Pacifica, California, Rent Control, Measure C (November 2017)

* Text of measure
* Ballot question
* Impartial analysis
* Support
* Official argument
* Opposition
* Official argument
* Path to the ballot
* See also
* External links
* Footnotes
* More
* Local ballot measures
* State ballot measures
* Local politics

Measure C: Pacifica Rent Control Measure

The basics
Election date:
November 7, 2017
Status:
d Defeated
Topic:
Local rent control
Related articles
Local rent control on the ballot

* * *

November 7, 2017 ballot measures in California

* * *

San Mateo County, California ballot measures
See also
Pacifica, California

A rent control measure was on the ballot for Pacifica voters in San Mateo County, California, on November 7, 2017. It was defeated.

| A yes vote was a vote in favor of limiting the amount landlords would be able to increase a tenant's rent to the base rent plus the Consumer Price Index and placing eviction restrictions on landlords for multi-unit buildings first occupied before February 1, 1995.

|

| A no vote was a vote against limiting the amount landlords would be able to increase a tenant's rent to the base rent plus the Consumer Price Index and placing eviction restrictions on landlords for multi-unit buildings first occupied before February 1, 1995.

|

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Measure design
* 2.1 Limits on rent increases
* 2.1.1 Lawful rent increases
* 2.2 Eviction restrictions
* 2.3 Exemptions
* 2.4 Rental housing commission
* 2.5 Petitions
* 3 Text of measure
* 3.1 Ballot question
* 3.2 Impartial analysis
* 3.3 Full text
* 4 Support
* 4.1 Supporters
* 4.2 Arguments in favor
* 4.2.1 Official argument
* 5 Opposition
* 5.1 Opponents
* 5.2 Arguments against
* 5.2.1 Official argument
* 6 Path to the ballot
* 6.1 City council vote
* 6.2 Interim ordinance prevented by citizen referendum
* 7 Other rent control measures in California
* 7.1 California Local Rent Control Initiative, 2018
* 8 Recent news
* 9 See also
* 10 External links
* 10.1 Support
* 10.2 Opposition
* 11 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Measure C

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 6,640| 60.4%
Yes|  4,354|  39.6%

Election results from San Mateo Office of Chief Elections Officer

## Measure design[edit]

### Limits on rent increases[edit]

Measure C was designed to prevent landlords in certain rental situations from charging a rent price of more than the sum of the base rent plus any lawful rent increases as defined below. The measure would have also prohibited landlords from increasing rent more than once annually, from increasing rent without 30 days' written notice, and from increasing the amount of an original security deposit or other deposit required for occupancy. Under the measure, landlords would not have been able to increase rent by more than 10 percent of total rent paid in a 12-month period except with a successful petition.[1]

#### Lawful rent increases[edit]

Measure C was designed to allow landlords to set the base rent at the market rate and to increase the base rent by the annual general adjustment, equaling the percentage defined in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers as determined by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The base rent would have been defined as the rent charged as of February 13, 2017, or the initial rate charged to tenants who took occupancy after February 13, 2017. Additionally, the annual general adjustment would have been limited to no less than 2 percent and no more than 5 percent. A landlord choosing to forego any rent increases based on the annual general adjustment for up to three years would have been able to implement the sum of all three increases at the end of this period.[1]

### Eviction restrictions[edit]

Measure C was designed to allow a landlord to evict a tenant only under the following conditions:[1]

1. If the tenant were to fail to pay rent
2. If the tenant were to continue to violate the lease agreement after receiving a notice to cease
* The notice to cease would be a written notice alerting the tenant to a violation, giving the opportunity to remedy the violation, and warning of possible initiation of eviction.
3. If the tenant were to continue to allow or to commit a nuisance after receiving a notice to cease
4. If the tenant were to engage in disorderly conduct, including unlawful behavior, disrupting the peace, safety, quiet, and comfort of the landlord or other tenants
5. If the tenant were to refuse the landlord access to the rental unit after receiving a notice to cease
6. If the landlord were to obtain the necessary permits and provide written notice to the tenant stating the need to make substantial repairs on the rental unit to meet health and safety codes
7. If an individual landlord with at least fifty percent recorded ownership interest in the property were to give written notice to recover possession of the rental unit for personal occupancy or the occupancy of the landlord's child, foster child, stepchild, ward, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother, sister, spouse, or partner
8. If the landlord were to file to withdraw all rental units on the property from the housing market
9. If the landlord were to obtain the necessary permits and to provide written notice to the tenant stating that the rental property would be demolished

### Exemptions[edit]

Measure C was designed to apply to apartment buildings first occupied prior to February 1, 1995, exempting the following types of rental units:[1]

* Units occupied by tourists or guests for less than thirty days, such as hotels and boarding houses
* Units in a hospital, medical facility, asylum, nonprofit retirement home, or dormitory at an accredited higher education institution
* Units owned or run by a government agency that are exempt from rent control by federal or state law
* Single-family dwellings
* Other dwelling units that are not multiple-family residencies
* Any two-family dwellings, such as duplexes
* Condominiums, as defined by the council, including townhouses
* Accessory dwelling units
* Units and dwellings first occupied on or after February 1, 1995, as provided in the Costa-Hawkins Rental Agreement Act, a state law passed in 1995 preempting and restricting local rent control laws[1]

More on the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act

The California State Legislature passed AB 1164, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (CHRHA), in 1995. Assemblyman Phil Hawkins (R) and State Senator Jim Costa (D) sponsored the bill. The CHRHA restricts local rent control laws in California to housing units first occupied prior to February 1, 1995. The law exempts housing units first occupied after February 1, 1995, from local rent control ordinances, along with any housing units that were previously exempt as of February 1, 1995. All single-family homes are exempt from rent control under the law, as are condominium units with some exceptions.[2]

The CHRHA also outlines provisions to allow for vacancy decontrol. Vacancy decontrol refers to a landlord's ability to raise the rent of a vacated unit to the market rate when the previous tenants vacated voluntarily. This provision came as a response to local laws in Berkeley, Santa Monica, Cotati, East Palo Alto, and West Hollywood that—until the CHRHA took effect—prohibited some landlords from raising rental rates for new tenants.[2]

View the full text of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act here.

|

### Rental housing commission[edit]

Measure C was designed to create the Pacifica Rental Housing Commission, a seven-person commission appointed by the city council to oversee and carry out the provisions of the measure, consisting of:[1]

* Two city residents in the rentals or real estate businesses
* Three city residents not in the rentals or real estate businesses
* Two tenants residing in the city

Under Measure C, the city would have funded the commission by charging landlords a monthly fee of $19 per rental unit, which could have been passed on to tenants. Landlords would have also been charged a one-time initial fee of $6 per rental unit to fund upstart costs of Measure C, and this fee also could have been passed on to tenants.[1]

### Petitions[edit]

Measure C was designed to allow landlords in compliance with all laws to petition for an upward adjustment of rent that would ensure a fair return on investment. The measure was also designed to allow tenants to petition for a downward adjustment of rent if the cost of rent were above its lawful level, if the unit did not meet health or safety codes, or if the landlord decreased maintenance or services. Petitions would have been heard and decided by a hearing officer, and appeals would have been made to the commission.[1]

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The ballot question was as follows:[1]

“  |

Shall the Ordinance entitled Pacifica Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, and Renters' Rights Act which protects certain tenants of multi-family housing from excessive rent increases and no-fault evictions and ensures that Landlords receive a fair and reasonable rate of return on their investment, be adopted?[3]

| ”

|
|

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Pacifica City Attorney:

“  |

If adopted by the voters, Measure C would adopt an ordinance entitled “Pacifica Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, and Renters’ Rights Act” (“Ordinance”).The Ordinance would both limit the amount a landlord may increase rents on certain rental units and impose restrictions on a landlord’s ability to evict tenants. Certain types of rental units such as single-family homes, condominiums, duplexes, second units, and rental units with an initial certificate of occupancy dated on or after February 1, 1995 would be exempt from all of the Ordinance’s requirements. Other than mobile homes and condominium conversions, the City does not currently regulate the amount of rent a landlord may charge.

Measure C would prohibit landlords from charging rent that exceeds the base rent plus any rent increases implemented pursuant to the Ordinance. The base rent equals the rent in effect on February 13, 2017 (“Base Rent”). Following adoption of the Ordinance, a landlord may increase rent annually by the Consumer Price Index increase (”Annual General Adjustment”). A landlord would be prohibited from charging above the Base Rent plus the Annual General Adjustment unless the landlord petitions for an upward adjustment in rent and any such rent adjustment is approved by the Pacifica Rental Housing Commission (“Commission”). A tenant may also petition for a downward adjustment in rent if a landlord demands or retains rent in excess of any lawful rent authorized under the Ordinance.

Measure C would also prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain just cause conditions exist. Those conditions include: failure to pay rent, breach of lease, nuisance, criminal activity, failure to grant access, necessary and substantial repairs, owner move-in, permanent withdrawal of the unit from the rental market, and demolition of the rental unit. The Ordinance would also require landlords to make relocation assistance payments to tenants under certain circumstances.

Measure C would establish the Commission which would be composed of 7 members appointed by the City Council. The Commission sets the Annual General Adjustment and will hear and adjudicate petitions for upward and downward adjustments in rent. The Commission would finance its expenses by charging landlords a monthly $19 per unit registration fee and a one-time charge of $6 per unit to finance startup costs which fees may be passed on to Tenants.

To be adopted, Measure C must be approved by a simple majority (greater than fifty percent (50%)) of the ballots cast in this election.

A “Yes” vote is a vote to approve the Ordinance and will authorize rent stabilization and restrictions on certain tenant evictions in the City.

A “No” vote is a vote to not approve the Ordinance and neither rent stabilization nor restrictions on tenant evictions will be authorized in the City.[3]

| ”

|
|

—Pacifica City Attorney[1]

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the measure is available here.

## Support[edit]

The Fair Rents for Pacifica campaign was formed to urge voters to vote yes on Measure C.[4][5]

### Supporters[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]

* John Keener
* Evelyn Stivers
* Zenaida Cortez
* Carolyn Jaramillo
* Jerome Foley

The San Mateo County Democrats endorsed this measure.[6]

### Arguments in favor[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]

“  |

VOTE YES ON MEASURE C

Preserve our Pacifica Community

Stop Evicting Families

Many Pacifica apartment tenants have recently had very large rent increases that they can’t afford. Some of our neighbors have become homeless or have had to move away. Some have been unjustly evicted or face eviction in the very near future.

A YES VOTE on Measure C will: • Stabilize rents for apartments and make increases predictable • Protect vulnerable people from losing their housing and being separated from family and community support • Establish basic rights for apartment renters • Stop extreme rent increases and unjust evictions • Ensure a fair rate of return for apartment owners • Be paid for by a small monthly fee on apartments, not the city budget

Measure C does not apply to single-family homes, in-law units, duplexes, condos or townhouses. It only applies to apartment buildings built before 1995.

Measure C limits rent increases for apartments from 2% to 5% per year. Apartment owners may petition for greater increases.

Measure C prevents evictions from apartments except when there is a just cause, such as nonpayment of rent.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE C

Measure C was written by the City Attorney and put on the ballot by the Pacifica City Council.

Don't be misled by the real estate industry's false claims!

Visit us at www.FairRents4Pacifica.org or on Facebook to learn the facts.

Vote Yes on C to keep seniors, working families, and children from losing their homes! [3]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

The No on Measure C campaign was formed to urge voters to vote no on Measure C.[7][8]

### Opponents[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]

* Donna Wagner
* Kathleen Moresco
* Roy Stotts
* Susan Velone
* David Ahlquist

### Arguments against[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]

“  |

Measure C is a hidden tax on homeowners. Vote No.

Pacifica is already in poor financial shape. Measure C will further burden our City's finances with huge new legal fees. Backers of Measure C even admit that Pacifica taxpayers will foot the bill.

A huge new government bureaucracy is established under Measure C. This unelected body is not accountable to taxpayers and has an unlimited budget and a direct pipeline into the City's General Fund.

Measure C will degrade our neighborhoods:

It will allow up to 16 people to live in a 900 square foot — 2 bedroom apartment, along with all of their cars parked in our neighborhoods. It will make it nearly impossible to evict problem tenants from our neighborhoods. Those who engage in dangerous activities, harass or disrupt their neighbors, deal drugs and brandish weapons are virtually given lifetime leases.

Measure C will impact single-family homes in Pacifica. Backers of Measure C are working behind the scenes to include single-family homes. Measure C can be changed at any time by the city council to include single-family homes, without voter approval.

Economic experts contend that Measure C could cost Pacifica closer to $2,000,000. Yet, Measure C ONLY raises $500,000 a year. Where's the other $1,500,000 coming from? City services: street repair, police, fire, parks, and beach clean-up are all in danger of being cut. And, when the

City of Pacifica can't cut enough of our city services, Pacifica taxpayers will be saddled with the bill.

Vote No. www.No-MeasureC.com [3]

| ”

|
|

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

### City council vote[edit]

On May 8, 2017, the Pacifica City Council voted 4-1 to call for a special election on November 7, 2017, and to present voters with Measure C. Mayor Mike O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tempore John Keener, council member Sue Digre, and council member Deirdre Martin voted in favor of this motion, while council member Sue Vaterlaus opposed it. [9]

### Interim ordinance prevented by citizen referendum[edit]

An interim ordinance that would have imposed restrictions on rent increases and tenant evictions, Ordinance No. 814, was approved by a 3-2 vote at a city council meeting on April 10, 2017. The ordinance, which was set to take effect on May 24, 2017, contained similar provisions to Measure C, including the provision to limit rent increases by the Consumer Price Index. However, prior to this date, citizens filed a successful referendum petition that prevented the interim ordinance from taking effect. Ordinance No. 814 was officially repealed on August, 14, 2017.[10][11]

## Other rent control measures in California[edit]

See also: Local rent control on the ballot

In 2016 and 2017, the following rent control measures were on the ballot in California:

* Santa Rosa, California, Rent Control Veto Referendum, Measure C (June 2017) d
* Alameda, California, Rent Control City Charter Amendment, Measure M1 (November 2016) d
* Alameda, California, Rent Stabilization Ordinance Adoption, Measure L1 (November 2016) a
* Burlingame, California, Rent Control, Measure R (November 2016) d
* East Palo Alto, California, Rent Control Law Revisions, Measure J (November 2016) a
* Humboldt County, California, Mobilehome Rent Stabilization, Measure V (November 2016) a
* Mountain View, California, Rent Control City Charter Amendment, Measure V (November 2016) a
* Mountain View, California, Rent Stabilization Tenant-Landlord Dispute Ordinance, Measure W (November 2016) d
* Oakland, California, Just-Cause Eviction Requirements and Rent Increase Approval, Measure JJ (November 2016) a
* Richmond, California, Rent Control, Measure L (November 2016) a
* San Francisco, California, Increased Income Qualifications for Affordable Housing, Proposition U (November 2016) d
* San Mateo, California, Rent Control, Measure Q (November 2016) d

### California Local Rent Control Initiative, 2018[edit]

In October 2017, Michael Weinstein, Elena Popp, and Christina Livingston filed  a rent control initiative targeting the 2018 ballot in California. The California Local Rent Control Initiative was designed to repeal the  Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a statewide law prohibiting local governments from enacting rent control on buildings built and occupied after February 1, 1995.

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Pacifica Local rent control Measure C. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Pacifica, California, Rent Control, Measure C (November 2017) - Google News

## See also[edit]

Local measures

* Local measures in 2017
* Local rent control ballot measures

* San Mateo County measures

California

* November 7, 2017 measures in California
* Local ballot measures, California
* Pacifica, California

News and analysis

* State and local preemption conflicts
* Measures advancing national agendas

|
|

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* San Mateo County Elections Office website

### Support[edit]

* Fair Rents for Pacifica website
* Fair Rents for Pacifica Facebook

### Opposition[edit]

* No on Measure C website
* No on Measure C Facebook

|

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 Shape the Future, "Resolution No. 23-2017," accessed September 20, 2017
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 California Apartment Association, "Rent Control: A General Overview of California’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act," June 2017
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
4. ↑ FairRents4Pacifica, "Home," accessed October 14, 2017
5. ↑ The name of the support committee is FairRents4Pacifica (using the number "4" instead of the word "for").
6. ↑ San Mateo County Democrats, "Endorsements for November 2017 Election," September 22, 2017
7. ↑ Facebook, "No on Measure C," accessed October 18, 2017
8. ↑ The No on Measure C campaign was paid for by two committees: the No on C, Pacifica Coalition for Housing Equality committee and the Stop the Hidden Tax, No on C committee
9. ↑ City of Pacifica, "Resolution 2215," accessed October 5, 2017
10. ↑ City of Pacifica, "Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction," accessed October 5, 2017
11. ↑ KQED News, "Pacifica City Council Approves Temporary Rent Control Ordinance," April 12, 2017

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy