HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Public Comments_emailsWarning:
External
Email
From:rdodge288@verizon.net
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:oppose Item 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:56:27 PM
oppose Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance.
some of the many reasons against this Ordinance are :
The ordinance as drafted creates a divide between housing
providers and their residents and will close important lines of
communication.
- Additional harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies
could force owners out of business and will deter investment in rental
properties.
- Costly relocation payments will discourage rental property upgrades.
R Bailey rental property owner
California Apartment Association
3349 Michelson Dr, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92612
January 19, 2022
Chair Anna Cabral
Housing Advisory Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Item 5.1 – Concerns Regarding the Lack of Practical Compliance with Proposed Chula Vista
Tenant Protection Ordinance
Dear Chair Cabral and Members of the Housing Advisory Commission:
The California Apartment Association (CAA) has significant concerns regarding the proposed
Tenant Protection Ordinance. CAA is the nation’s largest statewide trade group representing
owners, investors, developers, managers, and suppliers of rental housing. Our membership is diverse
representing individual "mom-and-pop" owners of rental housing to the largest apartment operators
throughout San Diego County and California. Our membership provides over 70,000 rental homes
across San Diego County.
Chula Vista’s Tenant Protection Ordinance would (1) inhibit any substantial investment that
improves the quality of life for tenants and updates the City’s aging stock and (2) penalize innocent
activities often part of normal property management operations with excessive criminal and civil
penalties. Adoption of the ordinance would discourage ownership, development, and maintenance of
rental housing, putting renters and quality housing at-risk in the long-term.
As you may know, the State of California has been heralded for having the “strongest tenant
protections in the nation” through the adoption of AB 1482 (Chiu) in 2019. This legislation
established a statewide, consistent standard to protect renters from excessive rent increases and
arbitrary evictions. Establishing new laws and policies will only create inconsistencies for landlords
and tenants across the state. CAA has had constructive discussions with City staff on methods to
enhance a landlord and tenant’s understanding of their rights and responsibilities.
The City has an opportunity to educate tenants about the abundance of existing laws and better
define the problems being addressed with these policies before moving forward with any new laws.
CAA has several concerns and recommendations with the proposed ordinance that are highlighted
below:
2
1. Clarify Define Permissible Activities Under Substantial Remodel
Oversight on Abatement for Hazardous Waste
The Ordinance permits a limited set of circumstances where an Owner can request a tenant to vacate
a rental unit. Under “Definitions” X.XX.30(I), permissible activities are only limited to (1)
substantial renovation of a major system tied to government permit or (2) substantial renovation of a
major system tied to hazardous waste. The current definition is problematic because an Owner may
need a tenant to vacate to abate hazardous materials without conducting a major system upgrade
(e.g., remediating smoke damage following a fire that didn’t cause structural damage). Moreover,
this issue is exacerbated if smoke damaged additional units at no-fault of the Owner. This issue
appears to be an oversight and does not align with state law (AB 1482). CAA recommends the
addition of permissible activities where an owner may request a tenant vacate the premise for
abatement of hazardous waste not tied to a major system upgrade or repair.
Arbitrary Financial Threshold for a Substantial Remodel
The City defines a substantial remodel as improvements that cost at least 75% of the cost of newly
constructed residential properties of the same number of units and type of construction. This
requirement is arbitrary. An owner would not have access to data of developers such as their pro-
forma, financials, or bill of materials. Additionally, nearly every type of business is seeking to contain
inflated construction costs that have grown significantly over the past several years. The Ordinance
penalizes an owner for implementing the same quality of service or similar materials at a lower price.
CAA recommends the removal of this condition because other conditions require a governmental
permit for major system improvement.
2. Model State Law’s Bad Faith Clause to Chula Vista Anti-Harassment Preamble
CAA recommends the addition of a bad faith clause that models state law on anti-harassment
restraining orders, Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.6. The bad faith clause is a necessary
guardrail to deter frivolous lawsuits against property owners who are engaged in legitimate business
activities. The addition would read:
No Owner shall, with respect to property used as a Residential Rental Property under any
rental agreement or other Tenancy or tenancy at will, however created, do any of the
following provided the conduct serves no legitimate purpose, would cause a reasonable
person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and does actually cause substantial emotional
distress to the tenant…
Adding this clause will align the proposed ordinance with state anti-harassment law and create a level
of consistency between state and local laws; providing clarity to landlords, tenants, and the courts.
3. Establish Objective Criteria for Harassment, Eliminate Subjective Provisions, and/or
Eliminate Broad Scope
Legitimate Reasons for Unavailability of Housing Services
Sections X.XX.80(A)(1) and X.XX.80(A)(2) punishes an Owner with local criminal and civil
penalties for any failure to provide housing services. The provision is overly punitive because it does
not take into account many instances where housing services may be temporarily unavailable.
3
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many apartments closed amenities and common areas to
comply with public health orders (e.g. temporary closure of gyms and pools). Other circumstances
include repaving of parking facilities, water shut-off to conduct pipe repair, or a laundry room may
have its hours limited due to vandalism. If Sections X.XX.080(A)(1) and X.XX.080(A)(2) cannot be
removed or clarified, CAA’s strongly recommends for the elimination of these subjective provisions.
The alternative is to include the inclusion of a “bad faith” clause to show that an act had malicious
intent.
Criminal and Civil Penalties for Misunderstanding
Sections X.XX.080(A)(5) and X.XX.080(A)(7) because a violation is solely contingent on the recipient
feeling offended, which is subjective. The Ordinance does not consider an owner or their agents’ intent
or state of mind. It would be an unnecessary use of either public and private resources to pursue
litigation against an Owner or their agent for a miscommunication or misunderstanding. CAA
recommends the removal of these provisions or model state law on anti-harassment. Left unchecked,
the ordinance’s expansion of harassment can have a chilling effect on existing positive, professional,
and courteous communication with tenants because owners will be extra careful not to invite litigation.
4. Private Right of Action Will Incentivize a Cottage Industry of Frivolous Lawsuits
State and federal law provides damages to aggrieved victims of harassment. Moreover, criminal
consequences are a significant deterrent for anyone engaged in harassing behavior. Under the
proposed ordinance, an Owner may be subject to multiple trials—once by the city and once by the
person who alleges harassment. An Owner may be found innocent in a criminal case brought by the
City, but financially penalized under a civil case filed by a tenant under a lower standard of review or
with different arguments. And, in some cases, private right of action may also invite parties who are
not involved in the dispute to sue at their own will.
If left unaddressed, this loophole will invite lawsuits and feed a cottage industry of litigious attorneys
to sue without limits. As a consequence of poor rental housing policy decisions, small mom-and-pop
owners will few choices to continue operating. The sale to a new owner more capable of sustaining
litigation or redeveloping the property into market-rate for-sale housing may not be in the best
interest of the City, tenant, and owner.
CAA recommends more thoughtful guardrails on the penalties and there needs to be allowances for
the City to enforce and a detailed procedure for issuing warnings and citations for those instances
where it can be proven the Owner acted in bad faith.
City Lacks Justification and Data for the Ordinance
CAA encourages the City to fully investigate and validate its findings with context before adopting
citywide policy that could hinder community reinvestment and accelerate a departure of rental
housing. The City will find there are agencies responsible for enforcing these measures, the data that
has been presented has not been validated, and that city public records do not substantiate a need for
a local ordinance.
4
As reported in the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, “CSA San Diego County received $300,000
Fair Housing Initiatives grant from HUD to carry out investigations and other enforcement
activities to prevent or eliminate discriminatory housing practices” (page AE-2). The City of Chula
Vista provides an additional $60,000 in annual funding to CSA San Diego County. While CSA San
Diego has reported an average of 264 cases annually over the past three years, the City’s Housing
Element highlights that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found only 29
harassment cases specific to Chula Vista in a five-year period (2014-2019). To put into context,
harassment allegations in Chula Vista amount to less than a fraction of one-percent of its 82,000
households.
Clearly, there is not an epidemic of fair housing issues and appropriate enforcement mechanisms are
available. CSA San Diego has funding for investigations, works directly with the City of Chula Vista,
and works directly with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Like all San
Diego residents, CSA San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista can also refer harassment cases
to the San Diego County District Attorney.
CAA will continue to work with staff to identify opportunities to enhance tenant education and
provide additional feedback on the proposed ordinance. CAA opposes the ordinance as it is written
today and strongly encourages you to vote NO.
Respectfully,
Victor Cao
Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs
5675 Ruffin Road, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92123
T: 858.278.8070
F: 858.278.8071 www.socalrha.org
•
o
o
▪
▪
▪
▪
5675 Ruffin Road, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92123
T: 858.278.8070
F: 858.278.8071 www.socalrha.org
▪
•
o
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
o
5675 Ruffin Road, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92123
T: 858.278.8070
F: 858.278.8071 www.socalrha.org
Lucinda Lilley, CPM®, CAPS®, GRI® Alan Pentico, CAE
2021 President Executive Director
Warning:
External
Email
From:Ashley Anderson
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Agenda Item 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 5:14:29 PM
Good evening members of the Housing Advisory Commission,
Thank you for taking comments on agenda item 5.1. Please strongly oppose this ordinance for
the following reasons.
- The creation of the ordinance has been rushed and will require housing providers to
learn a whole new set of complicated rules within 30 days.
- The ordinance as drafted creates a divide between housing providers and their
residents and will close important lines of communication.
- Additional harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies could force
owners out of business and will deter investment in rental properties.
- Costly relocation payments will discourage rental property upgrades.
Thank you for considering the long and short impact this proposal will have on both
tenants and housing providers.
Sincerely,
Ashley Anderson, REALTOR®
DRE# 02004732
Coldwell Banker West
Warning:
External
Email
From:Marc Ausman
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Vote NO on Item 5.1, Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 2:34:18 PM
Hello,
I own an apartment building in San Diego and am writing to express opposition to the
proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance on your plate tonight.
As you know CA already has more than enough tenant protections in place and we don't need
to add to them. This is one more item that will deter investment in San Diego and further limit
supply, thereby driving rents higher. Here are some more reasons why I am opposed to this:
- The creation of the ordinance has been rushed and will require people like me to learn a
whole new set of complicated rules within 30 days.
- The ordinance as drafted creates a divide between housing providers and their residents and
will close important lines of communication.
- Additional harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies could force owners out
of business and will deter investment in rental properties.
- Costly relocation payments will discourage rental property upgrades.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marc
Marc Ausman
marc@ausman.com
Warning:
External
Email
From:Brad Bickel
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:OPPOSE 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:23:45 PM
Hello!
I am emailing to express my request
as a Real Estate professional and city
of Chula Vista resident that you oppose 5.1, named the Tenants Protection Ordinance.
I do not believe it to be beneficial or
protective of anyone.
Thank you!
All Area Property Management
allarea88@gmail.com
From:Louise Branch
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Opposition to Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:18:56 PM
Warning: External Email
I am in opposition to Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance. This Ordinance goes far beyond protections in
state law.
Additional regulation, costly lawsuits and significant relocation costs will impact me personally and my rental
business.
Thank you in advance for hearing my concerns.
Sent from my iPad
Warning:
External
Email
From:Danyel Brooks – VOTED #1 PROPERTY MGMT CO. BY SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:[SPAM] Oppose the Tenant Protection Act
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:42:31 PM
This will only hurt residents and Mom & Pop landlords.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From:Daniel Browne
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Landlord rights e-comment on item 5.1 "Consideration of recommending adding a proposed tenant protection
ordinance to the Chula Vista Municipal Code"
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 7:46:27 AM
Warning: External Email
As a landlord, I strongly oppose this tenant protection ordinance. This will negatively impact landlords. We do not
need additional bureaucracy in this area.
Warning:
External
Email
From:Buck Buchanan
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Oppose Item 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 5:10:34 PM
Attachments:image002.png
Dear Housing Advisory Commission,
The last 2 years has been incredibly challenging and not profitable to operate rental
housing. I understand that there were many hardships for all, but rental housing providers received
the brunt of the regulations and the burden of financial obligations as well as navigation of an ever
changing system and education of our tenants, without the ability to collect rent. We are currently
still working with tenants and local municipal case workers to get financial assistance for back rent.
We still have multiple tenants who still owe $5,000 or more which landlords have been shouldering
for 2 years. Rental housing providers are still due back rent and are still navigating a host of
regulations.
I cannot name one other business where it was legal for a customer to not pay for goods and
services provided except housing. Rental housing providers have done a great job communicating
with tenants, providing payment plans, and helping tenants navigate a confusing system for financial
aid. It is not necessary to further penalize or criminalize a group that has been extraordinarily
burdened already.
My business has lost over $200,000 over the last two years which is revenue I use to pay employees.
I have 9 employees whose employment I take very seriously and would not want to jeopardize their
employment. These are people who also rent housing and would be impacted negatively by the
same regulations that you think should protect them. Additionally, If a property becomes un
profitable to a rental housing provider then it should be their right to remove it from the market as
allowed by the Ellis Act.
Tenants also currently have a number of ways to voice concerns of mistreatment some of which
include the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), Legal Aid, or any number of
attorney’s ready and willing to take a plaintiff’s case against a rental housing provider, pro-bono. I do
not see a reason for placing additional regulations or fines when a tenant already has these means
available to them, for free.
Here are some further points on why to OPPOSE ITEM 5.1.
- The creation of the ordinance has been rushed and will require housing providers to
learn a whole new set of complicated rules within 30 days.
- The ordinance as drafted creates a divide between housing providers and their
residents and will close important lines of communication.
From:Grybrrws
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Item 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:44:56 PM
Warning: External Email
I am writing to express my opposition to item 5.1 the tenant protection ordinance. I feel it would have a divisive
effect on our community of owners and residents. At a time when we need more affordable housing this will deter
investment. We have many and adequate protections in place for residents already. This item is deeply flawed,
divisive and unnecessary.
Thank you,
Gary Burrows.
Sent from my iPad
Warning:
External
Email
From:Candy
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Opposed
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 2:44:45 PM
It appears the city’s ecomments isn’t functioning or glitching. Please see that
my comment is seen by the commission. I am a mobile home park owner in Chula Vista and I am opposed to this proposal.
As a housing advisor to the city, this commission must understand that mobile home
tenancies are very different then apartment
tenancies. Mobilehome park residents own their home or coach and rent the lot that
the home sits on from a park owner.
Due to the unique rental relationship in mobilehome parks tenants have always
had just-cause protections found in the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL).
California’s mobilehomepark residents already have
and fund the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program (MRLPP) which
enforces the protections outlined in the MRL. The MRLPP requires property
owners, like myself, to cure an MRL violation and if it isn’t handled to the
satisfaction of the resident, they are referred to Legal Aid to take further action.
Not only are these robust protections already in place for
California’s mobilehome park residents, Chula Vista’smobilehome park residents
have additional local protections. The City of Chula Vista’s Mobilehome Rent
Review Commission provides additional protections on rent increases, park closure
with relocation requirements and capital improvements pass-thrus of our
properties.
We do not fit this ordinance and its intentions to govern issues surrounding
apartment tenancies. Please exempt MRL tenancies from this proposed ordinance.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Warning:
External
Email
From:Victor Cao
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Cc:Stacey Kurz; Mark Barnard
Subject:Item 5.1 CAA Letter on Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:28:09 PM
Attachments:2022-01-19 CAA Letter on Proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance.pdf
On behalf of the California Apartment Association, I am submitting the attached
comment letter for Item 5.1 Proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance.
Thank you,
--
Victor Cao ￭ Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs
California Apartment Association
vcao@caanet.org ￭ 949-474-1411
Questions about COVID-19: Visit our Resource PageCAA Services: Events and Education Insurance Tenant Screening
California Apartment Association
3349 Michelson Dr, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92612
January 19, 2022
Chair Anna Cabral
Housing Advisory Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Item 5.1 – Concerns Regarding the Lack of Practical Compliance with Proposed Chula Vista
Tenant Protection Ordinance
Dear Chair Cabral and Members of the Housing Advisory Commission:
The California Apartment Association (CAA) has significant concerns regarding the proposed
Tenant Protection Ordinance. CAA is the nation’s largest statewide trade group representing
owners, investors, developers, managers, and suppliers of rental housing. Our membership is diverse
representing individual "mom-and-pop" owners of rental housing to the largest apartment operators
throughout San Diego County and California. Our membership provides over 70,000 rental homes
across San Diego County.
Chula Vista’s Tenant Protection Ordinance would (1) inhibit any substantial investment that
improves the quality of life for tenants and updates the City’s aging stock and (2) penalize innocent
activities often part of normal property management operations with excessive criminal and civil
penalties. Adoption of the ordinance would discourage ownership, development, and maintenance of
rental housing, putting renters and quality housing at-risk in the long-term.
As you may know, the State of California has been heralded for having the “strongest tenant
protections in the nation” through the adoption of AB 1482 (Chiu) in 2019. This legislation
established a statewide, consistent standard to protect renters from excessive rent increases and
arbitrary evictions. Establishing new laws and policies will only create inconsistencies for landlords
and tenants across the state. CAA has had constructive discussions with City staff on methods to
enhance a landlord and tenant’s understanding of their rights and responsibilities.
The City has an opportunity to educate tenants about the abundance of existing laws and better
define the problems being addressed with these policies before moving forward with any new laws.
CAA has several concerns and recommendations with the proposed ordinance that are highlighted
below:
2
1. Clarify Define Permissible Activities Under Substantial Remodel
Oversight on Abatement for Hazardous Waste
The Ordinance permits a limited set of circumstances where an Owner can request a tenant to vacate
a rental unit. Under “Definitions” X.XX.30(I), permissible activities are only limited to (1)
substantial renovation of a major system tied to government permit or (2) substantial renovation of a
major system tied to hazardous waste. The current definition is problematic because an Owner may
need a tenant to vacate to abate hazardous materials without conducting a major system upgrade
(e.g., remediating smoke damage following a fire that didn’t cause structural damage). Moreover,
this issue is exacerbated if smoke damaged additional units at no-fault of the Owner. This issue
appears to be an oversight and does not align with state law (AB 1482). CAA recommends the
addition of permissible activities where an owner may request a tenant vacate the premise for
abatement of hazardous waste not tied to a major system upgrade or repair.
Arbitrary Financial Threshold for a Substantial Remodel
The City defines a substantial remodel as improvements that cost at least 75% of the cost of newly
constructed residential properties of the same number of units and type of construction. This
requirement is arbitrary. An owner would not have access to data of developers such as their pro-
forma, financials, or bill of materials. Additionally, nearly every type of business is seeking to contain
inflated construction costs that have grown significantly over the past several years. The Ordinance
penalizes an owner for implementing the same quality of service or similar materials at a lower price.
CAA recommends the removal of this condition because other conditions require a governmental
permit for major system improvement.
2. Model State Law’s Bad Faith Clause to Chula Vista Anti-Harassment Preamble
CAA recommends the addition of a bad faith clause that models state law on anti-harassment
restraining orders, Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.6. The bad faith clause is a necessary
guardrail to deter frivolous lawsuits against property owners who are engaged in legitimate business
activities. The addition would read:
No Owner shall, with respect to property used as a Residential Rental Property under any
rental agreement or other Tenancy or tenancy at will, however created, do any of the
following provided the conduct serves no legitimate purpose, would cause a reasonable
person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and does actually cause substantial emotional
distress to the tenant…
Adding this clause will align the proposed ordinance with state anti-harassment law and create a level
of consistency between state and local laws; providing clarity to landlords, tenants, and the courts.
3. Establish Objective Criteria for Harassment, Eliminate Subjective Provisions, and/or
Eliminate Broad Scope
Legitimate Reasons for Unavailability of Housing Services
Sections X.XX.80(A)(1) and X.XX.80(A)(2) punishes an Owner with local criminal and civil
penalties for any failure to provide housing services. The provision is overly punitive because it does
not take into account many instances where housing services may be temporarily unavailable.
3
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many apartments closed amenities and common areas to
comply with public health orders (e.g. temporary closure of gyms and pools). Other circumstances
include repaving of parking facilities, water shut-off to conduct pipe repair, or a laundry room may
have its hours limited due to vandalism. If Sections X.XX.080(A)(1) and X.XX.080(A)(2) cannot be
removed or clarified, CAA’s strongly recommends for the elimination of these subjective provisions.
The alternative is to include the inclusion of a “bad faith” clause to show that an act had malicious
intent.
Criminal and Civil Penalties for Misunderstanding
Sections X.XX.080(A)(5) and X.XX.080(A)(7) because a violation is solely contingent on the recipient
feeling offended, which is subjective. The Ordinance does not consider an owner or their agents’ intent
or state of mind. It would be an unnecessary use of either public and private resources to pursue
litigation against an Owner or their agent for a miscommunication or misunderstanding. CAA
recommends the removal of these provisions or model state law on anti-harassment. Left unchecked,
the ordinance’s expansion of harassment can have a chilling effect on existing positive, professional,
and courteous communication with tenants because owners will be extra careful not to invite litigation.
4. Private Right of Action Will Incentivize a Cottage Industry of Frivolous Lawsuits
State and federal law provides damages to aggrieved victims of harassment. Moreover, criminal
consequences are a significant deterrent for anyone engaged in harassing behavior. Under the
proposed ordinance, an Owner may be subject to multiple trials—once by the city and once by the
person who alleges harassment. An Owner may be found innocent in a criminal case brought by the
City, but financially penalized under a civil case filed by a tenant under a lower standard of review or
with different arguments. And, in some cases, private right of action may also invite parties who are
not involved in the dispute to sue at their own will.
If left unaddressed, this loophole will invite lawsuits and feed a cottage industry of litigious attorneys
to sue without limits. As a consequence of poor rental housing policy decisions, small mom-and-pop
owners will few choices to continue operating. The sale to a new owner more capable of sustaining
litigation or redeveloping the property into market-rate for-sale housing may not be in the best
interest of the City, tenant, and owner.
CAA recommends more thoughtful guardrails on the penalties and there needs to be allowances for
the City to enforce and a detailed procedure for issuing warnings and citations for those instances
where it can be proven the Owner acted in bad faith.
City Lacks Justification and Data for the Ordinance
CAA encourages the City to fully investigate and validate its findings with context before adopting
citywide policy that could hinder community reinvestment and accelerate a departure of rental
housing. The City will find there are agencies responsible for enforcing these measures, the data that
has been presented has not been validated, and that city public records do not substantiate a need for
a local ordinance.
4
As reported in the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, “CSA San Diego County received $300,000
Fair Housing Initiatives grant from HUD to carry out investigations and other enforcement
activities to prevent or eliminate discriminatory housing practices” (page AE-2). The City of Chula
Vista provides an additional $60,000 in annual funding to CSA San Diego County. While CSA San
Diego has reported an average of 264 cases annually over the past three years, the City’s Housing
Element highlights that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found only 29
harassment cases specific to Chula Vista in a five-year period (2014-2019). To put into context,
harassment allegations in Chula Vista amount to less than a fraction of one-percent of its 82,000
households.
Clearly, there is not an epidemic of fair housing issues and appropriate enforcement mechanisms are
available. CSA San Diego has funding for investigations, works directly with the City of Chula Vista,
and works directly with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Like all San
Diego residents, CSA San Diego County and the City of Chula Vista can also refer harassment cases
to the San Diego County District Attorney.
CAA will continue to work with staff to identify opportunities to enhance tenant education and
provide additional feedback on the proposed ordinance. CAA opposes the ordinance as it is written
today and strongly encourages you to vote NO.
Respectfully,
Victor Cao
Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs
Warning:
External
Email
From:Adrian Cedeno
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Oppose Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 2:06:36 PM
Hello,
This email is to inform you that I oppose item 5.1 otherwise known as Tenant Protection
Ordinance. I would like my representatives to vote against this item.
Best Regards,
Adrian
Warning:
External
Email
From:William Creagan
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Proposed Tenant Protection ordinance
Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:57:28 PM
Attachments:image001.png
I don’t own anything in Chula Vista right now but have in the past and have friends that
do now.
Please give long and hard consideration to what you are about to do.
If you are interested in pushing developers away who could add more housing stock to Chula Vista,
and or keeping Investors from trying to improve their buildings and the area they are in, then
passing this will definitely do that. If not you should allow the protections put in place by the State
and Federal authorities to take care of the Residents.
This is a long game and WE all need the developers and active investors to provide more housing, or
else our children won’t be able to afford to live here.
Good luck.
WILL CREAGAN
Broker | Principal | Managing Partner
CA BRE# 0949450
SOUTHWEST EQUITY PARTNERS
Brokerage | Property Management | Syndication
1012 2nd Street, Ste. 200, Encinitas CA 92024
cell 760.419.5300
willc@southwestep.com
Warning:
External
Email
From:Jeanie Davis
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:[SUSPECTED SPAM] 5.1 tenant protection ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:42:38 PM
I am an owner in a family business where we own 4 apartment complexes in
chula vista west of the 805 Freeway. We take pride in offering a clean, safe and
improved housing for all. We maintain our complexes with affordable rents for the residents.
The ordinance proposed has been rushed and will ask housing provided to comply with a
whole new set of guidelines and fuels within 30 days. Please consider us owners who are
providing this housing.
With the impact of AB 1482 that took effect and we have since had 2 years of COVID losses,
eviction moratoriums and laws. We understand that some landlords have abused the AB 1482
regulations. I am concerned that the new ordinance will affect the residents and landlords in
the city by unneeded rental increases and division between the tenants and the landlords.
We have invested in the older housing market and the ordinance will discourage investors into
this Chula Vista market. Further you push good landlords to deal with harassment laws,
criminal penalties, and private remedies which increase legal costs for all.
Please vote no 5.1 .
--
Jeanie Davis I Stonewall Properties Inc.
555 W. Country Club Lane, #C-323, Escondido, CA 92026
Tel. (858) 527-1555
email4stonewall@gmail.com
Warning:
External
Email
From:Melissa De Marco
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:oppose Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance.
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:11:42 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
As a rental housing provider in California, I am writing to respectfully request your
"NO" vote on AB 854.
AB 854, the “Stay in Business Forever Act,” would prohibit rental housing providers from using the
Ellis Act to terminate tenancies and exit the rental market until all owners of the property have held
their ownership interest for five-years or more.
The Ellis Act was passed in response to the California Supreme Court's decision in Nash vs. City of
Santa Monica that held that municipalities could not prevent housing providers from evicting their
tenants to "go out of business." Californians should not need a law to go out business if facing
financial hardship. No one should be compelled to stay in a money-losing enterprise.
Many rental owners buy properties with the intent of eventually moving in elderly and disabled
family members. This law would make it almost impossible to quickly remove units from the market
in order to take care of loved ones.
There is simply no need to place further restrictions on the Ellis Act. Please vote NO on AB 854.
Melissa De Marco, PMM
Director of Operations & Marketing
FBS Property Management, AMO
Schedule a time to meet with me!
CA DRE # 01918746
Ready to hire a professional management team?
Warning:
External
Email
From:Melissa Dougherty
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Special Meeting of the Housing Advisory Commissions
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 11:38:58 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Regarding the meeting being held: Wednesday, January 19th, 2022 at 6:00PM
Comment on:
Action Item 5, specifically, 5.1: CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDING ADDING A PROPOSED TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE:
I am a mobile home park owner in Chula Vista and I am opposed to this proposal.
As a housing advisor to the city, this commission must understand that mobile home tenancies are very different then apartment tenancies.
Mobilehome park residents own their home or coach and rent the lot that the home sits on from a park owner.
Due to the unique rental relationship in mobilehome parks tenants have always had just-cause protections found in the Mobilehome Residency Law
(MRL). California’s mobilehome park residents already have and fund the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program (MRLPP) which enforces
the protections outlined in the MRL. The MRLPP requires property owners, like myself, to cure an MRL violation and if it isn’t handled to the
satisfaction of the resident, they are referred to Legal Aid to take further action.
Not only are these robust protections already in place for California’s mobilehome park residents, Chula Vista’s mobilehome park residents have
additional local protections. The City of Chula Vista’s Mobilehome Rent Review Commission provides additional protections on rent increases, park
closure with relocation requirements and capital improvements pass-thrus of our properties.
We do not fit this ordinance and its intentions to govern issues surrounding apartment tenancies. Please exempt MRL tenancies from this proposed
ordinance.
Thank you.
Melissa DoughertyRegional Vice President, Southwestern Regional Office6130 Camino Real, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509P: 951.257.0765 | F: 312.205.0768 | W: www.HometownAmerica.com
Warning:
External
Email
From:Don Eklund
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Oppose Item 5.1 on 1/19 Agenda - Consideration of recommending adding a proposed Tenant Ordinance to CV
Municipal Code
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 9:38:02 AM
Please accept the following as a comment to the above referenced agenda item, I
could not access the online e-Comment:
I am the managing member of my family’s 5 apartment complex and 4 homes in Chula Vista west of
the 805. Our properties are older, but we have always taken pride in offering our tenants a clean,
safe and well-maintained complexes with affordable rents for the hard-working citizens of Chula
Vista.
The creation of this ordinance has been rushed and will require housing providers to learn a whole
new set of complicated rules within 30 days. Please reconsider more discussion with the
stakeholders.
It was just over 2 years ago on 1/1/2020 that AB 1482 took effect and since then we had nearly 2
years of COVID losses, eviction moratoriums and new regulations. I understand that a few unethical
landlords may have taken advantage of AB 1482 regulations, but the new ordinance will affect every
tenant and landlord in the city by unnecessary rental increases and added friction to tenant-landlord
relationships.
I have reviewed the proposed Ordinance and offer the following comments.
1. The required additional noticing periods and increased relocation payments when removing a
property from the rental market, demolishing a building, or doing a substantial remodel adds
extra and unnecessary expenses that will passed on to all my tenants.
2. The Ordinance will discourage reinvestment into Chula Vista older housing stock.
3. The Ordinance redefines “Substantial Remodel” to 75% the cost of new construction and
construction time of more than 60 days. At these limits the older housing stock will never be
upgraded and tenants will be forced to live in substandard housing.
4. With AB 1482 “Substantial Remodel” regulations, I believe tenants would prefer only one
move instead of moving twice with the proposed Ordinance for “Substantial Remodel”, again
adding unnecessary expense for the residents of Chula Vista.
5. Additional harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies will increase legal cost
for all Owners, could force owners out of business and will deter investment in Chula Vista
rental properties.
Please vote no on the proposed Ordinance and encourage staff to have more discussion with the
stake holders.
Don Eklund
Eklund Properties, Inc
858-277-1232
eklunddon@gmail.com
Warning:
External
Email
From:Amy Epsten
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Comment for meeting- Re: City of Chula Vista Tenant Protection Act
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:46:56 PM
Importance:High
We are mobile home park owners in Chula Vista and we are opposed
to this proposal.
As a housing advisor to the city, this commission must understand that mobile
home tenancies are very different then apartment tenancies. Mobilehome park
residents own their home or coach and rent the lot that the home sits on from a
park owner.
Due to the unique rental relationship in mobilehome parks tenants have always
had just-cause protections found in the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL).
California’s mobilehome park residents already have and fund the Mobilehome
Residency Law Protection Program (MRLPP) which enforces the protections
outlined in the MRL. The MRLPP requires property owners, like ourselves, to
cure an MRL violation and if it isn’t handled to the satisfaction of the resident,
they are referred to Legal Aid to take further action.
Not only are these robust protections already in place for California’s
mobilehome park residents, Chula Vista’s mobilehome park residents have
additional local protections. The City of Chula Vista’s Mobilehome Rent
Review Commission provides additional protections on rent increases, park
closure with relocation requirements and capital improvements pass-thrus of
our properties. I happen to sit on the Rent Review Commission.
We do not fit this ordinance and its intentions to govern issues surrounding
apartment tenancies. Please exempt MRL tenancies from this proposed
ordinance.
Thank you.
Steve and Amy Epsten
Warning:
External
Email
From:Shaun Fagan
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:I OPPOSE! - THE TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:31:22 AM
I strongly oppose the Tenant Protection Ordinance to the Chula Vista Municipal Code!
Many of the people in this community including renters and landlords alike do not
believe this ordinance will improve the rental situation or homeless situation in the
community. This ordinance will put undue hardship on landlords and cause further problems for
renters. Additional harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies will force owners out
of business and will deter investment in rental properties causing a further limited inventory of
rental properties. Costly relocation payments will discourage landlords from rental property
upgrades.
Shaun Fagan
shaun.fagan2014@gmail.com
951-230-7709
Warning:
External
Email
From:Mark Feder
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDING ADDING A PROPOSED TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 8:42:31 AM
Attachments:image001.png
This ordinance is moving too quickly.
If the housing stock is fairly old and will require major rehab to maintain habitability
then additional complicated and expensive and confusing rules will make it more
difficult to justify the investment.
The cost to purchase rental units is quite high and then add to that a remodel and
now significant increases in relocation and legal expenses and the numbers start to
look daunting.
If the goal is to have the private market reinvest in upgrading units then I do not think
this approach will achieve that.
Please upload documents that contain sensitive information here
Mark Feder - Mortgage Advisor
Pacific Home Mortgage Funding, Inc.
4060 30th Street San Diego, CA 92104
Ph: 858-337-1520 Fax: 800-919-8840
Individual License BRE # 01210598 NMLS # 867081
Company License BRE # 01926221 NMLS # 1018245
Warning:
External
Email
From:Irina Fitzpatrick
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Please oppose item 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 2:48:22 PM
Dear council member
Please oppose item 5.1, it is just more regulations on landlords. It seems you are trying to give
renters more rights to the properties, than to the owners of the properties. It will lead to
discrimination against the landlords, making impossible to be a landlord, it's already very
difficult: very high cost of repairs, the tenants who don't want to pay rent, existing regulations
and etc, please OPPOSE 5.1!
Thank you, Irina Fitzpatrick
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy Tablet
Warning:
External
Email
From:Ward Fitzpatrick
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Cc:fitzpatrickmusic1@gmail.com
Subject:Please oppose item 5.1
Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 7:45:38 PM
Good day Chula Vista City Councilmember,
I am a small landlord in Chula Vista and have been struggling to keep up
maintenance and repairs on my buildings. My rents are low and this new regulation
will force me to delay maintenance and possibly sell. I have slowly done remodels to
bring my rents up to market rate. Please don't take away my last remaining way to do
so. I only can do 1 remodel in a year at most.
I URGE YOU PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS UNFAIR NEW REGULATION.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely
Ward Fitzpatrick owner
Glover and 4th Ave Apartments
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Warning:
External
Email
From:Momi Gonzales
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Oppose Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:47:54 PM
I am opposed to Tenant Protection Ordinance and ask that you oppose
this. The additional harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies could
force owners out of business and will deter investment in rental properties. Costly
relocation payments will discourage rental property upgrades. It is a rushed item
and there is not ample time to fully understand the ordinance in the time specified.
How will this truly benefit our community and its property owners or tenants?
Momi Gonzales
--
Momi Gonzales
Coldwell Banker West
DRE 01800826
619-922-6664
NEVER TRUST WIRING INSTRUCTIONS SENT VIA EMAIL. Cyber criminals are
hacking email accounts and sending emails with fake wiring instructions. These emails are
convincing and sophisticated. Always independently confirm wiring instructions in person or
via a telephone call to a trusted and verified phone number. Never wire money without
double-checking that the wiring instructions are correct.
NEVER OPEN ATTACHMENTS OR CLICK LINKS IN AN EMAIL unless you recognize
the sender, the sender's email address, and know the content is safe.
From: webmaster@chulavistaca.gov <webmaster@chulavistaca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:23 PM
To: Webmaster <Webmaster@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Feedback for City of Chula Vista
You have received this feedback from Dylan Graham < dylan@dylangrealty.com > for the
following page:
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/city-clerk/virtual-meetings
The Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors opposes the TPO. TPO, will create substandard living
conditions for tenants who rely on rental housing in Chula Vista and result in decaying neighborhoods
for everyone. Chula Vista has no data or research to support taking such an unwarranted action. The
vast majority of housing providers are responsible, fair and considerate. This sledgehammer approach to
regulation is an attack on private property rights and the dignity of tenants and their neighbors. The TPO
makes upgrading older and potentially unsafe and unsightly buildings cost-prohibitive and difficult, if not
nearly impossible. Chula Vista has old housing, improving property which needs regular and at times
expensive improvements. Adding these excessive burdens, will create disincentives to improve property
and our communities. This ordinance will force independent good owners who are unable to navigate
complex legal issues to sell to multinational corporations who can afford the attorney's, impersonal
administration and infrastructure needed for complex transactions. These multinational corporations
would be further restricted from selling to potential homeowners, limiting available purchase housing
stock for those who most need it. Chula Vista’s income and tax base is dependent on property tax
increases. By purposefully blocking an owner's incentives to improve their property or to sell to
homeowners the city will depress the tax income generated through growth and the transfer of
ownership of property. Please table this ordinance. California has some of the most tenant friendly laws
in the country. Chula Vista should first make every effort to support and ensure that state laws are
enforced and not try to create another regulation that will result in the further deterioration of a
community that is already falling apart in many areas that need city attention and care.
Warning:
External
Email
Warning:
External
Email
From:webmaster@chulavistaca.gov
To:Leilani Hines; Angelica Davis; Monica Rodriguez; Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:City of Chula Vista: Housing Advisory Commission - Contact Us
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 2:42:36 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Housing Advisory Commission - Contact Us
Date & Time:01/19/2022 2:42 PM
Response #:41
Submitter ID:102516
IP address:98.176.77.92
Time to complete:5 min. , 9 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions by filling out the form below.
First Name Bill
Last Name Hall
Email Address vivistar1@gmail.com
Comments
Good evening Glen and Members of the Housing Advisory Commission,
My name is Bill Hall and I have been investing in rental property in Chula Vista for over 40 years.
During that time, I have invested heavily in property upgrades and remodels in order to keep our properties
in good condition and provide a pleasant, safe, and comfortable environment for our tenants. A number of
our tenants have chosen to lease these properties for extended periods of time, over 8 years in some cases.
The risks and liabilities that were detailed in the proposed “Tenant Protection Ordinance” have encouraged
my family to reconsider additional investment in Chula Vista and, in some cases, to consider selling
properties that we already own.
I have spoken to a number of Chula Vista rental housing owners and I generally concur with individuals that
include Mr. Mitch Thompson. This is a complicated issue and each of us will need to run the numbers on
our properties to determine whether the provisions of the ordinance will force curtailing further
construction, acquisitions, conversions or remodels for the properties we own or eliminate investments
that we may have otherwise made in Chula Vista housing stock.
Today, California has some of the most comprehensive laws in the nation, serving as Tenant Protections. I
and my family members own and have owned property in other states. California already has more
restrictions, protections and costly regulations than any other state that we have encountered. The specific
“protection” provisions that Chula Vista staff and Council are considering are THE most draconian we have
seen thus far.
a. The potential for criminal charges and imprisonment for violations of a city ordinance is ill-conceived and
an enormous disincentive to any potential investor in Chula Vista rental housing stock.
b. The civil penalties detailed parallel the risks and circumstances that we now see for abortion providers in
Texas.
c. The obligations that are imposed for extensive remodels or structural upgrades are likely to make such
upgrades either impossible to execute or so costly that significant property improvements will not be
financially feasible.
I truly do not understand how such provisions will benefit Chula Vista tenants that would like to inhabit
well-maintained, updated residences with modern features, structural safety measures and energy
efficiencies, In talking to City staff members, the concept of this ordinance was driven, in large measure, by
two specific properties and property owners that have harassed their tenants and violated both the law and
spirit of current California laws and protective measures. Rather than place future investment in Chula Vista
rental housing stock at risk, I would suggest enforcement and targeted action against those that violate
current law, while the city encourages the hundreds of responsible landlords to continue to invest in Chula
Vista’s future.
I would like to thank City staff for taking the time to address the detailed provisions of the proposed
ordinance. Their input and comments were enlightening and very much appreciated.
I too, urge you to NOT recommend adoption of this unneeded ordinance.
Bill Hall
Thank you,
City of Chula Vista
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
Warning:
External
Email
From:Todd Henderson
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Oppose item 5.1 Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 5:28:51 PM
Please register my opposition to this hastily developed and
unnecessary ordinance.
Because of the actions of a few bad apple housing providers, the City is creating more red tape and
government busy work. Costly lawsuits by tenants alleging harassment will tie up resources and court cases.
Increased noticing periods and relocation payments create additional burdens and operational hurdles for
good intentioned housing providers.
The creation of this ordinance has been hurried and at the request of City Council hearing from a handful of
residents who do not represent the majority. Why create broad brushed government solutions to a problem
that at best, is affecting a handful of residents.
This ordinance would result in creating animosity and distrust among housing providers and residents.
Costly relocation payments will discourage rental property upgrades and future investment in rental housing
in Chula Vista.
Please take a pause to involve more stakeholders honestly and consider all sides of this issue.
Warning:
External
Email
From:gitana h
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Opposing Item 5.1, Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 2:37:38 PM
Dear City of Chula Vista Council members plus,
I am opposing Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance.
California and the City of Chula Vista do not need more regulation around tenant protection.
This will not solve anything. Breaking even on a rental is a challenge and new regulation will
only set me back. This is my only nest egg for retirement in the coming years and I don't have
the luxury of costly lawsuits. We already have fair and just regulations - please do not
complicate things more.
Carmen Herrera
[Do not publish email address]
Warning:
External
Email
From:Martine Hillier
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Oppose Item 5.1-The Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 6:00:01 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Good Evening,
As a local landlord and local Realtor, Please vote NO tonight on Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection
Ordinance.
This ordinance is unfair and one-sided. I don’t understand why our government officials are charging
developers, landlords and homeowners high fees and proposing this ordinance if we need
AFFORDABLE HOUSING? If developers, landlords and homeowners can’t pay those fees or
mortgages, there will not be any affordable housing built. The government needs to be fair to both
sides and think about the meaning of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO ALL.”
Thank you,
Martine A. Hillier
Trilingual and Licensed CA Realtor
Certified Independent Real Estate Transaction Coordinator
Realty Partners Services, Inc.
8030 La Mesa Blvd. #103
La Mesa, CA 91942
CA DRE License # 02139604
Email: MHillierTC@gmail.com
Cell: (619) 985-9014
Office : (619) 820-7202
Office Hours : 9am-5pm- Monday-Friday
Need an Agent or TC who speaks English, French and Spanish? Contact me.
Referrals are greatly appreciated.
Warning:
External
Email
From:Sean Hillier
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:PLEASE oppose Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 5:20:51 PM
Importance:High
As a local landlord and real estate brokerage owner, I’m urging you to vote NO
tonight on Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance.
This ordinance goes WAY beyond already-existing state protections for tenants. The
additional harassment laws & criminal penalties could force many landlords out of business.
And we already have an extreme shortage of affordable rental housing in the San Diego area.
If you discourage the creating of more rentals, how is that helping tenants find a place to live?
Many of us take pride in providing tenants with safe, attractive housing. If we’re forced to
provide costly relocation payments, we’ll have less money to upgrade our older properties.
PLEASE vote no. Thank you.
J. Sean Hillier
Broker-Owner, Realty Partners Services Inc.
San Diego’s investor property specialists
CA DRE broker lic 01872754, corporate broker lic 02122566
Phone and text: 619.820.7202
Elected to 2019-2020 board of directors, Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors
Named by my peers as 2015 PSAR East County Realtor of the Year
Chairman, San Diego Broker Independent Group.
Warning:
External
Email
From:Earl Jentz
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 2:02:35 PM
Dear Board,
I understand your concern for the welfare of some Chula Vista tenants, but I urge you to go
slow and consider the economic impacts and unintended consequences of these measures.
It took a while, but I now realize that changes don't occur in a vacuum. Sometimes changes
make things worse.
My personal opinion is that there are better options.
Talk to both sides.
Earl Jentz
Former Housing Advisory Board Member
619-316-2642
Warning:
External
Email
From:Molly Kirkland
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Cc:Stacey Kurz; Mark Barnard
Subject:SCRHA Letter: Item 5.1 Housing Advisory Commission Agenda, 1-19-2022
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 6:51:03 AM
Attachments:SCRHA Ltr - Chula Vista HAC - 1-19-22.pdf
Hello,
Please find attached a letter from the Southern California Rental Housing Association (SCRHA)
regarding item 5.1 on the agenda for January 19, 2022.
Don’t hesitate to contact me with questions.
Best regards,
Molly Kirkland, Director of Public Affairs
Southern California Rental Housing Association
5675 Ruffin Road, Suite 310 | San Diego, CA 92123
Office: 858.278.8070 | Direct: 858.751.2200
mkirkland@socalrha.org | www.socalrha.org
5675 Ruffin Road, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92123
T: 858.278.8070
F: 858.278.8071 www.socalrha.org
•
o
o
▪
▪
▪
▪
5675 Ruffin Road, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92123
T: 858.278.8070
F: 858.278.8071 www.socalrha.org
▪
•
o
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
o
5675 Ruffin Road, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92123
T: 858.278.8070
F: 858.278.8071 www.socalrha.org
Lucinda Lilley, CPM®, CAPS®, GRI® Alan Pentico, CAE
2021 President Executive Director
Warning:
External
Email
From:Chris Lewis
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Tenant Protection Ordinance.
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:58:06 PM
Please oppose this foolish attempt at more government control of our businesses.
Christopher H. Lewis
Sent from Mail for Windows
- Additional harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies could force
owners out of business and will deter investment in rental properties.
- Costly relocation payments will discourage rental property upgrades.
Please oppose item 5.1 on tonight’s agenda.
Sincerely,
Buck Buchanan, President
Buchanan Property Management, AMO®
CA DRE License: 01918015/01976045
3725 Talbot St., Suite D
San Diego, CA 92106
O: 619-269-0276
C: 619-990-7324
buck@buchananpm.com
www.buchananpm.com
Warning:
External
Email
From:Lucinda Lilley
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Tenant protection Ordinance - item 5.1 on your agenda 1/19/22 - OPPOSE
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:40:56 PM
Attachments:image002.png
First, I have been attempting to make comment online for a bit…..at first the “leave
comment” button had disappeared. It then reappeared and the system would not
recognize my email address as valid. I inserted my personal email address and it did not recognize
that either. Wondering if you are really wanting comment on this? Can’t help but feel a little left
out as a housing provider.
As a rental housing provider representing a number property owners in Chula Vista, I must oppose
the TPO. The State of California has sufficient protections in place for our renters. Our rental
housing providers have had to navigate change after change of legislation already - the penalties for
possibly having a conversation with a resident are outrageous, and I cannot imagine how you will
have the staff to enforce what you are proposing. I do support mediation in attempting to resolve
issues I do support residents and housing providers working together to resolve issues. And as the
President of the Southern California Rental Housing Association, I pledge that we will provide
support in Education and Collaboration. Please do not pass this measure.
Lucinda A. Lilley, CPM®, CAPS®, GRI®
Vice President, FBS Property Management, AMO®
Executive CPM®
CA DRE #01018761
619-286-7600
www.fbs-pm.com
Schedule a time with me
“Do the right thing….and then one more”
Warning:
External
Email
From:larry marinello
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:[SUSPECTED SPAM] 5.1 Tenant
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 1:14:31 PM
Please oppose Item 5.1 Tenant Protection ordinance. It will lower the value of
real estate property in Chula Vista
Larry Marinello
Warning:
External
Email
From:Myssie McCann
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Item 5.1 on agenda
Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 5:28:40 PM
I was unable to submit my opposition to this ordinance due to the city's site not
recognizing any of my several email addresses as valid.
My name is Myssie McCann. As a property owner and a lifelong Chula Vista resident, I find
this ordinance unacceptable. This ordinance unfairly hurts tenants and violates my rights as a
properry owner. We provide our community with quality housing options that are well
maintained and are great places to live. Many of our former tenants return to lease from us
because we take such great care of them and the properties we own. Currently there is a
housing shortage, and an ordinance like this, that threatens fines and possible criminal charges
against landlords, will cause future landlords to reconsider this industry and force current
landlords to remove their rental properties from the market. This will not only injure tenants
by decreasing supply, but will also cause the remaining supply to go up in cost. Current laws
already address these issues. Chula Vista's implementation of this ordinance is a far over-reach
of its authority and not only further injures the tenants they claim to be protecting, but also
tramples on our rights as property owners. It is unnecessary and a waste of City resources.
I strongly object to this ordinance.
Myssie McCann
Warning:
External
Email
From:John
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Item 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:57:25 PM
I am writing to express my opposition to item 5.1 the tenant protection ordinance. I feel it
would have a divisive effect on our community of owners and residents. At a time when we
need more affordable housing this will deter investment. We have many and adequate
protections in place for residents already. This item is deeply flawed, divisive and
unnecessary.
Thank you,
John T McCartney
Warning:
External
Email
From:mmiles5050@aol.com
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:[SUSPECTED SPAM] Opposition to proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:42:22 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am a property manager of two single family homes in Chula Vista.
I strongly oppose the proposed Tenant Protection Ordinance.
This has been rushed and will require housing providers to learn a whole new set on complicated rules
within 30 days, during COVID.
This ordinance. as drafted, creates a divide between housing providers and their residents.
The proposed costly relocation payments will discourage rental owners.
The housing market needs your help, not more laws and fines.
Sincerely,
Marvin Miles
Warning:
External
Email
From:John Modlin
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Cc:Molly Kirkland
Subject:Comment Regarding Item 5.1 - Consideration of Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 6:24:51 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Good Morning,
As I seem to be having trouble submitting a comment the normal way, I am emailing my comments
here.
First of all, this ordinance does nothing but create more of a divide between our residents and the
property owners. The creation of this ordinance has been rushed, and without any necessary
emergency that this is going to fix. You must remember that property owners have rights also, and
this ordinance impedes on those rights. All this ordinance will do is increase the cost of housing,
because all of these “fees” such as relocation fees and penalties will now get factored into the rental
rate so it can be recovered. Just ask San Francisco and Los Angeles how that rent control/tenant
rights ordinances work for them? They have the highest rents in the country because they took the
free market out of the process. Don’t do that here. If you want to focus on high costs, go solve the
gas problem, or figure out why the cost for electricity is so high. Heck, even food costs are out of
control in Chula Vista. Go regulate all of that and then come back and discuss housing. Thank you
for your time in reading and listening to this comment.
John ModlinChief Operating Officer
Mobile: 619-387-5530 Email: John@ThePhoenixStaffing.com
www.ThePhoenixStaffing.com
NAA Lyceum Graduate 2012
SCRHA Past President - 2012
Warning:
External
Email
From:M P
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Your proposed legislation goes too far and will discourage investment in rental properties
Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:17:00 PM
To whom it may concern -
Housing providers are not all large companies and many have a tough time making a
profit as things are. Your proposed legislation addresses one side of the issue without
consideration to how it will impact those who work hard to provide housing.
Considering San Diego County could use more housing and not less, why would you
want to make it more costly and punitive for a landlord to do business in your city/ if
this passes, many will not invest in your city and they will go elsewhere.
Government officials should look at the issue at hand from both points of view and try
to help landlords to make it easier to provide units.
This legislation fails to do do that and will most likely cause more problems than it
fixes.
Points you should consider:
The creation of the ordinance has been rushed and will require housing providers to
learn a whole new set of complicated rules within 30 days.
- The ordinance as drafted creates a divide between housing providers and their
residents and will close important lines of communication.
- Additional harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies could force
owners out of business and will deter investment in rental properties.
- Costly relocation payments will discourage rental property upgrades.
The ordinance goes far beyond protections in state law. Here is some of what
the ordinance would do...
- Create new anti-harassment laws and allow for civil action and damages of $2,000-
5,000 per violation.
- Criminalize any violation of the ordinance and create fines in the thousands of
dollars.
- Require additional noticing periods and increased relocation payments when
removing a property from the rental market, demolishing a building, or doing a
substantial remodel.
I hope you can change course and start over with incentives to help landlords and
tenants have success and make it easier to provide steady housing that is needed.
Thank you - Mrs P
Warning:
External
Email
From:A M-Clark
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Cc:Steve C. Padilla; Mary Salas; Andrea Cardenas; Jill Galvez
Subject:RE: Action item 5.1 - Tenant Protection Ordinance.
Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 5:55:05 PM
First of all, I want to thank each of you for your high interest in serving our
community. It is not an easy job but it comes with good rewards also. Due
to this pandemic, I have been keeping to myself more than usual thanks to my health
issues.
But that is not why I am writing to each of you. I am very concerned about the
constant attacks on homeowners that dare to try to help others have a place to live.
At no point does any homeowner think that tenants will cause destruction, disregard
the rental agreement, or become aggressive (verbal or physical) once they have
moved in. But it happens more often than not.
Let me point out that tenants do NOT pay the mortgage for the owners. As many of
you might know, you don't walk into a bank they hand you the full asking price for the
purchase and there you have it you have a house the bank owns. We must work hard
to get the credit score, the 20% down payment(30% if it's for investment), and the
costs to prepare the house to place it on the market. Those investments are not
recuperated with a tenant's deposit or one, two, or ten years of rent. In other words,
for homeowners to place a house on the market they must invest heavily to drive the
payment down enough to make it affordable to tenants. What is being dismissed, is
that the homeowner that has to risk their good credit score, thousands of dollars, and
do repairs to allow a stranger to move into their house. Homeowners trust that the
tenants will not cause damages to the property that will decrease the home value, but
it doesn't work out that way. We are risking a lot to provide tenants a roof over their
heads in return we are facing a lot of gaslighting (Councilwoman Cardenas can
explain what that is) aggressive treatment and in many cases intimidation/bullying by
tenants and now by our beloved Chula Vista.
I want to share what I learned in over 10 years. I have welcomed those struggling to
qualify for the rentals. But, 80% of the time I have been forced to not renew the rental
agreement to prevent further destruction of the property. Why do I say forced?
Because if they ignore the three-day notices and become aggressive I have chosen
to let them finish their fixed rental agreement/lease, but it forces me to not offer a
renewal to protect my property. I do hand them a 60-day Notice that they won't be
offered a renewal, in many cases, they will ask if they may move out early because
they found a place without anyone calling me for references. I have found that most
will claim that the previous landlord was a tyrant, or their low credit score is of no fault
of theirs, and the most common one they claim to not have a rental history. Why no
rental history? Because they do not want the previous landlord to mention that they
have a restraining order due to aggressive behavior. In some cases, they left owing
over three months in rent plus damages. This last one was pre-pandemic and the
applicants were surprised to find out that it was on their credit report
I am not alone, many homeowners of 3 properties or less are doing the same effort to
help tenants. We also have found that those complaining the most have been the
ones that want it all for free and do not want to be held responsible for the damages
that they caused. A new problem is smoking inside the house despite California's
mandate against smoking indoors and addendums signed. The cost of smoke
removal is outrageous, but it must be done in between tenants. The problem is that
landlords are limited in proving the violations because taking pictures is used against
us as harassment. Yet we are expected to provide proof of the violation. Where are
the changes that will cut the handcuffs that have been placed on homeowners?
It is unfortunate that if we want to buy a house we must be responsible with our
finances and save. But tenants with access to many public-funded financial
resources, that free up their income, are going to be granted free rent without
justification if you approve this ordinance. The biggest flaw in this ordinance is that
most of the irrational protections to tenants are not balanced with responsibilities to
qualify for any reasonable protections.
Individual persons purchase a house, the bank holds the title and now the city is
striping away the few rights left to protect their house.
Is this justice or a step closer to widening the gap and eliminating the middle-class?
Why not have the city rent out all the houses available from the owners at a fair
market value price? Then, the city can deal with the tenants, their issues, and only
collect what tenants want to pay.
Aurora Murillo.
Warning:
External
Email
From:Woodlawn Manager
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Oppose item 5.1 The tenant protection ordinance
Date:Friday, January 21, 2022 11:34:25 AM
Attachments:image003.png
Importance:High
Hello,
I am sending this email to OPPOSE item 5.1 “ the tenant protection ordinance”
The creation of the ordinance has been rushed and will require housing providers to
learn a whole new set of complicated rules within 30 days.
- The ordinance as drafted creates a divide between housing providers and their
residents and will close important lines of communication.
- Additional harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies could force
owners out of business and will deter investment in rental properties.
- Costly relocation payments will discourage rental property upgrades
Thank you,
Krystina Murillo / Property Manager
Woodlawn Gardens ¦ Pacifica SD Management
Office: (619) 476-9933 ¦ Fax: (619) 476-1794
Website: www.PSDM-woodlawn.com¦
535 Woodlawn Ave Chula vista CA 91910
*Please note, pricing is subject to change daily. Adjusting your move-in date or lease term will adjust pricing.
Payment of the application fee will lock the rental rate for only the selected lease term and move-in date.*
Warning:
External
Email
From:webmaster@chulavistaca.gov
To:Leilani Hines; Angelica Davis; Monica Rodriguez; Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:City of Chula Vista: Housing Advisory Commission - Contact Us
Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:27:36 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Housing Advisory Commission - Contact Us
Date & Time:01/18/2022 4:27 PM
Response #:40
Submitter ID:102493
IP address:98.176.73.93
Time to complete:14 min. , 24 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions by filling out the form below.
First Name Aurora
Last Name Murillo
Email Address fairness4all@ymail.com
Comments
The tenant protection ordinance lacks is highly discriminatory and criminalizes the homeowner/landlord. Is
the city taking the rights away from the owners over their purchases?
To purchase the house it took sacrifices to save the needed down payment. Without the down payments
the monthly payment would be even higher. It took having a good credit score, no excuses to making all
your payments even if it meant going without food because you earn $100 more than those qualifying for
section 8 aid. It took a desire to invest so someone else that has no interest in saving or does not care about
their credit score can have a place to live. It took risking losing on the property value when tenants don't
care about keeping the house as it was when they moved in.
In between tenants repairs, upgrades and other services are done that takes money out of pocket. The
materials and labor are increasing, insurance companies limit their coverage once the house is a rental and
tenants are increasingly more aggressive once they move in.
The limits that are already in place grant tenants many protections that infringe in the rights of the owner
to their own house.
Is the city attempting to assume rights over the purchase a citizen is making? Is Chula Vista willing to extend
this 'consumer' rights to all businesses? The house rental business is the only business not allowed to refuse
service. The laws discriminating against the lower-middle class, and the middle-class struggling to get ahead
by investing in a second home need to stop.
Thank you,
Warning:
External
Email
From:James Pellicane
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:please oppose Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:30:26 PM
Dear Council Person,
First of all, you for all your hard work. I could never do what you do. I am writing to express
my opposition for the Tenant Protection Ordinance.
1.While I am sure there are very good intentions behind this Ordinance. My experience is
these types of bills hurt the very people they intend to help. I don't know what prompted this
Ordinances but my hunch is that there are already procedures in place to address these issues.
2. Chula Vista is attractive to investors, which is good for Chula Vista. Unfortunately,
ordinances like this make Chula Vista less attractive.
Please vote no on the Tenant Protection Ordinance. It is not necessary and makes Chula Vista
a less desirable place for investors.
Thank you again for all your hard work.
Respectfully,
James
James Pellicane, Broker, MBA, M.Div.
Regent Properties of San Diego, Inc.—Sales & Property Mgmt.
1478 Ewing Dr
Chula Vista, CA 91911
License # 02063942
619-483-1530
Warning:
External
Email
From:Allison Pfister
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Oppose item 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:41:00 PM
Hello,
I would like to oppose item 5.1 in regards to housing providers and additional protections being
viewed as necessary for renters.
As written, this item mimics protections already in place through the State, conflicts with existing
laws and does not take into account the potential situations of rental housing providers who are in
many cases, citizens just like the people renting from them.
Regarding some of the definitions of prohibited conduct; it is part of existing legal procedure for a
housing provider to discontinue accepting payments when there is a situation where it may be
appropriate to go through the court for potential eviction. These situations are several but could
include non-payment, violence or threats of violence against neighbors, severe property damage,
damage to a neighbor’s property, criminal activity such as drug dealing and prostitution, etc.
A housing provider might be a disabled veteran returning home after being discharged and in need
of the home they had been renting, they might be an elderly couple whose financial situation has
changed and who needs to move back into the home which was going to assist them financially
through retirement. A housing provider might include someone with limited resources who cannot
afford the damage a renter is causing to themselves or the neighbors. There are a lot of reasons
someone might need to take rental housing off the market and the notice period of 365 days does
not seem reasonable. I believe that 120 days is a very long notice period for any situation and
should not be extended for any “carved out” category. These exemptions could create a fair housing
situation for rental housing providers as well.
The item seems rushed overall and does not seem to have thorough legal review. The predicaments
that regular citizens will find themselves in has not been thought through- this includes the people
who are renting and living next door to nuisances which are severely affecting their own right to a
peaceful place to live.
I am additionally concerned about the inability to remove an apartment to do a substantial
renovation. There are many cases where the health and safety of the residents requires a major
renovation. Many housing providers do not have excessive capital on hand to do a major renovation
and not be able to adjust the rent to help offset the expense over a period of time. Preventing
investment into our housing supply and improvement to the rentable housing available in Chula
Vista, does not benefit anyone living in Chula Vista.
As an alternative, I would ask this council to encourage new affordable or essential housing
developments as a way to increase housing available to residents of Chula Vista at every income
level and encourage continued investment into the community and improvement of the housing
available to those who choose to call this city home.
Respectfully,
Allison Pfister | Regional Property Manager
t (949) 381-6960 | allison.pfister@greystar.com | greystar.com
From:Steve Pollack
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Please oppose item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance.
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:54:20 PM
Warning: External Email
Steve Pollack
Pacific Rim Property Management & Maintenance Solutions
1418 Antioch Ave, Chula Vista 91913
T 858-748-2103 x304
CA DRE 01426762
CSLB 958218
Warning:
External
Email
From:Patricia Ponce-Feliu
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:"The Tenant Protection Ordinance"
Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 5:40:01 PM
Housing Advisory Commission:
I am writing to voice my concerns with the "The Tenant Protection Ordinance". As in
any contractual relationship the parties agree to the terms. A rental agreement between landlord
and tenant is executed under existing State laws and regulations that provide legal protection and
recourse for violation of terms for both parties. "The Tenant Protection Ordinance" skews the
relationship towards the tenant without considering the effect on the already very limited rental
market. There is no data to support an emergency that calls for a change like this. The ordinance
would prevent homeowners from moving back into the properties they own. Good tenants will be
harmed because housing providers will have limited or difficult options to remove bad tenants and
they are disruptive. Turning rental homes into purchase opportunities will become difficult, making
it even harder for home ownership. Service members, of which Chula Vista has many, will have a
difficult time moving back into their homes, once rented. Property tax revenue growth will slow as
transactions are blocked, restricting tax increases as fewer properties change hands. Most
detrimental is the effect on Chula Vista, when homeowners decide purchasing a home in Chula Vista
limits their ability to for flexibility and will purchase a home somewhere else in San Diego.
Thank you,
Patricia Ponce-Feliu
Warning:
External
Email
From:Ann Patounas
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:oppose Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance.
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:37:58 PM
As a property manager I am asking to you Please oppose Item 5.1, the tenant
protection ordinance
Thank you
Ann Tasias Patounas, Broker Associate
858-486-0748 direct
Ca BRE# 01056954
Chase Pacific Real Estatewww.anntasias.com
9988 Hibert St #103
San Diego CA 92131
**Please include the Property Address in the subject line of all emails**
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Never trust wiring instructions sent via email. Cyber criminals
are hacking email accounts and sending emails with fake wiring instructions. These
emails are convincing and sophisticated. Always independently confirm wiring
instructions in person or via a telephone call to a trusted and verified phone number.
Never wire money without double-checking that the wiring instructions are correct.
Warning:
External
Email
From:Cheryl Raya
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:I OPPOSE YOUR TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 9:48:08 PM
If you plan to pass this, how are we going to keep up with your continued increase in
fees? If you pass this perhaps we should first en masse, force the city of Chula Vista to
stop the increase of property fees and taxes. It’s the only way those who provide housing will be
able to continue to do so, and still provide upgrades so tenants can live in nice housing.
If you want them to live in eventual squalor, then go ahead and pass the ordinance. Let’s see how
appealing Chula Vista will look as a place to live.
Cheryl Raya
Sent from Mail for Windows
Warning:
External
Email
From:Gerard Reski
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:[SUSPECTED SPAM] Item 5.1, the Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:42:56 PM
This is a ridiculous ordinance. The way it is written, I have one more reason NOT
to improve my properties. This ordinance will lower the quality of the
neighborhoods you are trying to protect.
Gerard Reski
Cell (951) 288-7987
GReski@WesternEPG.com
Warning:
External
Email
From:KLV Reynante
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:[SUSPECTED SPAM] Item 5.1 Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:42:50 PM
Please oppose item 5.1 of the Tenant Protection Ordinance. Landlord protection
is just as important as tenant protection.
Warning:
External
Email
From:Dan Rooke
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Tenant Protection Act
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:38:54 PM
Honorable Council Members: First and foremost I thank you for your
service, and thank you in advance for your attention into this matter.
Although well intended The City of Chula Vista Tenant Protection Act is not needed
for Mobile Home Parks and would only create confusion for both the tenants/residents
as well as the property owners, that will translate into bad relations and legal
challenges in infinitum. For starters there are conflicting definitions as it relates to
mobilehome tenancy. MHP residents have always had just cause protections in the
Mobile Home Residency Law "MRL" there is also an enforcement program that is
funded through HCD called the "Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program". It
is unique to Mobilehome parks and unresolved complaints are referred to Legal Aid.
In addition to the state protections, Chula Vista MHP residents have a local rent
control ordinance with a local rent board to hear matters.
Thanks again for your consideration
Dan Rooke
Hacienda Mobile Estates
Warning:
External
Email
From:dennisryan@cox.net
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Cc:"DennisRyan@cox.net"
Subject:Tenant Protection Ordinance -- Is bad for Chula Vista!
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:19:26 AM
Housing Advisory Commission Members,
I implore you to reconsider this ill-conceived Tenant Protection Ordinance as it would be bad for
responsible landlords, bad for responsible tenants, and ultimately bad for the future of Chula Vista.
The Statewide Rent Cap and Just Cause Act that came into effect in 2020 has already burdened
property owners. It has contributed to increased friction between landlords and tenants, reduction
in ongoing property improvements on the part of landlords (because it is difficult to get the tenants
out to do modest updating or improvement, and the additional property investment by landlord may
not be recoverable due to rent caps), and a real determination on the part of long-term landlords
who were complacent or content with very modest rent increases to now raise rents to the
maximum allowable every year. In other words, to get the increases when they can due to
continually increased restrictions.
The main problem is the chronic shortage of housing (for sale and rent) in San Diego County and that
can only be alleviated with infill development. This infill development is extremely expensive – in no
small part due to impact fees, onerous City approval processes, and the likelihood of lawsuits against
developers of new condominium complexes. These are the issues that need to be addressed. The
cost of housing is more than anything else, a function of supply and demand. Demand is high (for
now) and supply is limited. This equation needs to be addressed first and foremost, and the part of
the equation you can impact is supply – increasing supply.
Again, I implore you to shift your focus to what will truly benefit Chula Vista in the future – more
housing – and away from what may be politically popular to those who do not understand basic
economics. Do not punish landlords who have been responsible by saving, investing, and taking
some risk as an investor and landlord in order to create a more secure financial future and
retirement for themselves.
Thank you for your consideration!
Dennis Ryan
Warning:
External
Email
From:Mitchell Thompson
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Fwd: Urgent--Public Comment--Today"s Housing Advisory Committee Meeting Please forward to members of the
Committee
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:02:12 PM
Item 5.1 Tenat Protection Ordinance, January 19, 2022 Meeting
My name is Mitch Thompson. I am a long-time resident of the City of Chula Vista. I am a
former CV City Councilman, CV Planning Commissioner, CV Housing Advisory Committee
Member, CV Redevelopment Oversight Board Member and was the staff Housing
Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista a number of years ago. I also worked for the County's
Housing Authority for over ten years and built the several public housing projects still being
operated in Chula Vista. I have also financed or developed a good many other affordable
housing projects in Chula Vista. I spent my whole career in affordable housing and in the
development of affordable housing in the San Diego area and throughout California. I
continue to act as a financial and development consultant to local affordable housing non-
profits and serve on the Board of Directors of a local non-profit housing management group
active in the Southbay. I currently serve as Chair of the Government Affairs Committee for
the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, the largest business membership organization
in Chula Vista and I personally own twelve rental units in the City of Chula Vista. My
background as property owner, affordable housing developer & advocate and former
government official gives me a unique perspective on this issue. I am well-qualified to speak
on this matter.
While I am affiliated with several groups in Chula Vista, this request is solely my own. I
request that the HAC recommend that the City Council NOT adopt the draft Tenant
Protection Ordinance for the following reasons:
1. The City has not conducted any real analysis as to whether or not there is any real
problem in Chula Vista for which this ordinance is intended to address. This appears
to be a knee-jerk reaction without any determination by the City of whether or not
there is a real problem. You should NOT adopt an ordinance without fully
identifying the breadth and depth of the problem--if one exists. In limited
discussions, the staff only cited a couple of instances related to this ordinance and no
detailed analysis has been conducted. To act before knowing if there even is a
problem or the extent of a problem is premature and ill-advised. We currently have
enough laws on the books in Chula Vista and we need to add additional regulations
only when necessary. The cautious and judicious use of police powers of local
government is strongly advised.
2. Unintended Consequences. Most landlords are hesitant to do major renovations to
their units because the costs are high and the financial return is usually less is
otherwise the case with not doing the improvement. You don't see many older units
getting a full makeover in the rental housing market on the west side of Chula Vista
because of this. Adding substantial cost on a unit rehab will make that rehabilitation
less likely to occur. Our housinging stock on the west side is in need of upgrading as
it is getting very old. The unintended consequence of this ordinance will ensure that
units that need rehabilitation NEVER get redone unless and until such time as a tenant
moves out on their own. The overall low quality of our rental housing stock on the
west side of Chula Vista will continue to be prolonged with this ordinance.
3. Enforcement--The idea that you would propose that a landlord be subject to criminal
charges and imprisonment is a terrible message to send to the many hundreds of
dedicated housing providers in the City of Chula Vista. The tone of the ordinance is
objectionable especially since you have not demonstrated that you have a real
problem. It is as though the City is deciding that a group of its citizens --the owners-
- who are diligently providing an essential service in this community, are criminals.
This sends a chilling message from City Hall, not just to owners, but to all segments
of the business community. The whole document is chilling. Terms like "abuse the
tenant with words which are offensive and inherently likely to provoke an immediate
violent reaction" or "influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate" imply there
is a dramatic problem with landlords in Chula Vista. I know so many owners
in Chula Vista; this is simply not prevalent at all. The biggest problem in Chula Vista
since the virtual prohibition against any evictions during Covid is the difficulty of
evicting bad disruptive tenants so other tenants can enjoy where they live.
4. There are many technical flaws in this ordinance because it was drafted by the City
Attorney's office and that office does not actively practice in landlord tenant law or
the practical application of law with respect to rental housing. It would take too long
to comment on the many flaws.
5. The rental property business is complicated. California has some of the best laws in
the United States with respect to protection of tenants and their rights. Having a
uniform set of laws at the state level makes the most sense for regulation of the rental
housing industry. Also, the City is not equipped to administer this ordinance. Chula
Vista has a structural deficit in its finances. Adding this level of workload on the
Chula Vista staff makes no sense. The City needs to continue to focus on its core
services--trash collection, fixing potholes, making sure the storm drains are clear,
keeping adequate police and fire (we have very low staffing levels for these). IS
THIS REALLY NECESSARY?
6. Tenants are well protected. Not only are state laws adequate with enforcement
through the courts but the County and federal governement has routinely provided a
large amount of funding to the SD Legal Aid Society and ACCE, a statewide tenant
advocacy group with a large local office in Chula Vista. The tenatns do not need
added protections.
7. This whole effort sadly distracts the City, the Housing Advisory Committee and the
City Council from addressing "the elephant in the Housing Room". You should be
laser-focused on the problem of inadequate rental housing supply and the burgeoning
demand for more housing. The City needs to identify each and every way it can help
the development community bring on more rental housing units to meet demand.
This is the only way to truly protect tenants in Chula Vista. More regulations means
less housing and the people you most want to help will be hurt the worst over the long
run. The City needs some staff, the HousingTask Force and a City Council
Committee to be exclusively dedicated and charged with the task ofto coming up with
each and every technique possible tocreate more housing. No amount of regulation---
like this ordinance-- will protect our young famiilies and seniors from the
hardships that are created by a housing imbalance and housing shortage.
I urge you to NOT recommend adoption of this unneeded ordinance.
Mitch Thompson
Chula Vista Resident and Rental Property Owner
--
From:Encore Realty, Inc. (DRE # 01308692)
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:[SPAM] TPO
Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 1:16:19 PM
Warning: External Email
Please oppose the proposed TPO. As a housing provider working hard to keep up affordable, reliable housing for
our residents is becoming increasingly difficult due to the myriad of new laws recently past. This ordinance will add
to the cost of rehabbing rental units and as a result delay much needed renovation.
Thank you,
Mark W. Scott
DRE # 01197311
Warning:
External
Email
From:Mitch Siegler
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Tenant Protection ordinance
Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:53:21 PM
I have read the proposed ordinance. I believe it is rushed and not well thought
through.
The proposed ordinance (1) attempts to override important elements of state law, (2) would
discourage private investment in much-needed housing in the community, (3) would drive up
costs, which are ultimately born by the tenants, (4) would reduce investment in maintaining
and improving properties, leading to a lower of quality housing stock and (6) would drive a
wedge between property owners and renters.
I urge the City to seriously reflect on the long-term impacts of hasty action.
Mitchell Siegler
Warning:
External
Email
From:William Snell
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:[SUSPECTED SPAM] Item 5.1: Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:41:35 PM
I urge you to oppose this so called Tenant Protection Ordinance; we currently
have laws to protect all of us and should not be singling out one particular class or
group for special treatment without good reason.
What evidence do you have that this new set of laws is actually needed; how many complaints
have been brought to the police or city government in each specific area during the past 12
months - and how were they resolved?. There are a few bad actors everywhere you look; is the
situation so serious and ongoing that new law is required. Can you not deal with offensive,
illegal and immoral actions on a case by case using current statues on the books?
I would greatly appreciate it if you would answer the above paragraph with specific facts,
dates and numbers.
President Coolidge said: "It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones."
Please show me with your data and research that this is a needed bill and not a quick and ill
considered action which will in the long term benefit none.
Sincerely,
William D. Snell
805 Creekwood Way, Chula Vista, Calif. 91913
P.S. With all that said, you need to build more housing; we have more people locating in San
Diego and not nearly enough housing being built. How are you dealing with this inbalance?
Warning:
External
Email
From:Amy Tadlock
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:NO on Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:31:27 PM
Please vote NO on the Tenant Protection Ordinance. As a spouse of a retired
military officer, we rely on rental income from property purchased during our
time in the service. This ordinance will negatively affect renters and owners who have already
experienced so much difficulty with housing over the past two years.
The Chula Vista community has a large number of military families because of the quality of
home and neighbors here. This ordinance will cause us to lose so much as a community if our
single family rentals homes become subject to these laws and regulations. Shortage of
housing, lack of investment and pride in our community. This is too costly for our community
and will create a losing situation for all of us.
Please vote NO on the Tenant Protection Ordinance. Thank you.
Amy Tadlock
Office Admin and Realtor® at
Better Homes & Gardens Real Estate Clarity
DRE# 02121284
Direct: 619-616-8767
Warning:
External
Email
From:karit
To:Monica Rodriguez; CityClerk
Subject:HAC Mtg (01/19/22) - Public Comment / Proposed "TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE"
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:46:42 PM
To: Housing Advisory Committee
Re: Public Comment to the Proposed “TENANT PROTECTION ORDINANCE”
I am not aware of any violations that have prompted the need for such a proposed “tenant protection”
ordinance, and as such, request that this particular proposed ordinance be rejected in its entirety,
unless and until all stakeholders affected by the need for such an ordinance have been properly
notified and allowed the opportunity to sufficiently review and respond. The legalese of any such
ordinance should be fair and equitable to all parties.
However, having said that, I understand that the Committee is moving forward to present the Mayor
and Council with a proposed ordinance in the near future, so with that, I submit the following
comments:
AS TO X.X.X.050 REQUIREMENTS UPON WITHDRAWAL OF A RESIDENTIAL
RENTAL PROPERTY FROM THE RENTAL MARKET, A.1.a:
Reduce the notification time for Elderly or Disabled from 365 days to 180 days (6 months) notice.
Increase the age limit for Elderly to 65 years of age in section X.X.X.030, C.
Require the Tenant to provide written proof of Disability status from the State of California to the
Owner.
AS TO X.X.X.070 EVICTION FOR SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL PROHIBITED.
· This section should be stricken in its entirety, as it provides no incentive whatsoever to an
Owner to invest in upgrades while having to pay for Tenant relocation costs during the anticipated
upgrade timeframe. All costs are forced upon the Owner on top of upgrade costs, and with that there
is no incentive for the Owner to invest in upgrades.
· Moreover, many rents are well under market value to begin with, primarily due to rent
control restrictions. Otherwise, Owner investment of upgrades would allow the Owner to receive
FAIR market value for their units, while at the same time the Tenant receives a fresh, modern, and
marketable product. No gouging the Tenant, no taking advantage of the Owner.
· As proposed, the language has the City interfering with Owner management of investment
property. When the Owner is as otherwise described a “mom/pop” rental housing provider, you
have directly interfered with their retirement plans and likely place their financial status in peril.
AS TO X.X.090 ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES, SECTIONS A THROUGH E (NOTE
THERE ARE TWO “C” SECTIONS, OF WHICH THE LATTER IS PRESUMED TO BE
“E”):
· Terms stated in this proposal all benefit the Tenant, and in adopting such language, the City
creates substantial bias against the Owner. All enforcements and remedies must be fair and
equitable to all parties, especially when imposed by a third party (i.e., the City).
· All remedies to both Owner and Tenant for lease violations should be in accordance with the
written terms of the rental agreement/lease violation, and as allowed for by California state
tenancy law, making this proposed ordinance unnecessary and inappropriate. Unless the City is
a party to the rental/lease agreement, no other person(s) or entities should be allowed to change
the contracted terms.
Again, I request that the proposed ordinance be rejected in its entirety unless the need for any suchordinance is demonstrated and all stakeholders have been properly notified and given the opportunityto respond. An ordinance of any kind so narrowly identified a “tenant protection” is in no way fairand equitable to Owners. The City should never elect to place itself in such a biased position.
Respectfully submitted,.
Kari Thomas
Chula Vista Resident & Rental Housing Provider
Warning:
External
Email
From:Mitchell Thompson
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Fwd: Urgent--Public Comment--Today"s Housing Advisory Committee Meeting Please forward to members of the
Committee
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:02:12 PM
Item 5.1 Tenat Protection Ordinance, January 19, 2022 Meeting
My name is Mitch Thompson. I am a long-time resident of the City of Chula Vista. I am a
former CV City Councilman, CV Planning Commissioner, CV Housing Advisory Committee
Member, CV Redevelopment Oversight Board Member and was the staff Housing
Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista a number of years ago. I also worked for the County's
Housing Authority for over ten years and built the several public housing projects still being
operated in Chula Vista. I have also financed or developed a good many other affordable
housing projects in Chula Vista. I spent my whole career in affordable housing and in the
development of affordable housing in the San Diego area and throughout California. I
continue to act as a financial and development consultant to local affordable housing non-
profits and serve on the Board of Directors of a local non-profit housing management group
active in the Southbay. I currently serve as Chair of the Government Affairs Committee for
the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, the largest business membership organization
in Chula Vista and I personally own twelve rental units in the City of Chula Vista. My
background as property owner, affordable housing developer & advocate and former
government official gives me a unique perspective on this issue. I am well-qualified to speak
on this matter.
While I am affiliated with several groups in Chula Vista, this request is solely my own. I
request that the HAC recommend that the City Council NOT adopt the draft Tenant
Protection Ordinance for the following reasons:
1. The City has not conducted any real analysis as to whether or not there is any real
problem in Chula Vista for which this ordinance is intended to address. This appears
to be a knee-jerk reaction without any determination by the City of whether or not
there is a real problem. You should NOT adopt an ordinance without fully
identifying the breadth and depth of the problem--if one exists. In limited
discussions, the staff only cited a couple of instances related to this ordinance and no
detailed analysis has been conducted. To act before knowing if there even is a
problem or the extent of a problem is premature and ill-advised. We currently have
enough laws on the books in Chula Vista and we need to add additional regulations
only when necessary. The cautious and judicious use of police powers of local
government is strongly advised.
2. Unintended Consequences. Most landlords are hesitant to do major renovations to
their units because the costs are high and the financial return is usually less is
otherwise the case with not doing the improvement. You don't see many older units
getting a full makeover in the rental housing market on the west side of Chula Vista
because of this. Adding substantial cost on a unit rehab will make that rehabilitation
less likely to occur. Our housinging stock on the west side is in need of upgrading as
it is getting very old. The unintended consequence of this ordinance will ensure that
units that need rehabilitation NEVER get redone unless and until such time as a tenant
moves out on their own. The overall low quality of our rental housing stock on the
west side of Chula Vista will continue to be prolonged with this ordinance.
3. Enforcement--The idea that you would propose that a landlord be subject to criminal
charges and imprisonment is a terrible message to send to the many hundreds of
dedicated housing providers in the City of Chula Vista. The tone of the ordinance is
objectionable especially since you have not demonstrated that you have a real
problem. It is as though the City is deciding that a group of its citizens --the owners-
- who are diligently providing an essential service in this community, are criminals.
This sends a chilling message from City Hall, not just to owners, but to all segments
of the business community. The whole document is chilling. Terms like "abuse the
tenant with words which are offensive and inherently likely to provoke an immediate
violent reaction" or "influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate" imply there
is a dramatic problem with landlords in Chula Vista. I know so many owners
in Chula Vista; this is simply not prevalent at all. The biggest problem in Chula Vista
since the virtual prohibition against any evictions during Covid is the difficulty of
evicting bad disruptive tenants so other tenants can enjoy where they live.
4. There are many technical flaws in this ordinance because it was drafted by the City
Attorney's office and that office does not actively practice in landlord tenant law or
the practical application of law with respect to rental housing. It would take too long
to comment on the many flaws.
5. The rental property business is complicated. California has some of the best laws in
the United States with respect to protection of tenants and their rights. Having a
uniform set of laws at the state level makes the most sense for regulation of the rental
housing industry. Also, the City is not equipped to administer this ordinance. Chula
Vista has a structural deficit in its finances. Adding this level of workload on the
Chula Vista staff makes no sense. The City needs to continue to focus on its core
services--trash collection, fixing potholes, making sure the storm drains are clear,
keeping adequate police and fire (we have very low staffing levels for these). IS
THIS REALLY NECESSARY?
6. Tenants are well protected. Not only are state laws adequate with enforcement
through the courts but the County and federal governement has routinely provided a
large amount of funding to the SD Legal Aid Society and ACCE, a statewide tenant
advocacy group with a large local office in Chula Vista. The tenatns do not need
added protections.
7. This whole effort sadly distracts the City, the Housing Advisory Committee and the
City Council from addressing "the elephant in the Housing Room". You should be
laser-focused on the problem of inadequate rental housing supply and the burgeoning
demand for more housing. The City needs to identify each and every way it can help
the development community bring on more rental housing units to meet demand.
This is the only way to truly protect tenants in Chula Vista. More regulations means
less housing and the people you most want to help will be hurt the worst over the long
run. The City needs some staff, the HousingTask Force and a City Council
Committee to be exclusively dedicated and charged with the task ofto coming up with
each and every technique possible tocreate more housing. No amount of regulation---
like this ordinance-- will protect our young famiilies and seniors from the
hardships that are created by a housing imbalance and housing shortage.
I urge you to NOT recommend adoption of this unneeded ordinance.
Mitch Thompson
Chula Vista Resident and Rental Property Owner
--
Warning:
External
Email
From:Real Estate by Charlene "Char" 619-990-2123
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:[SUSPECTED SPAM] Tenant Protection Ordinance
Date:Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:41:25 PM
To whom it may concern, Please oppose item5.1. It is in so many ways
WRONG. When does it end? You own property and pay taxes and insurance and
a hefty purchase price to not have any control of something you own. If this was a car rental
service would the renter of the car have such rights? ( Need the car back to do repairs but
need to pay for a rental for the renter?)
Why even own investment property here with such laws and ordinances? Why not just buy an
investment elsewhere where ownership is respected?
Are we going to further clog up the legal system that is already maxed with additional
harassment laws, criminal penalties, and private remedies through mediation?
More rental laws and stricter ordinances on the OWNERS are going to deter people from
buying rentals here.
Whos going to rent to renters? Large corporate companies?
What if the home is condemned by the city and has to be torn down and part due to the tenant
not taking care of the home. Now you have to tear down the investment and pay the tenant to
relocate? Where is the sense in that ?
The home is old and in need of repair and you are still paying a mortgage on it. Now you need
the money for the contractor, supplies, and the mortgage since it is vacant along with all the
utilities. Now pay the renter a relocation fee?? On something you OWN?? Something you are
trying to make nicer for not only the future tenants.
I can see most saying screw it and letting the homestay in its current condition which is not
good for the neighborhood or the city.
It is just flat out a bad idea.
Respectfully,
Download Mobile app to search for homes here
If you know of someone who would appreciate the level of service I provide,
From:Sharon Wells
To:Housing Advisory Commission
Subject:Law 5.1
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:29:53 PM
Warning: External Email
Many sad landlords scrimped & saved their entire life to invest for retirement in a few units so inflation would not
kill all income.
Now that we’re retired, you prevent our selling our units when we’re forced into assisted living or memory care.
How can the city or any govt FORCE us to stay in business?
Has slavery returned?
Sent from my iPhone