TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ADAM PIRRIE, CITY MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2025
Reviewed by:
City Manager: AP
SUBJECT:
Title
PROVIDE DIRECTION ON TENANT PROTECTION MEASURES, INCLUDING: (1) TENANT ASSISTANCE; (2) INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF AN ANTI-HARASSMENT ORDINANCE; (3) DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND MEDIATION SERVICES; AND (4) A LOCAL RENTAL REGISTRY (FUNDING SOURCES: GENERAL FUND AND AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) FUND)
Body
SUMMARY
In April 2024, the City Council approved the following work plan item for the 2024-26 budget cycle:
Continue to explore and promote resources for people experiencing housing instability and/or displacement, including:
• The feasibility of implementing a Claremont Rental Registry and rent stabilization;
• Provide rental assistance/incentives to eligible property owners and tenants through the Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program;
• Consider adding self-governing “anti-harassment” language to the City’s Just Cause Eviction Ordinance; and
• Consider funding “dispute resolution” and/or “mediation” services to address housing provider (sometimes referred to as “landlord”)/tenant disputes.
As such, staff has prepared this report to:
• Provide an update on the Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program to the City Council, and to seek direction from the City Council regarding the future of the City’s program considering a potential permanent funding source for rental assistance through Los Angeles County’s Measure A.
• Present the City Council with a draft “Anti-Harassment” Ordinance. The draft Ordinance would create a new standalone chapter in the City’s Municipal Code that applies to all residential renters and landlords in Claremont, not just those subject to the City’s existing Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. If a majority of the City Council would like to adopt this Ordinance, the City Council can introduce and conduct a first reading of the Ordinance.
• Provide the City Council with cost estimates related to “dispute resolution” and/or “mediation” services to address landlord/tenant disputes in Claremont and receive policy direction from the City Council to determine if these are contract services that the City should provide at no cost to Claremont renters and landlords.
• Provide a Rental Registry Feasibility Analysis to the City Council, and to seek policy direction from the City Council regarding the establishment of a Rental Registry. One potential purpose of a Rental Registry is to gather data needed to evaluate whether to adopt and implement rent stabilization measures; however, a rent stabilization ordinance is not being presented to the City Council for its consideration at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council:
A. Receive an update and provide direction to staff regarding the Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program;
B. Consider introducing for first reading and that reading by title only AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 8.35 (“PROHIBITION OF TENANT HARASSMENT”) TO TITLE 8 (“HEALTH AND SAFETY”) OF THE CLAREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING THE HARASSMENT OF TENANTS;
C. Provide policy direction to staff regarding funding for “dispute resolution” and/or “mediation” services to address landlord/tenant disputes; and
D. Provide policy direction to staff regarding the implementation of a Claremont Rental Registry.
Each of the items above are policy decisions for the City Council. Staff is not making a recommendation (positive, negative, or otherwise) on any of these items.
Body
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the recommendation, there are the following alternatives:
A. Request additional information from staff.
B. Request changes to the draft Anti-Harassment Ordinance. Depending on the nature and scope of the changes, this may require this item be continued to a future City Council meeting.
C. Take no action on one or more of the above-listed items.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
The staff cost and legal fees to conduct research and prepare this report are estimated at $7,000 and are included in the operating budget of the Administrative Services Department.
If the City Council pursues any of these measures, there may be significant additional costs related to staff time. Additionally, legal fees would be billed hourly at the contract rate as a special legal service.
ANALYSIS
Background
On January 1, 2020, the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) established an annual rent increase cap of five percent plus inflation, or ten percent, whichever is lower. AB 1482 also prohibits evictions without “just cause” (as defined). However, AB 1482 contains numerous exceptions. One of those exceptions allows owners to evict tenants in order “to demolish or to substantially remodel” a rental unit. This report refers to these as “substantial remodel evictions.” After the tenancy is terminated, the owner can raise rent on the newly-remodeled unit in excess of AB 1482’s rent cap.
In 2022, several Claremont residents who are long-time renters in large apartment complexes reported that their landlords were threatening to evict them so that they could “substantially remodel” their units and raise rents. In response to these concerns, at its regular meeting on October 25, 2022, the City Council approved an urgency ordinance and a regular ordinance that placed a six-month temporary moratorium on certain “no fault” residential evictions due to a property owner’s intent to substantially remodel the tenant’s unit in the City of Claremont. At that time, the City Council also directed staff to conduct stakeholder and community outreach to gather feedback on additional tenant protection ordinances (i.e. permanent no fault eviction and rent stabilization ordinances).
On April 25, 2023 and May 9, 2023, the City Council received reports and presentations from staff regarding two tenant protection ordinances (a “Just Cause Eviction” Ordinance and a “Rent Stabilization” Ordinance) as well as a proposed Temporary Rental Assistance Program. On April 25, 2023, the City Council approved the Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program. On May 9, 2023, the Claremont City Council approved a first reading and introduction of a “Just Cause Eviction” Ordinance (codified in Chapter 8.34 of the Claremont Municipal Code) and chose not to pursue a “Rent Stabilization” Ordinance at that time.
The City Council provided the following additional direction during the May 9 meeting:
• The City Council requested that the potential inclusion of “anti-harassment language” in the City’s Just Cause Eviction Ordinance be further considered after outreach to housing providers and tenants. As such, the City Council directed staff to conduct stakeholder outreach and to return to the City Council at a later date with a recommendation.
• The City Council requested that staff present cost options and additional information during their City Council Priorities/Budget Discussion for the 2024-26 budget cycle pertaining to the feasibility of additional staffing/programming associated with the collection and management of Claremont-specific rental housing data.
Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
On May 23, 2023, the Claremont City Council adopted a “Just Cause Eviction” Ordinance, which went into effect on June 22, 2023. The ordinance is written to incorporate and be identical to AB 1482’s just cause for eviction provisions except it provides heightened tenant protections for substantial remodel evictions and higher amounts of relocation assistance in the event of a no-fault eviction. Properties with nine or fewer units are exempt from this ordinance. Key components of this ordinance include:
• The definition of “substantial remodel” is narrowed to work that is necessary to bring the rental unit into compliance with applicable codes and laws affecting the health and safety of tenants in the unit/building.
• Requires property owners to obtain building permits before they can evict a tenant for a substantial remodel. Further, the cost of the substantial remodel work must be valued at a minimum of six times the cost of the tenant’s monthly rent.
• Requires property owners to provide tenants with copies of the building permits and provide tenants with a detailed scope of work confirming that the work qualifies as a substantial remodel that cannot be completed within 30 days.
• Increases the amount of relocation assistance property owners must provide tenants in connection with a no-fault eviction (three months’ rent).
KEY DECISION #1 - Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program
On April 25, 2023, the City Council voted to allocate $1 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding to fund the Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program. Due to the high demand for rental assistance, on April 23, 2024, the City Council voted to allocate an additional $680,000 towards the program. The additional $680,000 is a portion of the $3.4 million in proceeds from the sale of the 451 W. Arrow Highway property, which represents a twenty percent “set-aside” for affordable housing. This program is temporary in nature and will conclude when the $1,680,000 is exhausted, unless the City Council directs otherwise.
Since the program’s inception, rental assistance has been provided to over 200 Claremont households. In the first program cycle (July 1, 2023 - June 30, 2024), the total amount expended was $354,967. As of January 31, 2025, $347,025 has been spent during the second cycle (July 1, 2024 - June 30, 2025), with several additional applications in the process of being reviewed. Due to the program’s success, significant staffing resources have been required to review applications, meet with applicants, and process payments. When staff provided a program update to the City Council in April 2024, the conservative estimated cost of staff time spent on this program was $65,000. Since then, 150+ renewals were processed for Program Cycle 2, and applications continue to be processed on an ongoing basis.
Additionally, staff have spent a significant amount of time with program applicants and prospective program applicants to answer questions about the application process, assisting with filling the applications out, and corresponding with property managers and housing providers. The current estimated cost of staff time, to date, is well over $150,000. In addition to emergency rental assistance payments, 150+ subsidy payments are issued each month, which has resulted in an approximate 20-25 percent increase in workload for Accounts Payable staff alone. While staff can maintain the current program without the need for additional staff positions, staff does not have the capacity to take on additional programming without creating new staffing positions and hiring qualified candidates to fill those positions.
LA County voters recently approved Measure A, which is a ½ cent sales tax Countywide that is anticipated to generate over $1 billion annually. It is staff’s understanding that the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA) has been tasked with developing guidelines for a permanent rental assistance program using Measure A funds, which would be administered at a regional level (e.g., through the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments). It is anticipated that these program guidelines will be developed and implemented within the next three to six months.
Due to the temporary nature of funding towards the Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program, if the City Council is interested in transitioning program recipients from the City’s program to the permanent County-funded program, staff recommends the following:
• Continue to offer emergency rental assistance through the Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program.
• Instead of accepting new applications for monthly rental assistance subsidies, provide information to interested parties on how they can enroll in the permanent County-funded rental assistance program (once such information becomes available).
• Continue to provide monthly subsidies for enrolled tenants through Program Cycle 3 (7/1/25 - 6/30/26) of the Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program, while simultaneously providing information to those tenants on how they can enroll in the permanent County-funded rental assistance program (once such information becomes available).
If the City Council is not interested in transitioning tenants to the permanent County-funded program and would instead like to maintain status quo of our existing temporary program, staff will conclude the program when the $1,680,000 is exhausted.
Staff has identified the following as “Key Decision #1,” for which direction will be sought during the February 11 City Council meeting: Should the Claremont Temporary Housing Stabilization and Relocation Program be phased out once LACAHSA establishes a permanent rental assistance program funded by Measure A?
KEY DECISION #2 - Anti-Harassment Ordinance
In June 2023, at the direction of City Council, staff invited community stakeholders to meet and discuss a potential Anti-Harassment Ordinance. The following representatives participated in said meeting:
• Lydia Hernandez on behalf of Claremont Tenants United
• Allison Henry on behalf of SGV Tenant Alliance
• Zach Courser on behalf of Housing Claremont
• Bill Ruh on behalf of Citrus Valley Association of Realtors
• Matt Buck on behalf of the California Apartment Association
• Max Sherman on behalf of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
• Katie Wand, Deputy City Manager
• Alisha Patterson, City Attorney
While the intent of the meeting was to discuss the framework and substance of an Anti-Harassment Ordinance on a conceptual level and to work toward recommendations that could be shared with the City Council, it was clear that the stakeholders recommended a lot more work should be done before an ordinance could be presented to the City Council. There was discussion surrounding the use of mediation services (in lieu of an Anti-Harassment Ordinance); the potential need to survey Claremont’s rental housing community (i.e., reaching out to housing providers and tenants throughout Claremont for feedback to determine local needs); and the potential need to conduct more research on other cities’ Anti-Harassment Ordinances and associated enforcement processes/staffing structures.
Given that the City does not currently have the staff capacity, nor does the City have any “expert” housing program staff positions to dedicate to this large effort, on March 12, 2024, staff recommended against pursuing a version of an Anti-Harassment Ordinance that would require staff administration, oversight, and enforcement (e.g., an ordinance that required dedicated City personnel to resolve disputes between tenants and housing providers). Instead, the City Council directed staff to draft a self-governing Anti-Harassment Ordinance that the City Council could consider adding to the City’s Municipal Code. The draft “Anti-Harassment” Ordinance, which can be found in Attachment A, would be a new standalone chapter in the City’s Municipal Code so that the Ordinance would apply to all renters and landlords in Claremont, not just those subject to the City’s existing Just Cause Eviction Ordinance.
Existing Laws that Protect Tenants from Harassment
There are many existing State laws that protect tenants from harassment and retaliation. A non-exhaustive summary of some of these laws is set forth below.
• California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
o Protects tenants from harassment based on the tenant’s protected characteristic (actual or perceived). Protected characteristics include: race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, mental or physical disability, sex (including pregnancy), gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, marital status, familial status, source of income, or military or veteran status.
§ Two types of harassment:
• (1) Quid pro quo - an unwelcome request or demand that a person engage in conduct as a condition of obtaining or maintaining housing or housing-related services (e.g., offering a rental unit in exchange for sexual favors),
• (2) Hostile environment - unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of a dwelling, housing opportunity, or housing-related services or facilities (e.g., repeated use of racial slurs).
o Protects tenants from retaliation for exercising their rights under California fair housing laws or aiding or encouraging someone else in doing so.
o Housing providers are also required to protect tenants from harassment from the housing provider’s employees, contractors, agents, and third parties, including other tenants and guests of other tenants. If a housing provider knows or should have known about the harassment, the housing provider must take prompt action to correct and end the harassment.
o The Civil Rights Division (CRD) of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has a “Harassment Prevention Guide <https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/AkHBCM7n37IvRPyhkhzS8uKFo?domain=calcivilrights.ca.gov>” (Sept. 2022) available online.
o Repercussions for Violations
§ Tenant can file complaint with HCD’s CRD, and CRD may investigate and enforce.
§ Tenant can file a private civil action against the housing provider and recover actual damages and punitive damages and obtain injunctive relief (i.e., a court order that requires the landlord to do something or stop doing something).
o Key Limitation - FEHA generally only protects tenants from harassment directed at them because of a protected characteristic (e.g., race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.). If a housing provider is harassing a tenant for reasons that have nothing to do with this, then the conduct is likely outside the scope of FEHA.
• Unruh Civil Rights Act - Also protects tenants from harassment based on the tenant’s age, citizenship, primary language, and immigration status (among other characteristics covered by FEHA).
• Civil Code § 1940.24
o Unlawful for housing providers to harass tenants with the intent to terminate the tenancy.
o Actions that qualify as harassment:
§ Stealing from the tenant.
§ Committing extortion (wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right to get the tenant to give consent to something the tenant doesn’t want to do)
§ Using, or threatening to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct in a manner that interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rental unit.
§ Entering the tenant’s rental unit without advance notice, tenant’s consent, or an emergency.
o Repercussions for Violations - Tenant can file a private civil action against housing provider and recover civil penalties ($2,000 per violation).
• Civil Code § 789.3
o Unlawful for housing providers to disconnect utilities, change the locks, remove doors/windows, or remove a tenant’s belongings with the intent to terminate the tenancy.
o Repercussions for Violations - Tenant can file a private civil action against landlord and recover actual damages and civil penalties (up to $100 per day per violation with the floor for statutory penalties starting at $250 per cause of action).
• Civil Code § 1954
o Except in cases of emergency, a housing provider cannot enter a tenant’s unit without reasonable advance notice or the tenant’s consent.
• Breach of Contract
o Harassment may violate the terms of the lease agreement. For example, if the lease says the rental unit comes with a parking spot and the housing provider takes the parking spot away to harass the tenant, then the tenant may have a breach of lease claim against the housing provider.
o Repercussions for ViolationsTenant can file a private civil action against housing provider and recover actual damages and, potential, specific performance of the terms of the lease.
Staff has identified the following as “Key Decision #2,” for which direction will be sought during the February 11 City Council meeting: Does the majority of the City Council want to adopt the Anti-Harassment Ordinance as proposed?
KEY DECISION #3 - Dispute Resolution/Mediation
Some cities offer dispute resolution and/or mediation services to their residents by way of City staff, City Attorney(s), volunteer groups, formal Mediation Boards, and other third-party providers. Because the City of Claremont does not have any staff who are trained on providing professional dispute resolution or mediation services, if the City Council is interested in offering dispute resolution or mediation services to assist with housing provider/tenant related disputes, staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to pursue a third-party provider. Staff received quotes from three providers, all of whom provide services at an hourly rate between $400 and $425 per hour. It is important to note that dispute resolution/mediation services are not the same as arbitration, as decisions or recommendations made by the mediators would not be binding.
If the City Council is interested in this concept, staff will conduct formal vendor interviews; develop a scope of work with the selected vendor; enter into a professional services agreement; and advertise the available service(s) to the community. As there is no current budget for mediation services, staff would have to bring an item to the City Council, identifying funding and requesting an appropriation to fund a contract. Staff would work with the selected vendor to monitor the contract budget and the mediator’s case load, and would provide an update to the City Council in one year to address the actual usage and to determine whether or not the contract should be on-going.
Staff has identified the following as “Key Decision #3,” for which direction will be sought during the February 11 City Council meeting: Does the City Council wish to pursue a contract for third-party dispute resolution/mediation services, for which the City would pay to provide said services to assist with housing provider/tenant disputes at no cost to the housing provider/tenant?
KEY DECISION #4 - Rental Registry Feasibility Analysis
Background
A rental registry is a database of rental properties that includes detailed information about the property owner and the rental property. Among the information a registry could provide is tenant changes, initial rents, subsequent rent increases and evictions. It could also ask housing providers to provide the names of property owners, lease terms, utilities that are covered by rent rates and reasons for any non-renewal or evictions. Under these kinds of programs, housing providers are typically required to register their properties, pay a fee and submit information about their units on an annual basis. Housing providers have raised concerns with the implementation of rental registries, citing administrative and cost burdens as well as privacy concerns.
Rental registries may be established for the purpose of implementing rent stabilization programs, however, they could also be used for the collection of data to support other affordable housing and tenant programs, to monitor compliance with State laws relating to rent stabilization (i.e. AB 1482), or to serve as a deterrent to landlords who might want to raise rents higher than State law allows.
Below are some examples of cities who have implemented rental registries.
|
|
Population |
Rental Registry Vendor |
Estimated number of rental units in city |
Does the City have rent stabilization that is more restrictive than AB 1482? |
|
Palo Alto |
28,216 |
3Di |
11,754 |
No |
|
Cudahy |
22,657 |
HdL |
5,084 |
Yes |
|
Bell Gardens |
39,263 |
CitizenServe |
7,262 |
Yes |
|
Inglewood |
103,628 |
3Di |
22,471 |
Yes |
|
West Hollywood |
35,358 |
HdL |
18,432 |
Yes |
|
Pasadena |
151,576 |
3Di |
12,802 |
Yes |
|
Pomona |
163,683 |
HdL (program currently on pause) |
18,646 |
Yes |
|
Santa Ana |
310,304 |
3Di |
41,033 |
Yes |
|
Alameda |
75,353 |
3Di |
15,208 |
Yes |
|
Culver City |
40,357 |
HdL |
8,947 |
Yes |
|
Beverly Hills |
32,406 |
3Di |
8,042 |
Yes |
|
Half Moon Bay |
11,105 |
Tolemi |
1,274 |
Yes |
|
Salinas |
159,506 |
Tolemi |
22,794 |
Yes |
Based on the collective experience of other cities who have implemented rental registries, staff secured cost estimates from the following rental registry vendors:
• 3Di
• Tolemi
• HdL
At this time, since staff does not have the authority from the City Council to formally pursue a rental registry contract, formal vendor interviews and contract negotiations were not conducted. Should the City Council authorize staff to procure rental registry software, staff will interview service providers, negotiate a multi-year contract, and make a recommendation to the City Council at a later date to include a proposed contract amount with a selected rental registry vendor.
Software Cost Estimates
The estimated costs detailed in this section reflect the cost of rental registry software only and do not include the cost of staff time or consultant time (for project management purposes), which would be additional required costs. Such costs are described in more detail later in this analysis.
|
Vendor: 3Di |
|
Year 1 Estimated Cost Range |
$81,600 - $87,600 |
|
Year 2 Estimated Cost Range |
$54,180 - $60,480 |
|
Year 3 Estimated Cost Range |
$56,889 - $63,504 |
|
Vendor: HdL |
|
Annual Estimated Cost is dependent upon the actual number of rental units. For reference, SCAG has estimated that there are 4,160 renter households in Claremont, and the City’s Financial Services Department has identified 141 potential “account holders” (based on business license holders who have two or more rental units). |
There is a $15,000 implementation cost, plus $20 per account and $9 per unit that would be retained by HdL. For example, for a 4 unit apartment building, it would be a total of $56 ($20 per account + $9 x 4 units=$36). The “per unit” cost would increase each year based on CPI. Staff estimates annual costs to start at $60,000 and increase each year based on CPI as described above. |
|
Vendor: Tolemi |
|
Annual Estimated Cost is dependent upon the actual number of rental units. For reference, SCAG has found there are 4,160 renter households in Claremont. |
$20 per unit would be retained by Tolemi. Staff roughly estimates the annual cost would be around $83,200. |
In summary, based on cost estimates received from three reputable vendors, annual rental registry costs for the City of Claremont would range between $60,000 and $87,600 in Year 1 and between $54,180 and $83,200 in subsequent years. In the price models proposed by Tolemi and HdL, the annual cost would be based largely on the actual number of rental units. Additionally, it should be noted that at least one-third of Measure A funds will be distributed to local jurisdictions, so there is a possibility that Claremont may have the opportunity to utilize Measure A funding towards a Claremont Rental Registry; however, at this time, the dollar amount that Claremont will receive is unknown.
Additional Estimated Costs
Staff was not able to identify any City that has a rental registry and does not have any designated City staff positions who provide internal and external rental registry support. Additionally, City of Claremont staff spoke with staff from other cities who have rental registries (Burbank, Ventura, and Pomona) as well as rental registry vendors to verify that rental registries are generally not implemented without support from City staff, even when there is third-party consultant support involved, which is rare. Some examples of staff time would include contract management (with the software provider and/or a third-party rental registry consultant); data collection and analysis; public information/community outreach; and customer service.
In addition to staff time, there is the option to contract with a consultant who specializes in rental registry development and management. Most cities structure their rental registries in a way where City staff works directly with the software provider to implement and manage rental registries; however, the City of Pasadena contracted with Bhyv Consulting to assist them with establishing a rental registry and to develop a staffing plan for Pasadena’s Rental Housing Board. The total contract cost was $425,000, which breaks down to an approximate $250/hour consultant rate. Specifically, the rental registration component of their contract (which involved researching rent registry programs; executing a vendor contract for database build; implementation; providing technical support for rent registry; and outreach) cost $250,000.
Summary
At this time, staff is requesting policy direction from the City Council regarding whether or not it is interested in pursuing a rental registry (not rent stabilization). If the City Council directs staff to implement a rental registry, the next steps would be for staff to conduct formal vendor interviews; negotiate a multi-year contract; and make a recommendation to the City Council at a later date to include a proposed contract amount with a selected rental registry vendor. It should also be noted that prior to the posting of the February 11 meeting material, one public comment was received, which can be found in Attachment B.
Due to the high cost associated with hiring a specialized consultant, staff does not recommend that the City Council pursue consultant support for a Claremont Rental Registry at this time. In the event the City Council elects to establish a rental registry strictly for the purpose of gathering data, staff would recommend the addition of at least one full-time position to support the maintenance of the registry. If the registry is established to support additional programs, including but not limited to rent stabilization and enforcement, additional staff may be required.
Staff has identified the following as “Key Decision #4,” for which direction will be sought during the February 11 City Council meeting: Should staff move forward with the next steps to establish a Claremont Rental Registry (as described above)?
Rent Stabilization
In most cities that have a Rental Registry, one of the core purposes of the Rental Registry is to compile the data needed for implementation of local rent stabilization; however, a rent stabilization ordinance is not being presented to the City Council for its consideration tonight. Because a Rental Registry is often a precursor to rent stabilization, staff compiled information regarding previous ballot measures relating to rent stabilization, rent control, and rental housing control for the City Council to consider during its discussion.
Proposition 33 (2024): “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property”
Overview: Proposition 33 was on the November 5, 2024 ballot. If it had passed, Prop 33 would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Cal. Civil Code § 1954.50, et seq.) (Costa-Hawkins). Enacted in 1995, Costa-Hawkins limits local rent control laws in three main ways:
|
First, rent control cannot apply to any single-family homes. Second, rent control cannot apply to any housing built on or after February 1, 1995. Third, rent control laws generally cannot tell landlords what they can charge a new renter when first moving in. Instead, rent control can only limit how much landlords increase rent for existing renters. Source: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst on Prop 33, available at https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/33/analysis.htm. |
By repealing Costa-Hawkins, Proposition 33 would have allowed cities and counties to control rents for any housing. It also would have allowed cities and counties to limit how much a landlord may increase rents when a new renter moves in. Proposition 33 also would have prevented the State of California from taking future actions to limit local rent control. Source: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst on Prop 33, available at <https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/33/analysis.htm>.
Claremont Voter Results
Out of 23,508 registered Claremont voters, 18,845 cast ballots and 17,373 voted on Proposition 33.
Statewide, Proposition 33 failed - 60.0% “no” votes to 40.0% “yes” votes.
Proposition 21 (2020): “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property”
Overview: Proposition 21 would have replaced the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), which as noted above, was passed in 1995. Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. Costa-Hawkins continued to allow local governments to use rent control, except on (a) housing that received a certificate of occupancy after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units with “separately alienable” title, such as condos, townhouses, and single-family homes.
Proposition 21 would have allowed local governments to adopt rent control on housing units, except on (a) housing that was first occupied within the last 15 years and (b) units owned by natural persons who own no more than two housing units with separate titles, such as single-family homes, condos, and some duplexes, or subdivided interests, such as stock cooperatives and community apartment projects. Under Costa-Hawkins, landlords were allowed to increase rent prices when a tenant moves out (a policy known as vacancy decontrol). Proposition 21 would have required local governments that adopt rent control to allow landlords to increase rental rates by 15 percent during the first three years following a vacancy. Source: Ballotpedia.
Claremont Voter Results
Out of 23,465 registered Claremont voters, 19,881 cast ballots and 18,809 voted on Proposition 21.
Statewide, Proposition 21 failed - 59.9% “no” votes to 40.1% “yes” votes.
Proposition 10 (2018): “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property”
Overview: Proposition 10 was an initiated state statute that would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), thus allowing counties and cities to adopt rent control ordinances that regulate how much landlords can charge tenants for any type of rental housing. Proposition 10 would have also stated that a local government's rent control ordinance shall not abridge a fair rate of return for landlords. Source: Ballotpedia.
Claremont Voter Results
Out of 21,512 registered Claremont voters, 15,829 cast ballots and 15,225 voted on Proposition 21.
Statewide, Proposition 10 failed - 59.4% “no” votes to 40.6% “yes” votes.
LEGAL REVIEW
The draft ordinance has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff has evaluated the agenda item in relationship to the City’s strategic and visioning documents and finds that it applies to the following City Planning Documents: Council Priorities, Sustainable City Plan, General Plan, and the 2024-26 Budget.
CEQA REVIEW
This item is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
The agenda and staff report for this item have been posted on the City website and distributed to interested parties. If you desire a copy, please contact the City Clerk’s Office.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
Adam Pirrie Katie Wand
City Manager Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
A - Anti-Harassment Ordinance
B - Public Comment