REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
**POST AGENDA**

Meeting #:
Date:	Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 5:00 P.m. - 6:00 P.m.
Location:	Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA

View the Meeting Live in English & Spanish: chulavistaca.gov/councilmeetings

 AT&T U-verse ch. 99 (San Diego County) & Cox ch. 24 (Chula Vista) in English only

 

Welcome to your City Council Meeting

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public comments may be submitted to the City Council in the following ways:

• In-Person. The community is welcome to make public comments at this City Council meeting. 
• Submit an eComment: Visit www.chulavistaca.gov/councilmeetings, locate the meeting and click the comment bubble icon. Select the item and click "Leave Comment." eComments can be submitted until the conclusion of public comments for the item and are viewable online upon submittal. If you have difficulty submitting eComments, email  comments to: [email protected] 

 

HOW TO WATCH: Live stream is available at www.chulavistaca.gov/councilmeetings. To switch the video to Spanish, please click on "ES" in the bottom right hand corner. Meetings are available anytime on the City's website (English and Spanish).

 

ACCESSIBILITY: Individuals with disabilities or special needs are invited to request modifications or accommodations to access and/or participate in a City meeting by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at or [phone] (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPEAKER TIME LIMITS: The time allotted for speakers may be adjusted by the Mayor. 

- Five minutes* for specific items listed on the agenda
- Three minutes* for items NOT on the agenda (called to speak during Public Comments)
- A group of individuals may select a spokesperson to speak on their behalf on an agenda item, waiving their option to speak individually on the same item. Generally, five minutes are allotted per person, up to a limit of 30 minutes, although the limits may be adjusted. Members of the group must be present.

*Individuals who use a translator will be allotted twice the amount of time.
 

                                                              GETTING TO KNOW YOUR AGENDA

Agenda Sections:
CONSENT CALENDAR items are routine items that are not expected to prompt discussion. All items are considered for approval at the same time with one vote.  Councilmembers and staff may request items be removed and members of the public may submit a speaker slip if they wish to comment on an item. Items removed from the Consent Calendar are discussed after the vote on the remaining Consent Calendar items.

PUBLIC COMMENT provides the public with an opportunity to address the Council on any matter not listed on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Council. In compliance with the Brown Act, the Council cannot take action on matters not listed on the agenda.

PUBLIC HEARINGS are held on matters specifically required by law. The Mayor opens the public hearing and asks for presentations from staff and from the proponent or applicant involved (if applicable) in the matter under discussion. Following questions from the Councilmembers, the Mayor opens the public hearing and asks for public comments. The hearing is closed, and the City Council may discuss and take action.

ACTION ITEMS are items that are expected to cause discussion and/or action by the Council but do not legally require a Public Hearing. Staff may make a presentation and Councilmembers may ask questions of staff and the involved parties before the Mayor invites the public to provide input.

CLOSED SESSION may only be attended by members of the Council, support staff, and/or legal counsel. The most common purpose of a Closed Session is to avoid revealing confidential information that may prejudice the legal or negotiating position of the City or compromise the privacy interests of employees. Closed sessions may be held only as specifically authorized by law.

Council Actions:
RESOLUTIONS are formal expressions of opinion or intention of the Council and are usually effective immediately.

ORDINANCES are laws adopted by the Council. Ordinances usually amend, repeal or supplement the Municipal Code; provide zoning specifications; or appropriate money for specific purposes. Most ordinances require two hearings: an introductory hearing, generally followed by a second hearing at the next regular meeting. Most ordinances go into effect 30 days after the final approval.

PROCLAMATIONS are issued by the City to honor significant achievements by community members, highlight an event, promote awareness of community issues, and recognize City employees.

 

---

1.

CALL TO ORDER

2.

ROLL CALL

3.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE

4.

SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY

4.1

Presentation of the Annual Sustainability Champion Awards by Environmental Sustainability Manager Coleen Wisniewski and Environmental Services Manager Manuel Medrano

4.2

Presentation by Environmental Sustainability Manager Coleen Wisniewski on the City Achieving Certification in the Blue City Network

4.3

Presentation by Commissioner Nimpa Akana from the International Friendship Commission Regarding Sister City Cebu Donation

4.4

Presentation of a Proclamation to Parks & Recreation Administrator Tim Farmer, Proclaiming May 21, 2022 as Kids to Parks Day in the City of Chula Vista

4.5

Announcement of the Voter Education Workshop on May 19, 2022, in Council Chambers

5.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5.1 through 5.6)

All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered and acted upon by one motion. Anyone may request an item be removed for separate consideration.

• RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  Council approve the recommended action on the below consent calendar items. 

5.1

Waive Reading of Text of Resolutions and Ordinances

• RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  Approve a motion to read only the title and waive the reading of the text of all resolutions and ordinances at this meeting.

5.2

Consideration of Requests for Excused Absences

Councilmember Padilla from the October 26, 2021 City Council meeting.

• RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  Consider requests for excused absences as appropriate.

5.3

Open Space Maintenance Districts: Initiating Proceedings, Approving the Engineer’s Report, Declaring the Intention to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/23

Report Number: 22-0142

Location: No specific geographic location

Department: Finance

Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.

• RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  Adopt the following resolutions and set a public hearing for June 21, 2022:

   

  A) Initiating Proceedings for the levy and collection of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for Open Space Districts 1 thru 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, Eastlake, Town Center and Bay Boulevard of the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972

   

  B) Approving the Engineer’s Report, declaring the intention to levy and collect assessments; and setting a Public Hearing regarding the Fiscal Year 2022/23 assessments for Open Space districts 2 through 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 (Zones 1 through 6, 8 and 9), 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 (Zones A, B, and D), and Bay Boulevard Maintenance District

   

  C) Approving the Engineer’s Report, declaring the intention to levy and collect assessments; and setting a public hearing regarding the Fiscal Year 2022/23 assessments for Open Space District 9, Open Space District 10, Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 (Zone E), and Town Center Maintenance District

   

  D) Approving the Engineer’s Report, declaring the intention to levy and collect assessments; and setting a public hearing regarding the Fiscal Year 2022/23 assessments for Open Space District 1

   

  E) Approving the Engineer’s Report, declaring the intention to levy and collect assessments; and setting a public hearing regarding Fiscal Year 2022/23 assessments for Open Space District Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 (Zone C)

   

  F)Approving the Engineer’s Report, declaring the intention to levy and collect assessments; and setting a public hearing regarding the Fiscal Year 2022/23 assessments for Open Space District 20, Zone 7

   

5.5

Annual Audit Report: Accept the Single Audit Report for the Fiscal Year that Ended June 30, 2021

Report Number: 22-0136

Location: No specific geographic location

Department: Finance

Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.

• RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  Receive and file the Single Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021.

5.4

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Approve Second Amendment to License Agreement to Implement Upgrades to Electric Vehicle Infrastructure at Five City Parking Lots

Report Number: 22-0071

Location: Various parking lots in the City of Chula Vista

Department: Economic Development

Environmental Notice: The Project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15302 Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction).

• RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  Adopt a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the License Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista and Blink Network, LLC. to implement upgrades to the electric vehicle infrastructure.

5.6

Loma Verde Recreation Center: Grant an Easement to San Diego Gas and Electric to Provide Utility Services to the Loma Verde Recreation Center

Report Number: 22-0152

Location: 1420 Loma Lane, Chula Vista

Department: Engineering

Environmental Notice: The Project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities), Section 15302 Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction), Section 15303 class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and Section 15304 Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land).

• RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  Adopt a resolution granting an easement to San Diego Gas and Electric to provide utility services to the new Loma Verde Recreation Center.

6.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Robert

Do you all think after shutting down business and giving free rent.. we the people will forget who caused these problems... now people look to you to solve the problem.. just wait.. all of you are finished. And were coming for your jobs. We dont want any of your help.. infact resign befor you make a fool of yourself even more.

Amy Epsten

As a mobilehome park owner and operator, we support the exemption of our space rent/MRL tenancies. Applying these proposed ordinances to mobilehome park residents when they already have the Mobilehome Residency Law, MRL enforcement program (MHRLPP) and Chula Vista’s local Rent Control Ordinance’s protections would be burdensome and confusing. I support the mobilehome park exemption.

The public may address the Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council but not on the agenda. 

7.

ACTION ITEMS

The following item(s) will be considered individually and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation.

7.1

Contract Amendment: Approve an Amendment to the Contract with the Board of Administration and CalPERS for Local Safety Police Officer’s Association Classic Members to Make an Additional Contribution Pursuant to Government Code Section §20516

Report Number: 22-0120

Location: No specific geographic location

Department: Human Resources

Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.

• RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  Adopt an ordinance approving an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Chula Vista to provide a mandatory employee contribution for all classic Local Safety members of the Chula Vista Police Officers Association of 1% of salary as provided under Government Code §20516. (Second Reading and Adoption)

7.2

Tenant Protections: Consideration of Ordinances Regarding Local Tenant Protections to Address No-Fault Just Cause Terminations of Tenancy

Tammy Alvarado

Please protect tenants and keep them housed during the slow recovery from the Covid-19 Pandemic. I have been a renter in Chula Vista for the past 26 years. We are a hard working family that continues to struggle with the ever increasing rents charged by property owners who neglect the property, don't fix things, but steadily raise the rent by over $200 a year. It is unfair to live in a home, afraid to ask for repairs because when we do rent gets raised and the repairs made are so substandard that we must fix it ourselves. We pay because they don't. Property owners take advantage of renters because they know they can get away with it because we don't want to end up unsheltered on the street with our kids. We are stuck and the landlords not only know this, but take advantage of this. We pay our rent every month, even when my husband's company closed for 2 months and unemployment payments were slow to begin. Our landlord raised our rent by $100 per month April 2020, then another $25 In April 2021, and next month the increase is $210 a month, while wages stay the same. How is this fair? It wouldn't be so bad if they would make the repairs necessary, but they don't. We have replaced 2 toilets, the kitchen sink/garbage disposal, and the a new stove. We never asked for reimbursement. And the fence that was blown down several years ago due to severe weather is still not repaired. My neighbor and I can walk through each other's back yards. Ridiculous.

Aurora

The city is taking what's has already been approved as fair and adequate tenant protection, but it's looking at criminalizing the middle class that's doing nothing less than helping fellow Chula Vistans live in a house. Tenants have protections and various resources including legal aide. But home owners don't. Most of the issues with tenants come from complaints from the neighbors or other tenants. In order to keep peace I avoid telling them who is reporting their violations to the rental agreement including the right of the complainant to quiet and peaceful living. What's help to allow the tenants to move out without issues escalating has been the right to not renew or giving them a 2 month notice. Tenants that have asked in a timely manner, for an extension usually get it. This ordinance will take that right to quietly enjoyment from the neighbors and other tenants. It will also force me to document the tenants violations and that can happen their possibilities if being approved elsewhere.

Engaged Citizen

The Housing Commision recommendation isn't credible. I watched as Housing Comissioners were attacked because of their positions, questions, and personally bullied. Anyone, Comissioner or public, who would have commented in opposition or in questioning at that meeting would have thought twice with the bullying that was allowed by the public. This is a disservice to the public participation proces.

Concerned CV resident

The State is charged with civil matters between landlords and tenants. There is pending legislation to clean up the loop holes. Don't complicate matters and get into these matters. Focus on other issues like economic development and infrastructure.

Resident

The fiscal impact is extremely vague. Housing funding is restricted to providing affordable housing opportunities. Funding should be prioritized towards building and creating affordable rental housing.

Emily D Tran

Good evening, my name is Emily Tran. I am an organizer from Viet Vote SD, a member of ACCE, and also live in District 2 of Chula Vista. I support the moratorium on NO FAULT evictions. My family is currently getting displaced due to housing issues, and are on the verge of becoming homeless because it is extremely difficult to find affordable places to live in and is very expensive to relocate. They have struggled with financial instability since they arrived from Vietnam in 1975, and I know there are many others who can relate to this situation. So that is why it is important to support and pass a moratorium on NO FAULT evictions. Thank you for your time.

Tom S.

How something so impacting on the rights of property owners and housing providers can be in the hands of this Mayor and city council is mind blowing. I've provided quality housing in Chula Vista for over 30 years - this ordinance isn't needed! There are plenty of California tenant protections already in place. It stinks of special interests.

Patience

Oppose!!!

Gilberto M. Vera

My name is Gil Vera, and I am the Senior Attorney of the Housing Team at Legal Aid Society of San Diego. Since late July 2022 through today, the number one housing issue Chula Vista Tenants are calling Legal Aid for help is with no-fault evictions. The Tenant Protection Ordinance in its current version lacks the protections needed to close the no-fault eviction loopholes in state law. Without the Ellis Act restrictions, landlords and realtor speculators will continue to abuse "withdrawing the units from the rental market" to displace entire buildings of low-income tenants in the name of profit. Additionally, all tenants deserved to be protected no matter what type of housing they live in and deserve to be protected from day one of their tenancy. Lastly, substantial remodel evictions (“gentrification evictions”) will result in the displacement of low-income households who are at greatest risk of homelessness. Instead, Landlords should be required to temporarily relocate tenants, complete the required repairs, and allow the tenants to move back.

Daniel S.

I work in Property Management, and I Support this ordinance. Housing is NOT a luxury, it is a right. In my experience, it is very easy for Property Owners to pretend we are not talking about actual people, but see only the bottom line, delinquencies and balances. "Owners" for the most part, live very comfortably, some are extremely wealthy.. their quality of life will not change because of this law, they just wont be happy about it because they wont be making MORE money. And in the end, everyone opposing is doing so because of money. I understand this will be a rude awakening for property owners, but making them more money is not society's problem. Housing citizens IS, and we do not get to choose who is and isn't worthy. If money is your priority, I recommend you find something else to invest in.

Armand Olvera

Mary Salas and those council members who are for this must have no clue what the passing of this bill will do to property owners now and in the future. We have had to endure non-payment of rents for almost two years because of politicians like those in the Chula Vista City council who are for the passing of this bill. If we want to take action against a tenant who is not paying rent, destroying the property or because we want them out to upgrade the unit, it should be our right to do so. Wake up and smell the roses and quit trying to win votes by catering to those same people. Pure politics.

Margaret Baker

South Bay People Power strongly supports a no-fault eviction ban in Chula Vista. We need strong no-fault eviction protections to close loopholes & protections against harassment. Cities throughout California have enacted important protections to ensure renters are not displaced or harassed. The City of SD recently extended their moratorium on evictions. We encourage our City to do likewise & to pass an ordinance to permanently protect tenants - like Gabriel Guzman whose saga of eviction in Chula Vista during the pandemic was recently recounted in a detailed article in Mother Jones magazine. Many families like his are losing their struggles to stay in their Chula Vista homes due to loopholes in state laws, harmful harassment, or lack of accountability by some landlords. Despite claims that this problem is not widespread, Mother Jones reported a “lockout rate” for majority-Latino neighborhoods in SD County that is 17.7% higher than that experience by people in majority-white neighborhoods. If we include the “informal evictions” described by Matthew Desmond, the number of evictions should be doubled. The MJ article cites numerous scientific studies of the irreparable harm to the physical & mental health, cognitive development, risk of COVID for families and children who are evicted. We must do all we can to stop this cycle of poor health outcomes & the costs they entail which leads to a cycle of disadvantages. These harms have repercussions throughout our community. Vote YES!

Susan Beradi

- This ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. No study has been done to assess if there are problems that warrant such a restrictive ordinance or how the law might impact housing availability. - Rental housing providers are being blamed for the lack of available housing supply, low vacancy rate, and rising housing costs and will be required to pay relocation to offset factors outside of their control. - The limitations on substantial remodel ignore the needs of aging housing stock in the city. - The ordinance is complicated and cumbersome, and requires copies of all notices be sent to the city. - Laws and remedies already exist that protect against bad actors; this ordinance is a broad-brush approach that will impact all rental providers. - The harassment section is one-sided and does nothing to protect housing providers from the same treatment.

Robert and Joanne Snaith

We have (3) rental units with wonderful tenants. We do NOT have Pensions or 401k"s. These units are all we have. We still owe a mortgage on them. This is an absolute ridiculous agenda. This will ruin many Owner/Landlords in Chula Vista. Including us!! Go after the "Bad" Owner/Landlords and leave the good ones alone.!!! OPPOSE!

Adolfo Carabajal

The days of supplementing one’s income with investment in rental property is an approach from a bygone era. Housing is not an investment. It is a right for all. Rental property owners should understand that this is a societal issue not an investment. Should they choose to become rental property owners, they should be in it to provide safe, comfortable, and affordable housing for all that seek it. Otherwise, they should try other investments strategies to appease their out-of-dated need for status and wealth. Codify tenant rights in Chula Vista housing ordinances and reduce property owners’ investment incentives and legal loopholes. Thank you.

Michael Campbell

As a previous landlord in Chula Vista, this kind of legislation is why I sold my rental property of 12 years and got out of being a landlord. There are plenty of tenant protections in the state of CA without adding this poorly researched bill.

Emely Nieto

As a member of ACCE and renter in Chula Vista I am here today in support of stopping NO FAULT evictions. This is important to me because I was evicted from a house in order for it to be remodeled. That is legalized gentrification. Landlords are abusing loopholes in the law to evict tenants or intimidate tenants to self evict. It is extremely difficult to find an affordable place to live in right now and tenants need enough time to relocate.

Camille & Tony Bruno

As homeowner and long time resident of Chula Vista, we oppose this measure. Not enough research has been done and there is not enough information for the council to vote on this ordinance. A few bad apples or slumlords have ruined it for those of us who own rentals. Many longtime rental owners manage their own properties as they were their former homes and they kept them to supplement their income, they are not big corporate giants that want to take advantage of renters. If this ordinance passes, it could cause irreversible damage to individual home owners. With the rules that Mary Salas is recommending, it will cause much more damage then good. We feel Mary Salas is trying to push this down the throats of the Community without proper research because she is on her way out of office soon! She is trying to leave a legacy which is sure to backfire!!

Kathy Hardy

Using despicable, unfair practices to evict tenants needs to stop in Chula Vista! Unfortunately, greed permeates our society today and some landlords use loopholes in the law to evict our most vulnerable. Chula Vista is already facing a crisis of the “unhoused”. In many cases, this is a structural issue that makes visible the growing inequities in our society. Chula Vista is ready to build a new bay front which many are looking forward to in our town. However, do we want a “tale of two cities” existing side by side, separated by status and rights? Do we want some in our city elevated and others struggling to survive? Policies and inaction have led to this great divide. I’m asking the Mayor and every Council Member to rectify this disparity by standing up for Chula Vista tenants. Vote yes on a no-fault eviction moratorium and keep our most endangered, susceptible and often defenseless housed. Our mindset should be that it benefits all of us to break the cycle of homelessness one person and one family at a time.

Ronald Trotter

This action will harm landlords and tenants. It may lower the availability of houses for lower income families.

Jason Lopez

This will do more harm than good. It will create less rental housing and force property owners to raise rents. BAD FOR CHULA VISTA!

John Malone

As a long term landlord (37 years) consisting one unit, which is located in Chula Vista, I am very concerned about this legislation. It is truly a solution searching for a problem. It is making small landlords question whether being a landlord in Chula Vista is worth the capital invested with so many restrictions. I take pride in maintaining a dwelling I would want to live in, and I treat tenants in the manner I would want to be treated. But the regulations have me very seriously considering exiting the market. Thank you, John Malone

Eric Sutton

This ordinance will increase the cost and time to renovate the aging housing stock in Chula Vista. The Housing Element of the General Plan adopted in 2021 states that "almost half (48 percent) of existing housing citywide is 40 years or older" and "20 percent is 50 years or older and is likely to require major repairs."

Carlos

Rental housing providers are not to blame for the lack of available housing supply and rising housing costs. The city is shifting blame to existing housing providers. Chula Vista’s population is expected to jump 40 percent by 2050. To meet the state-mandated requirements by 2029, the city must build over 11,000 units. This ordinance will likely deter investment in new rental housing. Rental housing stakeholders are willi

Mark Schiffman

Years ago like many young couples my wife and I worked so we could build a future for our family. One part of that was to save for a down payment for an apartment in Chula Vista for retirement income. For years the building produced modest if any return, now it is finally providing for us. We take care of our tenants and property, virtually no evictions, no dramatic rent increases, good maintenance few complaints. I'm sure that there are many like us. There are volumes of laws in effect already to protect tenants. If there is a bad landlord enforce the laws on the books. More, like this ordinance, are not helpful if you want to build housing stock and productive Landlord Tenant relationships. We would never consider owning and providing housing in cities that frustrate the business of being a landlord. I hope Chula Vista does not become one of those cities. Please DO NOT PASS THIS ORDINANCE; FOCUS ON PROVIDING MORE HOUSING STOCK AND ENFORCING THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS.

John Modlin

This ordinance is a solution looking for a problem. Taking away the rights of a property owner in favor of a resident borders on illegal. By creating an ordinance that takes a way property owner rights, you will create an environment where you will have less property owners, and therefore less housing opportunity. Please think of the long term ramifications of this ordinance and what it will do for the housing stock in Chula Vista.

Liane Wassinger

As an onsite residential manager, I am respectfully requesting that you reject the proposed Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. This ordinance has been rushed.

Alyssa Davies

Please oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista.

charles knoepfli

As a owner and property manager - what i have seen with the covid mandates , no fault evictions is that the good tenants suffer because you cant evict bad , disruptive tenants !!! It is impossible to clean house when you have drug , or disrupted tenants . Owner protection is not only in place for owners but it is for good tenants , families ect. There is always going to be improper landlord's , there are laws on the books to protect tenants already . if you feel you need to do something , how about dormitory housing with supervision , showers and beds for homeless !! get them off the streets and help them succeeded . Regards Charles Knoepfli ,

Cheryl Raya

What property tax cut are you willing to give the landlords of Chula Vista if this ordinance is passed..You raise our taxes yet we are not able to improve our older uncompetitive units to keep up. You are over-reaching and not being fair. Modify regulations to invite more multi-family building. Keep this up and there will be no improvements or tenant accommodations. Properties will lapse into dis-repair. Chula Vista will no longer be a competitive place to live. Is that the reputation you want? Especially since so many city improvements are planned for the future.

Cheryl Raya

Chula Vista needs to take its place as a competitive, quality and inviting place to live. Landlords must constantly upgrade to keep pace with the new construction market in nearby Otay Ranch, Eastlake. This ordinance will prevent landlords from upgrading their properties for quality housing.

Alta Gray

Bad tenants can bring down the whole community and they are already so hard to deal with. Please don't make it impossible.

Sean Bascom

Rent control in all forms only exacerbates housing issues. Look at the most expensive markets in the country such as San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles. Rent control has only limited housing options and made housing vastly more expensive. I encourage leadership and staff to study the multitude of academic and private research papers that show rent control is a failed policy that does not address what it intends to and only make problems worse! Thank you for your consideration.

Karen Hernandez

I find this so outrages and insulting for all the frontline staff who are the ones that will take the brunt of the outcome this would result in. If this is to pass it would only cause renters to take full advantage of this "option" to pay all while breaking the lease they have signed which are legally binding. This would only cause more damage than good on both sides between renters and owner/management. Renters would be allowed to demand everything, only to have management comply without a say and to pay fully out of their pockets and not be able to ask for the agree payment to continue to service the renter, without being accused of harrasment. How does this make any sense? We need to find a neutral ground that not only protect the renters but also provide protections for the owner as wel, in order to continue to run the housing business. If renters refuse to pay, businesses would fall, and thid only lead to abandoned homes that would more than likely be torned down, causing renters be removed from their homes, and to have building be placed over the adanboned land for the price to be even higher then they are now. This would be an never ending cycle that would never end nor have anyone to benefit.

Anadarinka

Strongly oppose. Housing is a right, and with a right we need to understand the terms of responsibilities that this includes. Those are in writing, in our leases were you sing and agree. This ordinance is a potential risk to increase housing and living cost for property owners. Landlords should not be prevented from removing a tenant. Neither regulate the frequency and manner to communicate with them. We like to believe that the market rent is determine by the "greedy" property owners, but we never take the time to estimate the cost of maintaining of a property. The financial obligations and challenges that we are compelling in order to offer quality housing. Everyone who’s been paying attention is well aware that here in the second quarter of 2022, inflation is here and doesn’t seem to show any signs of slowing. The vendors scarcity, higher labor and material costs and increased vacancy times are some disadvantages that come along the way. Needles to mention, that the existing programs to relive the rent burden during the pandemic, are useless and hard to obtain. Hundreds of people will see this ordinance as the perfect loophole to skip their obligations. Please use Sacramento as a good example of what his regulation has brought to the table. Owners loosing their rights on their properties, will lead to a cease on investment in property at all.

Todd H

As a small business owner and housing provider, I strongly oppose this over reaching and one-sided ordinance. It is truly a scrambled solution in search of a problem. There have been no studies to assess if there are problems that warrant such a restrictive ordinance or how the law might impact housing availability. - Rental housing providers are being blamed for the lack of available housing supply, low vacancy rate, and rising housing costs and will be required to pay relocation to offset factors outside of their control. - The limitations on substantial remodel ignore the needs of aging housing stock in the city. - The ordinance is complicated and cumbersome, and requires copies of all notices be sent to the city. - Laws and remedies already exist that protect against bad actors; this ordinance is a broad-brush approach that will impact all rental providers. - The harassment section is one-sided and does nothing to protect housing providers from the same treatment. Please reconsider this ordinance and bring all sides to the table together to find answers to our region's housing challenges.

Heather King

We can not tie the hands of landlords across the city for the actions of a few bad actors. Deal with those out of town landlords and move along. One year's notice for improvements will deplete the rental supply as housing owner's will choose to sell rather than deal with these over reaching ordinances.

Celina Tominna

Please oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista.

Julio Molina

There is no way this is helpful to anyone. There are systems in place to help tenants who truly need assistance. All this will do is enable irresponsible renters who can basically do whatever they want and pay rent only if they feel the need to while property owners and employees can't regulate how the property they worked/work hard for is now basically controlled by the City and those who can no longer be held responsible by the lease agreement they signed and agreed to. Think this through before you agree to something that would ruin the rental market. Let's improve America's Finest City and not let it become a sinking ship!

Catharina Herrera

We are a mom and pop housing provider. The new rules will make it very hard for us to stay in business to provide low cost housing to our tenants.

Kristen Guzmán

I strongly oppose this ordinance as I do not believe the government has a right to control others property. After reading the ordinance, there is not enough data proving its effectiveness nor is there enough staff in the CSA & HUD to actually regulate this. It will be a waste of time and money for all.

Richard D'Ascoli

There is no data to support this ordinance. Chula Vista needs to deal with the handful of bad owners and the renters who have been impacted by this 1.5% vacancy rate. At the same time, Chula Vista needs to build more housing.

Amy Rincon

As someone that works for a property owner, I strongly oppose this ordinance. It has become difficult to do our job when we are so limited. In reality, we have worked with and developed great communication with renters who were truly experiencing difficulty. We helped when we could and our renters received assistance. There is a very small group of renters that will refuse to communicate what is going on, avoid or become angry with us when we simply ask and do not pay rent or in some cases do not want to follow the terms outlined in the lease agreement. I oppose this ordinance because it would limit property owners when having to overcome these challenges.

Michele

I oppose this ordinance as it will further cripple the housing supply, which increases housing costs. Landlords should not be prevented from removing a tenant or penalized for improving their property. It is our constitutional right to own, use, and operate property without government interference. Do not implement this ordinance.

James Pellicane

Dear Chula Vista Council Members, Although item 7.2 is very well intentioned it will inevitably create more of a burden for tenants. Please look closely at Los Angeles and San Francisco and do the opposite if you really want to help tenants. Please vote NO on item 7.2. Thank you for all of your hard work in keeping our city safe and clean. Respectfully, James

Robert Wiedman

Measures just like these have been studied extensively and proven that they lower the overall housing stock and quality in a city. To highlight the summary from an analysis on similar regulations done by the non-partisan think-tank Brookings Institute: "Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood. These results highlight that forcing landlords to provide insurance to tenants against rent increases can ultimately be counterproductive. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords’ incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire. A point of future research would be to design an optimal social insurance program to insure renters against large rent increases." The solution to California's housing problem doesn't lie in more government restrictions on housing. The state government already passed rent control measures against the will of the voters just after a referendum where California residents overwhelmingly voted against it (60%-40%). There are better alternatives available such as offering tax credits or housing vouchers to individuals in need.

Floyd I Willis

This will increase business risk for landlords making the screening process for application acceptance and qualification much more stringent for housing seekers with minimal reference credentials.

Joanne Fischer

I oppose and urge counsel members to vote no on this "additional" government ordinance. This ordinance punishes landlords and has the government trying to manage properties and renters. This is causing undue hardship on landlords which may be or in my case counting on rental income for my retirement. I am sure I am not alone in opposing this. I have had long term tenants who are enjoying Chula Vista neighborhoods. There are already protections for both landlord and tenant on the books.

Joanne Fischer

I oppose and urge counsel members to vote no on this "additional" government ordinance. This ordinance punishes landlords and has the government trying to manage properties and renters. This is causing undue hardship on landlords which may be or in my case counting on rental income for my retirement. I am sure I am not alone in opposing this. I have had long term tenants who are enjoying Chula Vista neighborhoods. There are already protections for both landlord and tenant on the books.

Brian Collins

An inverse condemnation suit for just compensation seems appropriate. Rather than spending funds on legal fees, it would be better for the city to support more housing. Eliminating housing fees for builders would help increase the supply.

Gerry A Ranglas

I do not believe that government has the right to interfere with a property owners right to control their property which they own. The City is not the owner of the property. I am ok with giving reasonable notice to a resident to vacate if owner elects to remodel a unit. wants to remodel the unit/or wants to move back into a unit they own. Reasonable notice but not a prohibution on the owner not being able to do these things. Please do not use the excuse of Covid to undermine a property owners use of their property. You can't control in perpetuity the use of property you do not own!! Respectfully, Gerry

Luke Wasyliw

RE - Chula Vista Eviction Ordinance I strongly oppose the recent eviction proposal. The newly proposed restrictions long term will not be good for the community of Chula Vista.

Cindi M Silady

I oppose these ordinances to control private property! It is all wrong. Individual owners should have the say on their properties!

Tina Morton

Rent control will decrease inventory and is bad for Chula Vista. It will be very interesting to see how the mayoral candidates vote on this critical item.

Laila Coucouroux

Please oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista.

Cesar M.

It is about time we see housing as a right and NOT a privilege. Make it hard for people to profit from a housing shortage. A real checks and balance must be added to this awful housing crisis and abuse in rental prices. The lack of oversight and pure greed are driving this rice in rental and housing prices. Regulations is Not an enemy of capitalism but a necessary check so that abuses of power can be checked, and ordinary citizens can live a healthy life and not a life full of debt and burden.

Pamela Robinson

Please stop going after hard earning individuals that have a property to rent to others. There are so many jobs available and you are not encouraging people to get out and get jobs, volunteer or provide charity work that we all need. People need to pay rent and timely. Everyone should work to live and. contribute as much as they can, not take advantage of programs that should be available for only the real needy. Enough is enough. Open your eyes and make people aware that San Diego is productive county and we all need to work to make sure we are doing our part.

Kevin Dougherty

I'm opposed to any further restrictions on owners' real property rights.

Martine A. Hillier

This ordinance is one sided and unfair. The renters do not own the properties where they live; therefore, they should not have more rights than the landlords or owners. Also, if the renters refuse to leave or if the renters will not pay the rent, it is a violation of their contract. In fact, if the landlord or owner cannot pay the mortgage, the landlord or owner can face foreclosure on their property and the renters will be forced to vacate anyway. This is not helping our housing crisis. Please vote No on the ordinance. Thank you, Martine A. Hillier Realty Partners Services

Sean Hillier

It is well-established that when you add regulation to something, you get less of it. We need MORE housing, not less! The State recently enacted protections for tenants by enacting AB 1482. If there are problems for tenants, the City could focus on finding better ways to enforce existing laws, rather than adding more regulations that will reduce our already scarce housing supply.

David Clutts

California has rental regulations in place that already address the rental issues. Adding more constraints to property landlords will cause landlords to sell property to owner occupied buyer further decimating inventory shortages. This proposal cause more rental price increases and unfairly targets property owners who provide housing for the people of chula Vista and San Diego.

Kurt Strauss, Esq.

As a former landlord tenant lawyer, most properties under 16 units are owned by mom and pops (often the majority of the small owners are immigrants). These family owners don’t have traditional 401k(s) to retire upon. Imagine having to give part of your 401k income up every time a new “protection” was initiated. California already has robust protections in place. This proposal smacks of well meaning extremism. Please give small owners relief and reject this proposal, and if not any additional burdens must be shouldered by large, wealthy owners who operate at properties of 16 units or more. This is killing the American dream for so many of my mom and pop immigrant investors who once believed they could retire on stable rental income in California. I am traveling but I have so many horror stories of people with money not paying rent and gaming the system. There must be balance and California already has a robust protection system very favorable to tenants (a good system). This would add legal costs which here are driving up rents for tenants. This hurts tenants. Give landlords and tenants a break, please. Kurt Strauss, Esq. of Kurt Strauss & Associates

Jan Farley

The ordinance as written is overarching, overcomplicated, and unnecessary, especially for the approximately 75% of landlords who are mom and pop owners. There are already adequate protections for tenants in existing law, including continuing COVID restrictions. Small landlords risk criminal penalties for simply miscommunication g with the tenant. There is no way for the average landlord to be able to navigate such a complex ordinance, that would be difficult even for the professional. This will also have the unintended consequence of reducing the available rental stock - as a property manager, I have already had a landlord withdraw their Chula Vista properties from the rental market, rather than risk going afoul of this very complicated measure. This is actually reducing availability for tenants, and will result in higher pricing. Please vote NO.

Frauke Kuo

I have to sell a duplex rental property in the City of Chula Vista. My family lost jobs, housing, income, and financial stability during 2 years of the pandemic. I urgently need the funds from the sale for my family. If I can’t sell the property, we’ll face dire consequences. I am almost 80 years old. I can’t wait for this craziness to end. We need the funds now. Why are the landlords being punished? Why am I as a senior citizen not being considered? It’s my property. I am paying the mortgage and taxes. I should be in charge of what I am doing with a property I’ve owned for decades. This is supposed to be a free country. Edicts are for Communism, not democracies.

Adriana Erni

I oppose of this method.Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. This is not a win-win for all involved.

Denise Gleavey

Please oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista.

Don Eklund

The limitations on substantial remodel discourage reinvestment in Chula Vista aging housing stock. The proposed ordinance will keep tenants in place but over the next few decades the quality of the older housing will continue to decline and eventually be substandard. The hard-working tenants of Chula Vista deserve better. Please oppose this ordinance.

Jesse Manuel

Please oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista as well as make is it tougher for tenants with subpar credentials as landlords will have to weigh the risk of these restrictions.

Carla S.

For over two years, small-time landlords (not major corporations) have been forced the bear the heavy burden of eviction moratoria. Rather than helping maintain stability in tenancies, this is incentivizing more frivolous lawsuits from tenants (in an already overburdened court system) and makes landlords think twice about renting their units out long term and for a reduced rental rate to attract the best tenants possible. Please don't add to the burden we've already felt for too long. As a retiree, these decisions affect my livelihood more than I think government representatives realize.

Irma M.

The volatile rental market would not be improved with increased restrictions. By placing further burdens on the landlords, they will be forced to remove units from the market altogether or make sure they regularly increase rent at the max allowable rate possible (when they otherwise wouldn't consider it because there was no threat of increased limitations.) COVID has placed a very heavy burden on mom-and-pop landlords for the past two years, it is extremely disheartening to see the City is considering prolonging these hardships even more. Please reject this measure.

Sam S.

It is well established that when you add regulation to something, you get less of it. We need more housing, not less. When rent control measures are imposed upon landlords, they become incentivized to always rent at the max allowable rate (which hurts the renter.) The State of California has recently enacted protections for tenants by enacting AB 1482. If there are problems for tenants, the City could focus on finding better ways to enforce existing laws, rather than adding more regulations that will negatively impact our already scarce housing supply.

Karen Washam

The landlord has been restricted from getting rid of BAD tenants and those that don't pay rent for almost two years. You really feel it is necessary to put more restrictions on landlords now? I oppose this ordinance. It is unnecessary. I manage 153 units in Chula and never evict tenants without just cause. Stop this silliness.

Jeff Hans

I Strongly oppose this highly prejudicial action on behalf of the special interest groups behind proposing this act of "rent control" disguised under a different name. Funds have already been made available to tenants via the Covid Relief Fund. The California State budget already boasts a surplus that can be earmarked for relief as needed. Further penalization of smaller landlords is highly prejudicial basically creating financial hardship for one segment of the population in favor of a segment already receiving financial assistance. The vast majority of landlords have already extended a helping hand in many instances to their tenants. This proposal is another example of special interest groups lobbying for prejudicial favoritism.

Gerry Miranda

Protects Owners rights instead. Many property owners may not be able to pay their mortgage due to tenants non payment of rents.

Bernadette

I have 1 rental property which I have kept the rent below market and my tenant has been in the house for many years and it is in need of upgrades. Your proposal would make it extremely difficult to do the necessary upgrades. Please leave the small landlords alone. I am currently struggling as my tenant is again behind on the rent and has failed to pay their trash.

Edmond Vigneau

Dear council members: Let me make my views very simple for those who have a vote on this matter. I oppose this proposed ordinance— for a multitude of reasons. I also realize that you likely don't really care to know the reasons and have made up your mind how you plan to vote. However, for those who remain undecided, perhaps you should care about this: Because there is really only one thing I can do to really be a part of the decision making process regarding this misguided and overreaching legislation ordinance, and because we get the government we vote for, I can participate with my vote and my pocketbook. Please be advised, any council member who votes in favor of the proposed ordinance will never receive my vote. Moreover, I will pledge all my financial resources and my political activism to see that you are never elected to any government body again in the future. It's that simple. Vote for it and be voted out of office...that's our democracy at work !

Pat Russiano

This is an unnecessary ordinance when the penal code covers many of these provisions and the landlords that bad actors should be prosecuted with laws already in effect. The consequences to this ordinance will be detrimental to the rental property providers (some of whom have already liquidated because of the possibility of this passing into law. That in turn will continue to reduce the rental property stock which will detrimental to renters by driving rents higher. It's simple supply and demand.

Stephanie Gatschet

I have been a renter for twenty years, and married into a family that makes their living as independent rental property owners here. It is my firm belief that while renters’ rights are important, those providing housing (carrying the cost and burden of the housing, its maintenance, and liability coverage, on top of keeping up with legislation, rising costs, and aging properties) must not be treated as any less important than the tenants for whom they provide housing. There are circumstances in which it is important for landlords to have the ability to make decisions that are good for themselves and the maintenance of their property. If we lose too many rights with regard to our own properties, landlords will cease to invest in property at all, and tenants will lose in this case as well. Thank you.

Melanie Woods

I oppose this overreaching ordinance.

Robert Vallera

This measure will make it far more difficult for us to maintain our rental housing and replace aging plumbing and electrical systems. We want to operate rental housing that is free from the mold buildup that comes from aging, leaking plumbing and electrical hazards resulting from aging and now-inadequate wiring. Why would the City want to block the rejuvenation of its rapidly aging rental housing stock? Beware the unintended consequences of this legislation.

Mary Myers

Please oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista. You are penalizing the very people that help contribute to a community. Do you expect people to own, upkeep and provide housing to those you can't buy without any profit for their efforts. To infacttake away the ability to be good landlords and active members of the community

Veronica Vasquez

I oppose this tenant protection. It hurts more people that are doing good than it helps. The good citizens of chula vista that have purchased properties and provided a rental property for families for years are being punished when they need to make changed due to life events. It's not fair and it's not acceptable after many years of being landlords and paying taxes. Due the right thing and find a better solution, don't punish the good people of Chula Vista.

Stephen L Gilles

Proposals such as this and the one recently passed by the City of San Diego are severely impacting property owners (landlords). Many middle-income families rely on the added income of renting their properties, and imposing such onerous regulations are hurting the middle class taxpayers of this city. I am adamantly opposed to this action.

Tracy Morgan Hollingworth

Current state law has helped protect renters from increasing rental costs by limiting the percentage and the frequency a rental owner can raise their rent. The states's eviction moratorium along with locally enacted moratoriums, emboldened renters and rent control advocates to try to cancel paying rent but still protect renters from being evicted. Many of the Mom and Pop rental property owners have mortgages on both their rental properties and their own homes and rely on the income for their own day to day expenses. I urge the Mayor and City Council to focus on solving actual violations of the state laws protecting renters and not adding to the over reach of an ordinance that would punish rental owners for trying to maintain their properties and block their need to evict problem renters.

Melo-de Savage

I oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista

Alma Porras

Please oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista.

Berta Calderon

Please vote NO on the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (Item 7.2). Please do not create more challenges or burdens for landlords, especially on a smaller scale (mom/pop) to provide necessary rental housing and to support our own family's needs, especially during this inflation period (e.g., mortgage, home material/repairs, education, gas, food). We are also Chula Vista community residents and Voters. Again, please reject the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

Theresa Acerro

This is a state law. There have been no problems with it so far. Why is the city getting involved? Our code enforcement officers already are having trouble keeping up with things that are bothering people. They do not need more work. The city does not have the time or resources to be interfering with businesses that know the state law and will comply with it. There is no need at this time for a city ordinance. Landlords and tenants do not want or need the city's interference.

Mel McBroome

I oppose 22-0135. Please look at if you own a property and have to deal with all tenants. We landlords go through a lot and use a lot of money. We are the one's helping people that cannot afford housing no the Government. Please vote NO!

Cory Shepard

The City Council proposal is over reaching and will in the long run deter landlord/investors from buying rental property in Chula Vista. This will have the exact opposite effect desired and will limit the availability of rental properties in the City, will prevent property preservation and will reduce tax and other revenue to the City. Yes, cost of rent, interest rates, housing prices are high, but this ordinance is the wrong approach and will hurt tenants, landlords and the City.

Cindi M Silady

Our economy needs to thrive! This proposal would impede growth??

Bridget Potterton

Please oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista.

Ashley Anderson

Item 7.2 Please oppose these recent evictions proposals, which would place far-reaching restrictions on our housing providers! Many of these individuals, especially our mom-and-pop housing providers, have worked throughout the pandemic to support their tenants. These same individuals will be most impacted by the regulations and will be driven out of Chula Vista - only to be replaced by large scale investors. These proposals will prevent owners from renovating their property - creating blight in our communities - and would impose restrictive noticing requirements and costly relocation assistance. These actions will have long-term consequences for the supply of safe and affordable housing in Chula Vista.

Tyler

This will create less housing options for tenants since many potential landlords will decide not to rent out their properties or will turn to short term rental options. As a property manager I've already had a client decide not to rent their home out for a year while they travel just in case this ordinance passes. This is taking a potential single family home that could be used as a rental to now sitting vacant actually making the housing market worse for tenants. Also, I have many Navy clients that would like to return to their home when they have orders to move back to San Diego that do not have 120 day notice to be able to give potential tenants. With every action there will be a reaction. I don't think you are thinking of the reaction of the homeowners if this ordinance passes. This will make our housing crisis even worse than it is now.

Mike Smith

Rent Control is bad for Chula Vista.

Candace Holcombe

As a mobilehome owner and operator, we support the exemption of our space rent/MRL tenancies. Applying these proposed ordinances to mobilehome park residents when they already have the Mobilehome Residency Law, MRL enforcement program (MHRLPP) and Chula Vista’s local Rent Control Ordinance’s protections would be burdensome and confusing. I support the mobilehome park exemption.

Matt Rune

This ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. No study has been done to assess if there are problems that warrant such a restrictive ordinance or how the law might impact housing availability. Rental housing providers are being blamed for the lack of available housing supply, low vacancy rate, and rising housing costs and will be required to pay relocation to offset factors outside of their control. The limitations on substantial remodel ignore the needs of aging housing stock in the city. The ordinance is complicated and cumbersome, and requires copies of all notices be sent to the city. Laws and remedies already exist that protect against bad actors; this ordinance is a broad-brush approach that will impact all rental providers. The harassment section is one-sided and does nothing to protect housing providers from the same treatment.

Report Number: 22-0135

Location: No specific geographic location

Department: Development Services

Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.

• RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  Consider one of the following:

  A) Place an ordinance on first reading adding Chapter 9.65 in the Chula Vista Municipal Code for “Residential Landlord and Tenant Provisions” (FIRST READING)

  - or -

  B) Introduce and adopt an Emergency Ordinance and place an ordinance on first reading enacting a moratorium on no-fault just cause evictions through September 30, 2022 (INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION; 4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) (FIRST READING)

   

8.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS

9.

MAYOR’S REPORTS

10.

COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS

11.

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS

12.

ADJOURNMENT

to the regular City Council meeting on May 24, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

 

Materials provided to the City Council related to an open session item on this agenda are available for public review, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at
or [phone].

 

Sign up at www.chulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council
agendas are published online.