HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2015.07.13Monday, July 13, 2015
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda = Final
City Council
5:45 PM
1. CONVENE THE MEETING- 5:45 p.m. -Conference Room A
BURLINGAME CIN HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
2. ATTENDEES: City Councilmembers, Supervisor Dave Pine, Bill Lowell of
San Mateo County Housing, City staff
3. PRESENTATION &COUNCIL DISCUSSION -AFFORDABLE HOUSING
a. Study Session Documents
Attachments: Memo from Mayor Nagel
San Mateo County
Matrix
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
5. COUNCIL DIRECTION
6. ADJOURNMENT
Conference Room A
Notice: Any attendees wishing
accommodations for disabilities
please contact the
City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours
before the meeting. A copy of
the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road, from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the
meeting. Visit the City's website
at www.burlingame.org.
Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING -Next Regular City Council Meeting -Monday, August
17, 2015
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO
"CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS"
Any writings
or documents provided to
a majority
of the City Council
regarding any item on this
agenda will
be made available for public
inspection
at the Water Office
counter at City Hall at 501
Primrose Road
during normal business hours.
City of Burlingame Page 1 Prinfetl on 7/10/2015
TO: Burlingame City Council
FROM: Mayor Terry Nagel
DATE: July 8, 2015
RE: Proposals for Renter Relief
In Burlingame we are hearing from many renters who fear displacement due to escalating rents and, in
some cases, have been forced to move. This is a problem throughout the Peninsula and in San Francisco
caused by a large increase in jobs and a shortage of housing, particularly for middle- and lower-income
renters. It is important to have a diverse mix of housing available for workers at all income levels in
order to keep our local economy healthy. If we don't, our traffic congestion - which is already bad - will
get far worse and workers will eventually balk at commuting long distances.
Although 52 percent of Burlingame's residents are renters, our city has only built 13 affordable units in
the past 20 years and has just 29 more in the pipeline. It is impossible for us to require new
developments to set aside some units as affordable (what is known as "inclusionary housing") because
of an anti -rent control initiative approved by Burlingame voters in 1987.
Here are some suggestions for providing "renter relief" that we might consider. The comments in italics
represent feedback from Bill Lowell, Director of the San Mateo County Department of Housing and
Executive Director of the county's Housing Authority, who will be joining us — along with county
Supervisor Dave Pine —at our meeting on July 13. Also included is a summary of all the affordable
housing initiatives that San Mateo County is considering.
Impact Fee
• Developers would pay an impact fee that would be used to subsidize affordable housing.
• Fact: San Mateo County estimates 24 million square feet of office and commercial space will be
built in the next 4 to 5 years.
• Are the Nexus studies by the county nearly completed that will provide the justification for the
fee, based on development and housing needs?
• Could this fee also subsidize transportation improvements in corridors impacted by office and
commercial projects?
These fees make complete sense as a highly significant way that the cities and County can raise funds for
affordable housing. The Impact Fee Nexus Study from 21 Elements (includes Burlingame and the County)
s being finalized for each jurisdiction. I need to check on a model ordinance — we should have one for
everyone. Not sure whether funds can be used for transportation because the rationale for the fee is that
the new development should pay a fee because it is creating additional demand for housing. The 21
Elements consultant Baird and Driscoll, could answer this.
Mediation Service
• An impartial mediator could help resolve disputes between renters and landlords.
• The Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center is interested in providing this service (for an extra fee);
cities might help make it happen. Housing organizations (Housing Industry Foundation and
California Apartment Association) might help fund it, too.
• Would need to research whether this type of service has been effective in other communities,
particularly if the mediator's decision is not binding.
• Alameda and Fremont have something on the books that allows tenants to petition if an
increase goes above a threshold, within a certain number of days. It is not binding, but I was told
that 70 percent of cases are resolved in this fashion.
The County is preparing to contract for a landlord and tenant information and referral service. This
would be a county -wide I&R service. We expect to look at mediation services later this year as a follow-
up item on the Board's Affordable Housing Study Session follow-up list. Agree that we need to look at the
effectiveness of such services in other communities.
Tenant Protection Ordinance
• A just cause eviction measure could require relocation benefits for tenants evicted without
cause.
• It might forbid owners to change the terms of a lease more than once a year.
• It might require them to give tenants more than 60 days' notice.
• It could forbid owners to evict people on hospice or those with an extreme medical condition.
County
Counsel is researching a range
of options for the
Board of Supervisors.
There are certainly aspects
of local
ordinances that could be very
helpful to tenants
that do not rise to the
level of rent control.
Second Units
• Cities could encourage second units in existing homes via an ordinance or a clause in their
Housing Element.
• Cities would also need to ensure that building codes do not create disincentives for second
units.
• The ability to create a separate living space would provide an incentive for people to invite
another person to share their home through a HIP Housing type of arrangement.
• If the homeowner was no longer driving, there would not be an extra car in the neighborhood.
• Second units also would be attractive to older homeowners who don't want to pay the capital
gains taxes they would need to pay if they sell their homes. (I think the reasoning is that they
can pass the entire value of the home to their children through a living trust.)
Second unit ordinances, either enabling them going forward and/or also including some sort of amnesty
for what is already out there, could be very valuable. Other than home sharing programs, 1 can't think of
another way that increases the supply of affordable housing so rapidly and at such low cost (compared
to the $500,000 per unit for all new construction). The County and C/CAG are paying for Baird and
Driscoll to continue their 21 Elements work for the next two years with a focus on implementation of the
recently approved Housing Elements. Second unit studies and ordinances are on the work plan. The
County is looking at connecting its home rehab program with second unit legalizations.
Best Practices 'Seal of Approval'
• Property owners who adhered to a list of best practices would be included on an approved list
that would be publicized.
• Those on the list might qualify for low-interest loans to improve their property, possibly funded
by the impact fee. (This would be more feasible in cities that can cap the percentage of rent
increase each year.)
Interesting. The County is also looking at this. I think a program exists in the South Bay,
However, I am
cautious about any program that might require a lot of additional county/city staff and bureaucracy
without much of a reward for the community. This is probably a lower priority.
O
'6
=
3
O
Ou
n
OLOa
=
o.
3
0
O
m
c
LL
m
m
Q
3
0
0
0
0
r
O
O
O
O
N
O
Q
Q
m
ry
^
-O
L
E
OO
LL
O
C
0
°
al
O
vt
5
r
Q
r
LL
v°
u❑
m
-777
7�
c
21
�
LL
O
Q
\
Q
v�
Q
O
Q
T
U❑
L
v
T
O..
�
y>
v
v
L
i
Ty
i 4d'
O'
❑
O
O
O
O
O
Ir
_
't
v
Y
v
v
E>
o
c
O
1444444
❑
m
o
u1.
3
m
v
{n
u
-°
E1.
c
v
..
C
c
N
s'
v
Qo=It
v
z
d
v
LJ
"�,
"o
c
47
LLL
�I'
;
E
E
a
a
a
baa
__
N
O
O
O
Oi
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
n
�'
ti
N
Q
O
M
N
z
E
i
ti
ti
a
a�
v
v¢
m
v
O
O
.m
J(
O
O
3
v
d
U
m
J
nn
u
m12
x
Q
E
0
0
0
0
E°
of
E
01
oon
'D
!
J
J
E
a
i
Y
W
o
c
c
c
v
m
u
m
c
a
a
o
c
o.
u°
a'•
a
D
a
Q
C
C
en
c•C
C
c
C
-
c
c
c
'c
�.
c
'c
'c
c
J
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
O
J
12
_
a
=
a
a;
d
a
a
a
I
E
O
M
m
Nu
'c
L
O
C
C
m
m
t
l
p_
v
a
D
o
`0
3
0
J
E
>,
p
m
v
0
p
L
>
w
N
6
O
o
v
+
E
0"
m
.3
h0
b0
O
°�'
Y
0
o
a
J
Y
ai
p
c
u
E
V
+�
m
v
o
cn
o
o
o
_
o
w
—
c
v
Q
O
m
a
>
N
L
m
m
N>
v
C
O
N
N
O
C
-0
.�
E
v
n
v
u
0
`m
H
u
vi
v�
a
o
m
m
o
O
m
J
Q
Q
w
C
a
a
a
a
,.
I�
-o
m
_
m
u
m
m
m
N
K
J
N
O
WOm
E
O
�
O
UC9
d
Y
C
C
p
Ou
U
E
o
N
mi
D
Q
C.
to
K
Vl
Z
Q
NI
V
a
d
L
N
I
>
>
I
>'
�
-0
O
.
u
u
�
C
N
>
-
0
-
0
-
w
E
d
a
a
t0
Q
d0
d0
E
I
'^
O
ti
ti
ti
ti',
N
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
co
-p
aw
�
T
C
>
T
T
T
N
0
0
v
v
v
v
o
LL
m
c
p
m
E
E
E
E
�
Vl
to
V1
N
1/T
f0
�
U
...
co
�
Z
—
T
N
bZ
>
.
00
0
u
u
x
u
o
v
v
o
�N
v
m
W
O
R
O
L
<
O
`
aL+
O
—
O
o
c
v
o
=o
v
O
u
m
c
u
o
o'
u
m
z
N
+r
E
v
v
N
N
O
OO
O
0
0
0
7
0
w
O
O
'O
+O'
ci
O
u+
a
�n
rp�
o
L
U
in
V}
a.
L
CC
d
m
w
C
C
o
o
LL
E
c
O
5
v
`oc
moo`
o
`o
c
v
O
u
0
v
U
O
w
v
w
.�
Q
a
m
v
m
m
v
c
v
c
c
m
ra
m
m
-p
o
-p
o
-p
o
o
a
o¢
o¢
o`
o
m
m
m
0
O1
H
�
C
O
VI
V
bO
Q
C
�h
Q
0
3
'0
3
2
O
d
o
s
LL
a
0
0
0
0
0
o
v
Q,
v
v
E
v
E
v
E
uv
N
N
N
N
M'
N
y
E
C
mu
V
41
V
N
V
d
S
N
O
t-Oy0
y
W
O
=
Vl
O
h
—
❑
3
p
❑
c
p
vin..
°'
`n
hv
z
aG
F
v
J
C
O
J
O
3
m
3
3
C
O
C
O
O
O
C
O
=
O
m
N
O
O:
O
O
O
m
O
U
S
V
V
❑
S
2
2
U
S
U
=
S
Y
N
_
C7
y0
m
O
y
T
O
N
O_
N-6
N
m
p
`1
_M
C
N
o�
�00
my
v
o
Q<
co
E
0
°
=
o
LL
m
CO
Q_C
-O
tl0
C
,a_
3
p
O
o_
ff
in
o
o
a
v
E
C
o
n—
o
Y
N00
>'
w
O
i
N
c
o
v
o
T
.«.
n
`v
21
o
m
amyn
v
v
.T
c
3
E
o
ao
c>
o
O
c
-°
>
E
v
ci
v
o
v
o
�n
s
a
in
L
a`
v
m
m
cc
s
❑
.�
v
n
E
o
,..
c
o
N
c
m
Cp
p
u
u
E
N
�
�
T
m
N
V
�
Q
Q
S
Q
tOi
�
❑
Q
K
U
V
2
UU
u
u
v
N
N
N
u
O
N
U
u
E
m
-6
"6
y
y
'O
-6
y
-6
y
y
N
m
v
v
v
v
v�
a
m
�
�
o
o
v
O
v
O
v
o
v
o
v
o
v
v
N
M
V
�I1
lD
1�
W
Ol
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
TENANTS °
®v� TOGETHER(,
Rerre�� RighiS
July 12, 2015
Via Mail & Email
Mayor Terry Nagel & City Councilmembers
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mayor Nagel & Councilmembers:
995 Nadr 9mel.Sude 1202
San fnnriva. fA 9410.1
Phone (415) 495-8100
N. (415) 495.8105
NMI inlo4Menantsh9efM+.org
Weluiie: uirwdenanLLo9elhe[ory
On behalf of Tenants Together, California's statewide organization for renters' rights, I
write in response to a letter dated July 10, 2015, from the California Apartment
Association.
CAA leaves a key factor out of the "perfect storm" it describes: landlords who are
gouging tenants, imposing massive rent increases and displacing Burlingame residents.
These landlords must be stopped through government action.
Landlord self-regulation has never worked to protect renters. CAA has tried to prevent
the PR disaster landlords are facing by urging San Mateo County landlords not to raise
rents over 10% (itself an unreasonably high figure). We applaud CAA's effort to achieve
some modest self-regulation among landlords, yet double and triple digit rent increases
persist.
Nonetheless, CAA doubles down on voluntary compliance as the solution, offering
support for a new City voluntary rent mediation program as if that, rather than
regulation, represents a real solution. The proposed program would have no power to
stop a rent increase or an eviction. Burlingame need only look at Fremont to see how a
mediation system utterly fails to protect tenants. The problem, of course, is that the bad
actors in an industry don't voluntarily comply with anything —they must be forced to
change their behavior.
Rent control is a proven strategy to stop unfair rent increases while protecting a
landlords right to earn a fair return on their investment. Burlingame should overturn
Measure T and adopt rent control.
In the meantime, the city can at least adopt a just cause for eviction law to stop
arbitrary evictions and prevent retaliation. Just cause laws cost the city nothing. The
Courts have made clear that such laws are perfectly legal. CAA offers no explanation for
its blanket opposition to a just cause law. CAA states that it is open to "exploring'
longer notice for eviction, despite the fact that redefining the eviction timeline is
preempted by state law.
Let's be clear: when CAA opposes just cause and rent control, CAA is defending the right
of landlords to impose massive rent increases and carry out arbitrary evictions.
CAA appears open to relocation payments where tenants are displaced for renovations.
We agree that tenants who are evicted through no fault of their own (whether for
necessary capital improvements or other reasons) should be provided relocation
payments. But City policy should focus on preventing displacement whenever possible,
not simply ensuring that tenants have some relocation money as they are pushed out
the door. Relocation payments for "no fault" evictions should be one component of a
just cause for eviction law, as is typical for such laws around the state.
We have no quarrel with CAA's suggestion that the city explore the use of impact fees
to provide affordable housing, but those fees by definition mitigate the impact of the
development at issue. That a developer pays a fee to mitigate the collateral impacts of
its development does not in any way lessen the city's need for tenant protections to
stop the exorbitant rent increases and arbitrary evictions being visited upon current
residents of Burlingame.
We agree that secondary units can provide an additional source of housing, but without
rent control or affordability restrictions on these units, they will have little, if any,
impact on housing affordability in Burlingame.
Finally, we would like to take a moment to commend the work of Burlingame Advocates
for Renter Protections. BARP has been providing critical assistance for struggling
tenants in the face of a well-financed real estate industry that is profiting handsomely
from the status quo and determined to stop meaningful reform. BARP's demands for
renter protections are reasonable, timely, and should be heeded before more tenants
are unfairly displaced from their homes. With skyrocketing rents and evictions in
Burlingame, the time forjust cause and rent control has arrived.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Dean Preston
Executive Director
BURLINGAME ADVOCATES FOR RENTER PROTECTIONS
respectforpeople@gmafl.com
July 11, 2015
Mayor Terry Nagel
Vice Mayor Ann Keighran
Councilman Michael Brownrigg
Councilman Ricardo Ortiz
Councilman John Root
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: July 13, 2015 Special Study Session on Rent Issues
Dear Mayor Nagel and Councilmembers:
Our group is very gratified that the City is working on measures to alleviate the rapid and
painful displacement happening in Burlingame due to the extraordinary economic pressures that
are being visited on the Bay Area.
As the City well knows from the growing testimony of renters over the past year, rent
increases have gone all the way up to $1,000 a month, forcing scores of our low -and middle-
income neighbors to leave their homes. Entire buildings of people are being evicted to make
way for owners who want the very highest earners in their buildings. Children have had to leave
their schools in mid -year. Many families have had to move far away, and parents now commute
even greater distances, leaving their children alone much of the day. Some people have had to
quit their jobs upon being forced out of the area, losing tenure and benefits. Elderly people have
been forced out, which often leads to premature death from the stress, and disabled people
struggle to find new homes. If you read this in the news a couple of years ago, you'd think this
was happening in another country, another state, another city — certainly not here, in our
community.
We have the power to put a stop to the cruel transformation of our city and the
displacement of its people. The immediate need for renter protections is beyond dispute, yet
most of what we hear from our local and state governments are ideas that won't take effect or
make a significant impact until several years from now. Rent stabilization is the singular
immediate measure that will put a stop to the bleeding. And yet we have a 27 -year old poorly
written, self-serving (for some) law on the books called Measure T that is preventing us from
protecting our neighbors and restoring our city's dignity.
Sadly, we find that proposals like Mediation have little muscle to prevent more
displacement. Mediation means nothing if one party holds all the cards. When a landlord raises
your rent $700 and has no obligation to reduce that amount, you feel little hope of trying to
mediate. Renters are told that someone else will pay the increase -- that they are not valued. It is
also our understanding that a mediation program in Fremont is a dismal failure, with only 2% of
all disputes being resolved, and only one of those resulting in an actual reduction in rent.
We do believe a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance would be an immediate and significant
protection for renters. Presently, even if a tenant accedes to an increase of rent well beyond any
previous increases, a landlord can still evict with no justification. The result of enacting such an
ordinance is that landlords can still remove tenants if they have a good reason. If they don't have
a good reason, why should our community allow them to evict people?
We are also relieved that the City is considering Relocation Assistance for members of
our community who are being forced from their homes. In this hyper -economic environment,
having to pick up and move away is exceedingly expensive. Renters now have to pay first
month, last month, and security deposits that can reach several thousands of dollars. Being able
to qualify for suddenly very expensive rents is more difficult because owners are demanding that
a renter earn much more than the average person makes on the Peninsula. Any relocation
assistance must be truly significant in its ability to smooth people's transitions. In addition,
renters need much more than 60 days to uproot their lives.
Impact Fees would be an important policy for Burlingame to adopt, although it is not an
immediate resolution. Non-profit developers generally provide better housing than for-profit
developers who provide BMR units, as for-profit developers don't have a great interest in
managing below-market rental units. We encourage the City to enact this policy.
Shared housing and second units are important options, but extremely limited in their
ability to impact the huge and immediate need for affordable housing. There is a long waiting
list for these units already. They are not viable options for the majority of renters.
We are grateful to you for your willingness to enact proposals to help renters, and
encourage you to enact measures that will significantly help to re -balance our community now
and for the future.
Sincerely,
/s/ Cynthia Cornell
Cynthia Cornell
on behalf of
BURLINGAME ADVOCATES FOR RENTER PROTECTIONS
1228 Floribunda Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Carol Lamont
618 Kingsley Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301-3226
July 13, 2015
Mayor Tent' Nagel
Vice Mayor Ann Keighran
Councilman Michael Brownrigg
Councilman Ricardo Ortiz
Councilman John Root
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Special Study Session on Rent Issues
Dear Mayor Nagel and Council Members:
As Housing Director for the City of Fremont in 1997 I recommended to the City Council adoption of the
ordinance mandating mediation when a resident wishes to dispute rent increases. This recommendation
came after I had formed and facilitated a Task Force to negotiate an agreement with landlords and those
tenants who had been hit hard with high rent increases. After many years of working with landlords,
including partnering with the Rental Housing Owners Association of the East Bay to provide a new 9 -
week Apartment Management Training Series for resident managers to improve management
responsiveness to resident and community needs and concerns, I trusted the RHOA and the Apartment
Association's contention then that they would succeed in getting landlords to make only reasonable rent
increases.
The Fremont City Council in adopting the Residential Rent Dispute Resolution Ordinance, said if
mediation did not work they would once again consider adopting a rent control ordinance to protect
residents from displacement. Since then I have followed up periodically to check on the success of
Fremont's mediation program and found that even after it was strengthened several times, it is a failure.
The best the mediation process offered was additional time for tenants to move out before a rent increase
that they could not afford went into effect. Now I have been told by one of the mediators, who is a long
time resident, that Fremont's ordinance is useless, and that it reflects poorly on the City. He stated the
following to me:
When the Fremont ordinance was adopted, I volunteered to be a mediator. During the next 2
years, I mediated 5 or 6 complaints. While the ordinance requires the landlord or his/her
representative to be present at the hearing, they do not have to present a rationale for the rent
increase. In a couple of cases, I found that the increase was unwarranted based on the
information provided by the landlord/owner. But the mediation finding has no practical impact
on the cases. The landlord/owner does not have to implement the finding and/or
recommendations, and there are no consequences if no action is taken.
I think it is a disservice for tenants who believe that with the City involved, their complaints will
be addressed. There was even one case where the complaint was about the apartment's physical
condition that was a violation of the City's health and safety codes, but code enforcement officers
were not available to take any action. And the landlord threatened the tenant that the rent would
go up much higher if they persisted with the complaint. I never saw or heard of anyone's rent
going down as a result of mediation in Fremont.
I have been informed that an analysis by the contractor administering Fremont's mediation program
documented that during the three-year period from March 2012 - March 2015, the program received a
total of 1,117 calls (932 from tenants, 185 from landlords). Of the 932 calls from tenants, only 19
resulted in rent reductions (2%)."
Surely the City Council of Burlingame can learn from this mistaken approach and provide meaningful
protections for its residents facing displacement from their homes by adopting a Rent Stabilization and
Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance. Tenants Together has drafted a model rent control ordinance that is
streamlined and would be efficient to administer, as well as effective in stabilizing the community.
Sincerely,
Carol Lamont
COMMUNITY
LEGAL SERVICES IN
EAST PALO ALTO
July 13, 2015 Via Electronic Mail
Mayor Terry Nagel
Vice Mayor Ann Keighran
Council Member Michael Brownrigg
Council Member Ricardo Ortiz
Council Member John Root
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re. Proposalsfor r Renter Relief (.Stu(ly Session duly 13, 2015)
Dear Mayor Nagel and Idonorable Members of the City Council,
I write this letter on behalf of Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (CLSEPA),
which provides pro bone legal assistance to renters throughout San Mateo County and has worked
collaboratively with other local governments on housing policy issues. We are pleased that the
Burlingame City Council is considering options to address the current housing crisis. Nearly every
week our office provides counsel to Burlingame residents facing displacement due to exorbitant
rent hikes and no -cause evictions. Indeed, the crisis has reached a fever pitch. There is an urgent
need for local governments to act, and to act swiftly, to protect those residents who have made
Burlingame their home yet live tinder the constant fear of displacement.
CLSEPA lauds the Council for considering a range of policies outlined in Mayor Nagel's
memo. Nonetheless, we believe it is critical to distinguish between housing "production" and
housing "preservation" strategies, Production strategies aim to increase the supply of housing as
part of a long term plan to stabilize housing costs by slowly equilibrating supply and demand in the
housing market. Although production strategies are a necessary part of a comprehensive approach
to curtailing the crisis, they provide no "relief' to existing residents. The reality is that we cannot
possibly build our way out of the crisis. It will take decades to produce a sufficient amount of new
housing to substantially affect housing costs, during which time hundreds i f not thousands of
people will already have been displaced. This is why it is imperative to simultaneously pursue
preservation strategies that protect existing residents and enable them to remain within our
communities during the current crisis. Any credible response to the housing crisis must include
both production and preservation measures.
The only measure in Mayor Nagel's memo that will provide meaningful relief to existing
renters is a Tenant Protection Ordinance, especially insofar as it requires just cause for eviction
and statutory relocation benefits. A just cause for eviction ordinance simply requires that
landlords have a good reason for evicting tenants ('under current law, landlords can evict tenants for
any reason or for no reason at all, so long as the eviction is not retaliatory or discriminatory).
Importantly, even under a just cause for eviction law, owners retain their right to evict "problem
tenants" — every just cause law in the state allows for eviction when a tenant fails to pay rent,
OFFICE Hot KI M-1, 1361 BAY ROAD
9em.5pm f::ARH PALOA1:10 C%94303
f:'Mw.dstpe orp
rfi:(Flsepa orY P 032E
P L5U32d r, 9;2222
creates a nuisance, damages the property, etc. While a just cause ordinance would actually prevent
displacement of tenants in many cases, an ordinance requiring relocation benefits mitigates the
substantial costs that landlords impose on displaced families by requiring landlords to compensate
tenants who are the victims of no-fault evictions. There is nothing in Measure T that prevents the
Council from immediately passing these protections, and other jurisdictions have enacted them as
stand-alone measures without rent stabilization. For example, San Diego has just cause for
eviction ordinance and Mountain View has a robust relocation program.
CLSEPA is deeply skeptical that a Mediation Service or Best Practices Seal of Approval
will provide meaningful relief to renters. The results fi-om Fremont's mediation service, which was
implemented as a watered-down alternative to rent stabilization, are instructive. During the three-
year period from March 2012 — March 2015, Fremont's program received 932 calls from tenants
who received rent increases. The program oras cable to reduce the amotant of the rent increase in
only 2% ofYhose cases. If mandatory mediation programs have proven to be so ineffective at
protecting tenants from rent gauging, we believe a non-binding set of "best practices" has even less
chance to make a difference in the lives of Burlingame renters. Given the City's limited resources,
we do not believe that it is prudent to pursue voluntary, non-binding programs whose costs will
almost certainly outweigh their benefits. Instead, we urge the Council to focus City resources on
quickly drafting and adopting a Tenant Protection Ordinance that includes just cause for eviction
and relocation benefits.
We support any efforts to create a housing impact fee and to encourage the construction of
second units. These policies have proven to be successful in other communities as means to
increase the supply of housing affordable to working and middle class families. However, both are
merely production strategies that will not provide any immediate relief to existing Burlingame
residents at risk of displacement. We ask the Council to pursue these policies, but also to
recognize that these policies cannot function as a substitute for implementing stronger legal
protections for renters.
We appreciate that the Council is investigating munerous solutions to the housing crisis
facing renters in Burlingame. We encourage the Council to consider both production and
preservation policies, though we urge the Council to prioritize the adoption of legally binding
renter protections so that Burlingame renters have a greater chance to remain in their homes
without fear of displacement.
Sincerely,
Dani
Housh'g Attorney
cc: Kathleen A. Kane, City Attorney