulated units
o Possible market impacts relating to local government regulation 17 Proposition 33 & Impacts
on Housing Protections
18 Proposition 33 (November 5th State Ballot Measure)
• If approved by voters, Proposition 33 will have significance for cities/counties because:
o Repeal Costa Hawkins Act of 1995, which:
Limits cities’ ability to regulate rents on new housing built after 1995 Exempts single family rentals, condos, and townhomes
Prohibits vacancy control
o Expand local government ability to enact rent control on a broader range of residential properties (single family homes, condos, post-1995 new rental housing) o Allow cities/counties to retain some or all Costa Hawkins restrictions o Changes scope of tenant rent protections in many cities/counties 19 Recommendations
20 Staff Recommends
• Staff recommends preparing a proposed Rent Registry Program for Rules Committee because it:
o Begins regular collection of private rental housing data o Provides data for future housing protections policy discussions o Advances a key housing protections policy
21 For more information
sanleandro.org/SLhousingprotections
[email protected]
(510) 577-6006