Speaker 0: Because remember, price motion carries.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next item is item 19.
Speaker 0: Item 19 is a report from Development Services. Recommendation to receive in FY the 2018 report on Tenant Assistance Policies. Direct City Attorney to prepare a Tenant Relocation Assistant Ordinance and Direct City Manager to take the necessary steps to implement recommendation two through five city wide.
Speaker 9: Okay. Before we start a couple of things. The first is we have a significant amount of public comment on this item that's not just here, but we have about 75 people that are outside with more people coming that all want to speak to this item. And so there's two things. First, like we we always do with large crowds, unless there's any objection from a councilmember. We're going to start at 90 seconds. Is there any objection? Okay, so we're down. We're going to 90 seconds for four speakers. And then the second the second thing is, this gentleman that you have right in front of you here is going to be calling speakers per line. And then after you're after you speak, certainly you're able to come back down again. We'd also ask that there's about 75 folks that want to come in. They'd love to take a seat as well. You can stay there and we'll just bring them in from the outside, or if you'd like, after you speak, you know, to head out or allow someone else to sit. We can do that as well. But the fire department will be doing the crowd control. So please just take your directions from from the gentleman. They'll be asking different rows to go, and you have to speak when you're called for your row. And we're going to go through that process per fire department, and we're going to make sure that everyone that's outside is given a chance to speak. So if you are one of the 75 folks that are outside, I know you can I think they can hear this message right now. We're playing the meeting out there, right, Mr. Modica?
Speaker 12: Yes, we'd have some technical difficulties, but it should be playing.
Speaker 9: Okay. So if you're outside, just please note that you will have an opportunity to speak. Everyone outside will have an opportunity to speak. Okay. So with that, I think we've read the item. We do have a motion. Councilwoman Gonzalez, are we going to go to public comment first? Got it. And I'm doing this. We're going to do public comment first as well. Right? First. Okay. So we're going to go and do public comment once a staff report is complete. And just please follow the fire department directions. So thank you. So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. West.
Speaker 10: Actually, I'm ready. This to Tom Motorcar Assistant City Manager. He's been doing all the heavy lifting.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. West and members of the City Council. We do have a staff report we'd like to go through. This has been an issue that staff has worked on for a long time, for the past year. We'll get into the origins of it. It was we were asked by the City Council to really do a lot of research and to come up with some options for you to consider related to tenant assistance. So we do want to spend a time kind of going through some of that data that we've made available to the community and that we've really looked at over the last year. We've spent some time talking about what we currently do, what state law does, what other cities do, and then we'll get into the recommendations and we have. The way this is structured as a number of options for the city council to really be able to dove into and create a policy if if we're asked to move forward, that meets kind of your needs and the needs of the community. So first of all, I'd like to start about what tonight is and is not so tonight is not about rent control. You're not going to hear that from city staff. We are not proposing that. And we certainly we can talk about, you know, the different policies and what is and what is not. But we are not proposing rent control. Tonight is not about rent caps, so we're not proposing rent caps either. That is a form of rent control that is on the agenda. And what we're presenting tonight is not about just cause eviction. There are significant differences between just cause eviction and what the staff recommendation are. We can talk about that and answer questions as well, but we're not talking about just cause eviction. What we are talking about is tenant relocation assistance and some other policies to assist displaced individuals. So I do want to get into some of the background and why we're even here tonight. So on January 16th, 2018, the City Council directed us to conduct a significant research and come back to you. We were asked to look at policies to support tenants and seniors. We were asked to look at expanded relocation programs, homeownership opportunities. We were asked to look at all the other cities and what they do. We're asked to look at housing preservation and added resources for code enforcement and information on citywide rental rates. And then we were also asked to really meet and conduct stakeholder engagement with both the tenants and property owner groups, and then also to have a meeting of the minds where we bring them together to talk about if there's any common ground. And so in response, what we've done and we'll report to you tonight is we've compiled information on all those relevant state laws and our existing Long Beach tenant assistance programs. We went out and surveyed 115 cities. We started with the top 100 in California and then expanded that as we got some input from the community to 115, both in California and outside of California. We assembled information on senior assistance, housing preservation and local government. We did four separate stakeholder focus group meetings, and then we came back to you with the Comprehensive Report on tenant assistance. It's about 222 pages long. And given the size of it, we actually released it early as opposed to just on the eight day agenda. So that came out early so everyone could digest it. And then what we're here today to do is to give you five policy recommendations for you to consider, but with various options that you can also consider as well. So I want to talk a little bit about existing California law. So just to give us a grounding in what the law is from the state level, which really governs most of of lease relationships. And so there's two types of rental agreements. There's a lease, which is for a defined period of time, it typically is about a year. And then there's what's called a periodic agreement. And that's that month to month tenancy. There are noticing requirements and they're different depending on different triggers. So if you were to get a rent increase of less than 10% annually, you're required to receive a 30 day notice. If it's more than 10% annually, it's a 60 day notice. Similarly, if you're in your unit less than a year and you're asked to vacate your apartment, that can be done with a 30 day notice. But if you are in it for more than a year, that is a 60 day notice. And then there is a three day notice to vacate for an eviction and unlawful detainer, and that is spelled out in state law. Some of those examples are failure to pay the rent, violating provision of lease the rental agreement, damaging the property, and that's for unlawful purposes. And there's a number of things iterated in state law for what that unlawful purposes. So state law goes on and gives some other some other laws that everyone needs to follow. For example, state law already requires relocation assistance, and that's required when tenants are displaced due to code enforcement action or when tenants are displaced due to government acquisition. So if the city were to acquire a building and were displacing people, we would be paying tenant relocation. There are also anti retaliation laws on the books to protect tenants, specifically when they complain against a landlord about unsafe or illegal living conditions. When they complain to a government agency like the city of Long Beach about those conditions. If tenants are assembling and presenting tenants rights collectively, such as through a tenants union, or if a tenant is withholding rent because it's an uninhabitable or an unsafe dwelling unit, retaliation is prevented in all four. So I'd like to get into a little bit of the data as when we went in and kind of research this to give you a sense of what's been happening in Long Beach. And so we did an initial report back in 2017 on rental rates, and then we updated these data to February one, 2019. And so the left chart that you see provides rental data on rental rates, and on the right you're seeing vacancy rates. And so the citywide mean rent in January 2019 for multifamily units of any size was 1418. That's a 2.3% increase over citywide mean rent for the first quarter and a 5.7% increase over 2017. Mean rent, which was 1341. On the right hand side, we look at the vacancy rate, and vacancy rate is pretty important to us because anything over 5% is normally considered a pretty healthy market. When you have over 5%, people have choices. They are able to look for multiple areas and find what makes the right choice for them. When you're under 5%, you have a constrained market and it becomes very difficult and often it is hard to find a place, even any place, when you're under it. And so our vacancy rate has continued to fall. You can see back to 2010, it is as is 2011 is about when it began to dip below 5%, and it's been declining ever since. Last year it was at 4.2%, and now in February, it's actually at 3.8%. It appears to be stabilizing over the last year. But again, it is still very constrained. So we also wanted to present you some information on multifamily building data. And so using business license data, we assembled this information on multifamily rental properties in the city. In the city of Long Beach, we define multifamily properties as four or more, so units that are four or more. That's when you need to get a business license, and that's when we also do housing inspections through a proactive program. It's also the definition that HUD uses for multifamily properties. And so there are 7644 properties in the city, and that equates to 17,017 rental units where there are four or more buildings. A total of 6236 properties contain buildings of 4 to 10. So the smaller units, if you will, from 4 to 10, which is 81% of all rental properties citywide, these properties contain 35,000 units, which is about 50% of all rental units citywide. So as you can see, there's a large percentage of units that are in that smaller 4 to 10 bucket, and then the rest of them are in the 11 and above. So we also wanted to look a little bit about what's happening with sales of our properties here in Long Beach. You know, since 2012, we've seen a pretty incredible growth in sales in Long Beach. And so what you're seeing here is a 277% increase in sales of multifamily units since 2012. The largest is by putting in what we call Class C properties. And Class C properties are those properties that are more than 20 years old and are really in need of rehabilitation and upgrades. So on the next page you see then of those buildings, what are we seeing in terms of permit activity? So what you're seeing in the blue is are apartment buildings that are asking for permits. And in the orange is what you're seeing is all of the permits we are actually issuing to them. So one one building might actually have several permits depending on the number of work that they're doing. So the trend, as you see, follows, what we're seeing with multi residential sales is that they're being sold and acquired. And at the same time, they're also being invested in, which often leads to displacement. So we have a 117% increase in rehabilitation permits since 2012.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 12: So do you want to talk a little bit about what we do in Long Beach already? Long Beach is one of the cities that actually has tenant protections already in tenant assistance in place already. And so some of the things that we already have in place are relocation assistance for displacement due to code enforcement, due to demolition , and also due to condo conversion. We have a proactive rental housing inspection program. We have tenant and landlord counseling services through the Fair Housing Foundation, and we have a local housing preference policy for new affordable housing developments. We went out and we looked at those 115 cities to see kind of where are the best practices. And what we found is 63 out of those, 115 cities have some type of level of policy that exceeds state law, while 52 of them have no policies that exceed state law. So the majority do have something could be one or could be multiple items that exceed state law. So the top two, beyond those that we really saw as kind of the top best practices are proactive unit inspection program which Long Beach house and tenant relocation 28 for proactive unit and 24 Tenant Relocation. We also compare ourselves to the top ten cities. We'd like to know what our big neighbors do. So in the top ten cities in California, we really saw that they fall into three different buckets. We see cities that don't have any relocation assistance programs beyond what the state requires. They may have other types of benefits, but they don't have relocation programs. Those are Anaheim, Bakersfield, Sacramento and San Diego. Then there's that middle bucket of cities that go beyond state law but don't have a full on expanded program. And that's Fresno and Long Beach. And then you have cities that really take it to the next level and have a larger expanded relocation requirements. And those are Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. And so at this point, I'd like to turn it to Patrick Geary, who's going to go through a little bit of our affordable housing and also what we've heard from stakeholders along the way through our public outreach process.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Tom. Good evening. Long Beach is home to about 62,000 seniors over the age of 62, and that's 13% of our population. And the city has invested significantly in senior housing over the years. There are currently 2917 affordable senior units citywide, which is about 45% of all affordable units. The city has provided about $36 million in funding for the development of 453 new affordable senior units since 2013. That's 58% of all new affordable units over that time period. And for at risk affordable units. 198 senior units have been preserved since 2007, which is 80% of all preserved units. The Housing Authority also offers a senior preference program for seniors in the Housing Choice voucher program. There are 6477 existing affordable units in the city. 2008 units 28 at risk units have been preserved since 2017. If you look at the chart on the left side of the screen, you'll notice that most of those have occurred since 2015 , and about 80% are senior units. The city has also provided funding for the development of about 694 units since 2007. We have 806 units currently in production, including 410 units under construction. Since the early 2000s, the city has partnered with lenders, realtors and homebuyer training providers and has loan nearly $50 million to about 345/1 time homebuyers. The average subsidy for those units was about 145,000. But more recent transactions have required up to 350,000 per unit. The city does not currently offer any homebuyer assistance programs due to a lack of affordable housing funding. But information about homebuyer training and other resources are provided on the Development Services webpage. A more detailed response to the Council request for homebuyer assistance programs will be provided to the Council in the near future. Staff engage place where consulting to help develop and implement a stakeholder engagement plan for the Tenant Assistance Project. It was determined that the best approach was to work with the existing network of well-established and engaged stakeholders representing tenants and apartment owners. This slide provides a list of the stakeholders that were included in the process. Staff held the first stakeholder meeting with tenant representatives on August 14th, 2018. A meeting with apartment owners stakeholders was held on August 29th, 2018, and meetings with both groups combined were held on September 26 and October 8th, 2018. In May of 2018, the city launched the Everyone Home Long Beach Initiative. Policy recommendations were presented to the City Council on December 11th, 2018 and include the tenant protection policies that staff is recommending tonight. A new tenant relocation a see a security deposit assistance program for displaced seniors, a set aside of housing choice, vouchers for displaced seniors, improved communication with owners of HUD assisted properties and support to increase the state's noticing requirement for a no fault termination to 90 days. I'm now going to turn it over to Island and Linda Tatum, our director of development services.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Patrick. I'll be covering for you the recommendations that came out of all of the data and all of the stakeholder input that we received throughout the process that both Tom and Patrick have just described. And I would just like to note that there are a series of a baseline performance recommendation, as well as a number of options for the city council to consider. And I would also note that in all of the data collection, while we looked at a number of other cities and a lot of other programs, I should note that the recommendations are based not on any one city or any one program, but rather it was specifically formatted to to meet the needs of the city of Long Beach, its residents. So with that, I'll go into recommendation one. Recommendation one is really the centerpiece of the work that staff did on this effort in its quest to prepare a new tenant relocation assistance ordinance. And it's really designed primarily to mitigate the impact of renter households that are involuntarily displaced. As proposed, this policy would require apartment owners to pay relocation assistance to tenants when there is a trigger under the order's provisions that I'll discuss in a little bit more detail. So I'll talk a little bit about the base relocation assistance program. And this has a number of components, but the very fundamental one is that their trigger for the relocation assistance to come into play. So recommendation number one includes those two base relocation components. And those two triggering factors are starting with a when a tenant receives a rent increase of 10% or more during any 12 month period, they may choose to stay in the unit and pay the increase or vacate the unit with relocation assistance. Trigger B is when a notice to vacate is issued to a tenant that has not violated any of the provisions of state law regarding landlord tenant relations. They may be eligible for tenant relocation assistance. In a couple of those examples that are covered under state law include things like failing to pay rent, conducting illegal activities in the unit, damaging the property as an example. So that's the base relocation ordinance component. I'd like to talk a little bit more about other components of the base relocation component. And these are essentially the rules of the programs that that affect is implementation things that both the landlords have to do and things that the tenants are required to do. The first is that once the triggering mechanism has been once one of the triggers has been trigger triggered, the rent must be paid during the noticing period in order for the tenant to receive relocation benefits. The household that's being removed for violating any of the state law provisions would not be eligible for relocation assistance, and tenants that leave voluntarily do not receive benefits as well. And lastly, a tenant receiving a rent increase of 10% or more must notify the owner of their intent to either stay in the unit or to live within to leave with those benefits. And then, of course, other provisions police would still apply, such as security deposits must be returned and the landlord must give the tenant the opportunity to cure any cause for termination. Another couple of components related to kind of how this program would operate would be the enforcement provisions. Owners would be required to include information about the city's program in their lease agreement with tenants. They must also report relocation benefits to the city and also report to the city when entire building of four or more units is vacated. And this is really important because right now the city has no knowledge necessarily of any evictions or any buildings being turned over. So this this requirement would enable the city to start collecting data on exactly what's happening in the housing stock in terms of eviction evictions and rent increases. And, of course, the affordable deed restricted units would be exempt from this program. And staff, once the city council makes a determination, staff would work, of course, with our city attorney to incorporate appropriate enforcement mechanisms into the program. And these may include provisions relating to private right of action where a tenant can sue an owner for failing to comply law. Or it may also include language regarding an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer. Again, tools that the tenant can use to acquire their relocation benefits if they're not voluntarily provided. So I'd like to go into each of the options. As I mentioned, there are three options. The first of these options is option one, and this includes the two baseline components that I talked about earlier, the two triggering events and kind of the rules of the program. Option one has the broadest applicability and of course, the greatest potential level of assistance. And I'll just run through these really quickly. The very first component of option one is a relocation payment of 40 $500 per unit. And this is based upon the current city relocation requirement that's in the city's current municipal code. In addition to the 40 $500 per unit, there would be an additional $2,000 payment for seniors and disabled households and an additional $1,000 for moving expense. The second criteria applies to the property type, movie site type. It means the size of the unit in terms of the number of units on the property. So in this option, it would apply to all rental units that are two or more units, essentially duplex and above. And lastly, the household type, the benefits, what plot would apply to all households regardless of their income. So this one is not income qualified. That's option one. And it has the most broadest provisions for rental assistance. Okay. Let's go on to option two. And I would just note that option two is the recommendation is the staff recommendation. This one also, of course, includes the base components that we talked about earlier. But it also here's the three provisions here. In terms of the relocation payment, we would then refer to a a rental payments schedule, and they would pay two months rent on that rent schedule. That rent schedule is is the rent payment schedule that's used by the city's housing authority. And it's prepared and updated annually by by HUD, the federal government. The second application would be for the type of units it would apply to. We are recommending that the program apply to all properties with four or more units, and we determined that four units made sense because that's the standard by which the city requires a business license. So we have data and contract those units. It's all the it's also the HUD based rationale for what they consider to be multifamily properties or commercial properties. And lastly, that is also the standard that we use for the city's proactive rental housing enforcement improvement. And then lastly, the standard here under option two is the household type. In this case, we're recommending that the benefits only apply. Lower. Moderate. And. And a moderate. Income households. And that is up to. And including 120% of the area median income. And this was very specific. The idea would be that this qualification would include workforce housing. So again, this is the staff recommended option. Now this is just a highlight of the rental payment schedule that I referred to earlier, and this would be the basis for the payment of the relocation. Since using this chart, someone who's being displaced from a one bedroom unit in the 90802 zip code would receive two month's rent based upon the standard rent of $1,543 or a payment of $3,086. So this this payment standard sets a maximum payment that a family can receive based upon the relocation proposal. And these standards, as I mentioned earlier, are prepared annually by. They are the fair market rents that HUD pays. Okay. Then we'll go on now to option three. And this one is probably the one that is most restrictive and would provide the least benefit and the have the least the least impact to property owners. So of course, this one also includes the base component and the triggering mechanisms. But the first recommendation here is that the payment would be 40 $500 per unit and it would apply in terms of applicability. It would apply to multifamily rental properties with ten units or more. And thirdly, the household type that it would be applicable to would be filed low income households, and that is those households earning up to 80% of the area median, the median income, and that's roughly 77,500 for a family of four. So that concludes the discussion of the various options. And I would like to quickly summarize the other components of the the program. The staff is recommending that the Council direct us to prepare and include in the ordinance. The first is we'd like to the city to create a city funded Seniors First Security Deposit Assistance Program, and this would be for displaced low income seniors. And that will be funded by even though the city would pay that that fee, it would be funded by federal home funds. Recommendation three is to set aside emergency housing choice vouchers for seniors or displace extremely low below income seniors. And that will be setting aside up to 25 vouchers. Recommendation for is to establish a communication framework with the HUD's Public Housing Office and owners of HUD funded rental buildings to discuss rehabilitation and covenant for preservation opportunities. Essentially what we're saying here is that the city would be proactive in trying to identify those units that might be losing, potentially losing their affordability, and start to work with the owners to identify potential funding so that those covenanted properties can stay in the affordable housing inventory. And finally, recommendation five is to include a recommendation in the city's state legislative agenda to support modification of the seat, noticing requirement for no fault termination of tenancy to a minimum of 90 days. Tom discussed earlier that that notification timeframe can vary depending upon the the amount of the rental increase. But we'd like to have the state consider starting at a minimum of a 90 day noticing period. So with that, I'd like to turn it back over to Tom for closing comments.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much, Linda. So we're almost done with our staff report. We have just a couple more concepts to cover. And one is we're trying to make a very complex, you know, ordinance that you would want to put out there to make it as simple and easy and transparent as possible. And so that was really in our mind. We heard that both from the tenants and from this and from the property owners. And so the goal really is to make the benefits very, very clear so that there's no dispute. Everyone knows whether I'm covered with benefits or not covered with benefits and that the tenant, the landlord, have that information. We would want this to be very clear in terms of standards of applicability. We would recommend putting this into a lease agreement so that there's one document that everyone knows what's expected of me as a as a renter, and also what any relocation benefits would be. We see as a city our role in providing a website that I'd very clear information. So if you didn't remember to check your lease, you would be able to get the information there. We also know we need to do some information campaign. We're talking about a lot of people who would be affected, both on the tenant side and on the property owner side. We really believe that data collection will help us gain a better understanding of the issues and we're really there. So this is not an administratively intense city program. So we're not proposing staff, we're not proposing an increase in in bodies to be able to do this or additional fees to be able to fund that, trying to keep that as simple as possible. And so for the next steps, what we've tried to do for you tonight, council, is to really provide you a lot of options on a very complex issue. We we don't believe there's any one magic solution. There's a number of ways any policy can be put together. And that's the hard challenge you're going to have tonight. But if you were to give us direction, this is really a first step. So you would be giving us direction to work with the city attorney's office to prepare an actual rental assistant ordinance and to bring it back to you to really see the rest of those details . Not everything has been fleshed out there. Still be, you know, a lot of details on implementation and rollout and all those things that we would bring that back if we were get direction to move forward. We would also be preparing an amendment to our consolidated plan, an annual action plan, to fund that security deposit assistance program for displaced seniors. And we would bring that to the Long Beach Community Investment Company and the Council for Review. We would prepare an amendment for the Housing Authority Administrative Plan to create that, set aside for housing choice vouchers for displaced extremely low seniors, and present that to the housing authority. And then we would prepare that implementation and education strategy for tenant relocation assistance. So we thank you very much for your patience for allowing us to kind of summarize all the work, very proud of the team and what they've been able to accomplish. You gave us a big task to come back with a lot of data and really try to be thoughtful about this and provide some assistance. So, you know, thank you very much, Ann, and thanks to the team and we are available for questions.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Modica, and thank you for those that presented the staff report. The makers of the motion were going to request that we go do it public comment first. So we're going to do a public comment. So please follow the directions of our fire marshal and 90 seconds on the clock. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mayor Garcia. My name is Jeff Sievers, and I've lived in Long Beach since I was seven years old. I want to thank you so much for your efforts with the Century Club and raising money via the golf tournament. I guess we just hit over the million dollar mark. And because of your involvement with the Century Club, people like the Andrews and myself were benefactors of the Century Club. And if you guys don't know what a great football player Dee Andrews was, they would get to third down. He was that good. It's a pleasure to be here. I don't think I've ever spoken to the city council in all these years of being a citizen of Long Beach. This is about rental increases and relocation. As a property owner, myself and Vern School, I've owned income property in this area for approximately 50 years. We have kept our rents 15 to 20% below. And based on those stats, it's probably 25% below market and we're proud of that. We want our tenants to be happy. Now you're proposing relocation money. If we raise our rents over 10%. Now if we raise our rents to market value. Like many landlords did when they were had rent control hanging over their head. They raised their rents last year. So if we raise our rents to market value and then we're okay and 10%, we're fine. But I've got to tell you some stats. I mean.
Speaker 9: We're so sorry. The timer's out. 90 seconds. Okay.
Speaker 1: Where were you? Where were the people when we had 18 or 20% vacancy?
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I have a question for you. Why is it that you guys want to provide a tour?
Speaker 9: If you. Would you mind just speaking to him? I can identify yourself.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Yes, I'm Steve. Why is it when you men and women want to provide a public service, you always want to put it on the back of the people. You know, for section eight, we put it on public funding for.
Speaker 13: For.
Speaker 1: Food assistance. We have public funding. Why don't you guys and girls decide to put public funding in place to provide tenant relocation assistance for those people who need it? That's my big question. Why is it always on the back of private citizens? I did not see that in your options, Mr. Monica. I did not see that in any of the options that Lake City money would be used to provide the benefit for public uses of tenant relocations. If it is that important that it be provided, let the public pay for it, just like they do with housing assistance and food stamps and those things. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Stephanie Dawson Solo Democratic Socialists of America, Long Beach Branch. I live in the second District. First of all, I want to address the previous speaker suggestion that we use public money. That would be fantastic actually, if we assessed a parcel tax on all rental properties and the rental owners, I think that would be fantastic towards paying for rental assistance. So by all means. However, more to the point, a city is made of people, not a property. Housing is a fundamental right for people in the city. Property rights and their properties, by comparison, are imaginary. Option one is the only measure in the staff report that comes even close to checking the power and greed of the landlords in this city. The other options presented by the office, by the city manager's office are myopic, counter-productive and will not be sufficient to stem the awful consequences of our unregulated rental market, nor the apparent unceasing greed of the local landlord class. These landlords do not want a diverse Long Beach. If you follow their comments on social media, it is abundantly clear that they want to make Long Beach great again. They do not see their tenants as people. They see them as disposable assets. Closing restaurants, families and students sleeping in cars display seniors in a grow encampments of homeless people. Homeless people are all symptoms of this creep. Do your legislative duty and tell these landlords, especially those with 7.4 area codes, that their greed will no longer dictate housing policy in the city. And then instead, you will make it clear tonight that you recognize the rights of the residents to live in safe, had homes throughout this community. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, everyone. My name is Darlene. I'm here on behalf of SPC Thrive and the best are at Central Long Beach Leadership Team. So thank you very much for listening to public comment and great thanks to De Andrews for supporting Bestor at Central Long Beach by having staff present at our partnership meetings. So actually a lot of our participants at our meetings are your constituents and they are deeply affected by displacement. Our home visitation program has expressed the trauma and pain. Families and children ages 0 to 5 go through when being displaced. That is why I'm here right now to ask Diane Andrews and the rest of City Council to vote for Option one, which provides more protection for families, seniors and people with disabilities who might need extra assistance. Every person in Long Beach deserves to live in a safe home in stable neighborhood. And relocation assistance is is one simple solution to the existing housing crisis. So I ask Long Beach to continue to explore the root cause, which is displacement due to the lack of just cause eviction and rent stabilization. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Hello, I'm Myron Wolin. I'm president of the Long Beach Gray Panthers. The Gray Panthers, one of the organizations that were part of the process to come up with these recommendations. I want to commend the city council for taking on this issue and thinking about it and talking about what can happen for tenants.
Speaker 7: We're fighting for.
Speaker 1: The soul of our city. The displacement that goes on is awful. What I'm seeing among my members, among the seniors within the Gray Panthers and with seniors and out.
Speaker 7: In the community, is that they are having.
Speaker 1: Tremendous rent increases, forcing them to leave. We've got to do something. If you think about a sustainable city, a city that's that will have a history of people that stay around and not being forced to leave. You would consider option one, which we think is the best option for this relocation system. We ask you two to consider this, to think about it, and to and to pass something that will.
Speaker 7: Provide.
Speaker 1: Some assistance for tenants. We don't think tenants should have to leave because of high rents. We'd like something better than that. But we'll take this. We'll have this as some way of sustaining our city and keeping down the relocations that go on. Thank you very much.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Speaker 6: My children and I have nowhere else to go tonight. Can you help me? Hi. My name is Paula. These are the exact words I hear on a daily basis, working at a nonprofit organization that sets homeless families to locate housing here in the city of Long Beach. I do believe that the city needs to come up with a better strategy in alleviating the true systemic problem that leads to homelessness, which is gentrification. Gentrification can be defined when the city displaces members of the community upon the completion of new projects due to high increased rents from investors leading to lower economic status members displaced in their very own city. Ultimately, is it is a reason why relocation assistance would be needed in the first place. When a single mother of two children can no longer afford rent due to unexpected rent increases and have to live in a vehicle because there is no more shelter space available when a senior citizen has to vacate a unit he spent years living in because the building has been sold and many more similar cases have to follow in their footsteps. Something has to be done in the meantime until such a strategy exists that can resolve the true issues of homelessness, which in my opinion, would be developing more income, mixed income units, developments into the city . Relocation assistance is necessary once again, as someone who is on the frontlines working with the homeless population and see only a glimpse of their struggles. I would hope that you take my words into consideration. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Robert Fox, executive director of the Council of Neighborhood Organizations. We took a unanimous vote against this proposal because some of the elements of it bother the neighborhoods. We don't mind. Failure to pay rent violated terms of leave or rental agreement. Materially damage the property. The rest of them. We can't do. Most of you are so young, you don't remember what 1991, 92 were here in this city. It was terrible. Our neighborhoods were horrible. I found it. Alameda Speech Neighborhood Association. And the way we cleaned it up was we had to get rid of the gang members. We had the Longo's, the Crips, the Bloods. It was horrible here. We had gay bashing all out on the street. So what we did is we went to landlords and asked them to evict that drug dealer. We had tenants testify in court because we needed a preponderance of the evidence. Well, guess what? We won. But I forgot. It took 3 to 4 weeks to do the lockout. These people were beaten within an inch of their lives, so no moral landlord will ever ask a tenant to testify in court. This leaves us nowhere to save our tenants. We have an obligation to keep the place safe. If you remove a 30 day and 60 day notice for us, we have no way of propelling bad tenants and safeguarding our neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the neighborhoods will descend and disintegrate. Please take this into consideration.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Fox. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: The address is on file. I want to thank the city staff for a comprehensive and complex report to reflect the realities that we all are dealing with at this moment. I want to just go ahead and state that the recommendations support at least nine of the 17 goals for the United Nations Sustainable Development World that we all should be looking forward to, which is one of no poverty. Goal two of zero Hunger. Goal three of good health and well-being for quality education. As children are also displaced.
Speaker 6: In the process.
Speaker 7: Decent work and economic growth reduce inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, life on land, peace, justice and strong institutions which require good governance. I also think all groups for their civic engagement and look forward to all of the comments to point towards where our support is. Option one would be where I would put my support as a caregiver and someone who, while living on ocean, have spoken more to seniors being displaced over the past four years. I would like not to see people who are steadily keeping up with their health be displaced to a market that does not support Social Security incomes. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name's Nick Lopez.
Speaker 9: Mr. Lopez, you talking to the mic? I'm sorry. I just. Thank you. My name's.
Speaker 1: Nick Lopez. I've been here since the late nineties. I bought buildings that most people wouldn't buy. Most of you wouldn't. Wouldn't have gone into these neighborhoods because of the conditions in the neighborhoods. I have buildings with bullet holes in them, and I evicted lots and lots of people, some for cars, some just because it was my word against theirs. That's all we had.
Speaker 3: Your staff.
Speaker 1: They said that where they're proposing was not rent control. It is start to finish. Now, I want you to think about how many incentives he spoke of for landlords to buy buildings in this city. If you do institute that, there are none. All the incentives are for us to leave. And if you pass this, I will be one of the people that leave. I like what I do. I've enjoyed my time. Here, you pass this. I'm out of here. I can't believe you're reaching into my well of hard work over the last 20 years to try to cover a problem. If you want to fix the problem, pull out your paycheck and spend it. Not mine, not my children. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members. My name is Mary Sun Huston. I live in the First District and I am here before you to urge you to to pass the rent the tenant relocation ordinance. It is very important to be able to pass that ordinance, especially with the with the key proposed provision of adding an additional $2,000 for people with disabilities. It is really, really hard to find an accessible and affordable unit to rent here in Long Beach. I've been a renter for over 26 years and I love my city. But one of the things is that I want me to be able to continue living in the city. And I also want to share with you the struggle that I had. I lived ten years in a unit that was an accessible for me just because I could not find an affordable and accessible place for me to live. Ten years it took me. I saved up and now I moved out from that unit. And I live in a very accessible place which is tripled the rent that I used to pay. Not everyone can do that. So I urge you to please pass this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Diaz. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 13: Hello. Hello, honorable mayor. Council members and citizens of Long Beach. My name is Matt Vigo and I have lived in the fourth district for nearly 12 years now. I'm in support of the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, option number one. Initially, moving to Long Beach is an able bodied individual, and now as a person in a wheelchair, I know the challenges and difficulties of finding affordable and accessible housing in this city. Not only is it difficult finding accessible housing, whether it be finding a home without stairs or wide enough doorways, but also finding a home that is affordable within these parameters is a struggle, especially for those on fixed income, such as Social Security and disability. Being able to.
Speaker 1: Continuously reside in their residence.
Speaker 13: Can be a near impossibility as rent increases exceed the increases in their benefits. Luckily, I've been blessed with a great education at CSU. I'll be gainfully employed, have a landlord.
Speaker 1: That has kept the increases reasonable.
Speaker 13: And that I can afford these increases in rent. However, there are many individuals that are not this blessed. There are numerous residents, such as older adults and persons with disabilities, that are in danger of getting pushed out of this city and the need for financial assistance with finding new places to live. And that is why I support this ordinance that you counsel for your time.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name's Johanna.
Speaker 4: Cunningham, CEO for the National Short Term Rental. Here's a definition I found that speaks to private property rights. A private property system gives individuals the exclusive right to use their resources as they see fit. When I first heard about the relocation proposal, my first thought was, Here we go again. While I can empathize with renters in the context that moving is hard, that burden should not be placed on the owner's back.
Speaker 6: To supplement that move. Your report.
Speaker 8: Cites that over.
Speaker 4: 78% of the rental stock are in small and mid-sized buildings.
Speaker 8: Those owners.
Speaker 4: When they purchased the units, were and still are relying on that income to supplement their own security, health care and retirement. With the average rent for a one bedroom of just over 1400 dollars and a beach community, tacking on another fee is just not the answer. You're hurting the very demographic that you're including in this ordinance, the senior community who have long supported Long Beach.
Speaker 8: I have spoken to many of them.
Speaker 4: And they feel betrayed and scared of what's going to come next. Why do you think short term rentals are becoming so important? Owners are still trying to find ways to keep rents low for their tenants, supplement their income and survive. So please stop creating barriers and start creating bridges.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Councilmembers and Mayor Garcia. My name is Evan Remodeler. I work for Equity Residential, a nationwide apartment owner and operator who owns a few hundred units here in Long Beach. Although Equity Residential supports the city's endeavor to alleviate pressures created by the regional housing shortage, we must take more time before advancing policies that will be counterproductive . The scope of this proposed ordinance is too broad and needs to be more focused on the identified issue. Therefore, we are opposed to this ordinance and request a decision be delayed until a more focused solution can be analyzed. We appreciate your time this evening.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Council. My name is Cameron Tamimi. I am a property owner on my own in your district, Mr. Andrews, as well as yours, Ms.. Gonzales. I also represent another 50 owners in all of your districts. And they are all good owners. If you look around actually what I think all of the owners are being here, these are all good owners. And what these people have is hearts. And that's what you're realizing here, is that owners have hearts. And most these people are like the first gentleman that came up. They do not raise their rents very much. They take care of their tenants and they care for them very much. And they actually feel it when they come to them and say, I can't afford a $50 increase. I bet you most of the people in this room don't even give increases higher than $50. I know because I've analyzed most of their properties. This is what these owners do. They do not try to raise rents. And here's what happens. As soon as you guys start to put these are rent control policies. They are 100% rent control. And when you start putting these policies, maybe it's 10% this year, but then it becomes 5% and then it becomes 3%. And then all of a sudden, I can't even decide how I want to run my business at this point. I'm going to go into every single Uber driver when it's surging and ask them to pay me when I get out of the car. It's this ridiculous, I guess absurd that we even ask this of our landlords. And I think it's really clear here that here's what's going to happen as soon as we try to sell a building and someone wants to buy it. No private owner with a heart can buy that property. You know why they can't afford the 5000? The 20000 to 40000, the 60,000 should even $100,000 what it could go up to to buy out a tenant. And that's what happens. And so it only becomes private equity groups that can buy these properties. Private equity groups have accountants that run these properties, not property owners, not people with hearts. So stop doing measures like this. Support the landlords that have hearts in this room.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Just want to make sure that next speaker, please honor your good. Speaker. Thank you. Thank you. Just I just please also that we can we can hear just fine without the amplification because we have speakers right in front of us. So thank you. Next next speaker.
Speaker 6: Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Michaela Hill and I'm like the person say I wouldn't be able to afford an eviction. My, um, I mean, a relocation. A mother of four college kids, all of them paycheck to paycheck. My rents were always low. They're still low, like at least 500 lower than the then what the rents are on the neighborhood. I have relatives that have units, but like before I came to the meeting, my dad said if they pass it, I'm selling my five units and and getting a home I think is a lot of owners are going to be discouraged in in as a realtors I think is going to be hard on on people wanting to moving into Long Beach. And I believe that this unfortunately will hurt more than help. I think we don't need this kind of policy. I think we need housing. But but this kind of. Her on the on the owners with just a few units, I think is going to hurt more than they help. So I, I don't think this is a good at least for the people like, like me, that it's only there are paycheck to paycheck and we try our best for our tenants. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Next speaker piece.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is John Kendrick. I'm the outreach coordinator for the Long Beach Gray Panthers and a member of Libra. I've been twice homeless because I reported my landlords in the past and they even faked their their paperwork and forced my name on things to have me legally evicted. So all landlords are not good and I even have the papers to back that up. If anybody wants to see that today. Still, I kept that. No, I belong to the baby boomers. We're the fastest growing population of seniors this country has seen. Most of us are on a fixed income. That doesn't go up Hollywood at all. And we now between that well, they decide between can we eat, can we pay our medicine and high costs? And more and more of us are now becoming the new homeless population on a street which most of us of the most legal drug users, because we all have some kind of disabilities or medical conditions. Now you try being homeless on the streets and take 15, 20 medications. We owe you. We are your fathers. Your grandparents and your uncles where your vets. We're the students that today is now home as of yesterday. I'd like to ask the City Council to look at its mission statement and live up to it. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Your next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hi. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and city council members. My name is Judith Elizabeth and I am a registered voter and reside in District eight. I'm here along with my husband, who will speak after mean of Tali representing small minority property owners. We genuinely get tremendous satisfaction in providing affordable housing to renters who consist of low income families. And also, we participate in the Section eight program as long as well as the Homeless Incentive Program. So if any people out here are saying I'm homeless, there is the homeless incentive program. I highly recommend that you call them or see how you can get assistance from them. I'm also here today to please ask you to not restrict our ability to run our business. These programs, which in my opinion are also called or should be called tenant welfare, are, are and you guys are planning on voting for will greatly affect our business and the ability for us to continue to provide low income housing to our renters. Now, let's keep in mind that if we recall, the renters and people voted and rejected rent control. Right. We did. We did this last year. We voted against it. Right. So why are you bringing this up? So please vote no on rent control. Thank you.
Speaker 15: It is great.
Speaker 1: Mayor councilmembers. My name is Naftali. Thank you for your time. I you know, I've I've been on both sides. I'm actually I still have an apartment, even though I'm an owner. I live with my tenants. I grew up in the and Strawberry Fields are here in California and this is my preteens. And my goal was to save enough money to one day want to invest. I was able to do that. And so now I'm able to provide affordable housing. Like like my wife Judy said, we work mainly with low income housing, with a lot of people in the public health week. Some of the team members that we're here, we work with them.
Speaker 11: And.
Speaker 1: We provide affordable housing. I view in some of your presentation that I think there's some maybe some things need to be discussed regarding the graphs. We discussed that the availability is low, but yet you guys are doing a awesome job bringing in new business and bringing in new people to Long Beach, but not factoring that into some of your presentation comments. Also. Also with some of the PMA senators talking about about using the HUD or Section eight PIMA centers as what the incentive should be. A lot of times HUD Section eight don't pay that central for a one bedroom voucher. That's the maximum is that's not what they pay. So if that's the case, then they should pay those those amounts standard without negotiating or reducing some of the elements. My tenants have been with me on average ten years. I work with them. You know, we do it on increases. I work with them. I've even not without a heart trouble, wait for the rent. But with these policies in place, I won't be able to afford the ability to provide that. That catch my heart. And I need to one as a business. Thank you. Listenership.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next week for please.
Speaker 1: City Council. My name is Chuck Blau. On February 7th, I had the honor of hearing. Dr. Garcia get up in front of 8090 rulers and saying that the city is doing so much better. And God bless you. You are. I mean, from crime to the schools to right across the board, you laid out a plan of wonderful things. And he also said rent controls, not an answer. And I'm going to tell you, this has all the earmarks and the slippery slope of of rent control. The owners of these properties recognize who their customers are. These customers were also had no problem seeing red decreases when our vacancy rate was high. Now this is called what market share does. When the market is right. So, you know, what you could do is you could really screw things up and make people want to not live here, have vacancies go down and the rents would go down. You know, what do you want to do? We are looking for a great city. And I'm going to tell you right now, this is rent control. In 1990, I would not walk into some of the neighborhoods that are here. The city is cleaned up. People want to move into this area. And I've got clients who buy into this neighborhood not to raise the rent. They find dilapidated homes and properties and they make them better. With that, rent does go up.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 15: Hi. My name's.
Speaker 1: My name's Fred Sanchez. I live in the second district. Um, I actually live with a lot of my tenants. We have a shared, uh, community, and everything works out really well. I actually lived in Long Beach back in the day. I actually returned a few years ago. I told a bunch of friends, family, how great Long Beach is. I said, It's awesome. We got to come here. We we moved here, pulled together. A bunch of investors.
Speaker 10: Said, let's clean up this, this area.
Speaker 1: And what we did was we actually fixed it up literally was fixing up properties, bleeding as I'm.
Speaker 10: Taking nails out of the sides of properties, just.
Speaker 1: Doing all sorts of stuff. Um. You know, I'm basically a housing provider and I do this to improve the community. I consider myself a small business. And this sort of study, this rent control study that they're bringing to us, it's not it's not a solution. It's a Band-Aid fix, and we all know it. And so they're coming after guys who work really hard and love the community and want the best for the community and completely involved with the community here. But this is not the solution. This is just a Band-Aid. And we're heading towards a recession here. I mean, we've had ten years of prosperity in oh eight when they showed the study, it started in 2009. There's been huge, yeah, 20% increase in rent. But in 2009, that was the low that was the rental low in a market cycle. Obvious. So there was huge increases in rents from that point, but we had decreases in. Thank you very much, sir. Compared to 2005.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 13: I'm Brian Matheson addressed on file, a long term resident of Long Beach. We've had a problem with of mass evictions when entire buildings are vacated by new owners to rehabilitate the property. A report by counsel for a study was initiated. And it was a smart move, but we did not get a study or an analysis.
Speaker 1: What we got was data, lots of data and everyone's wish.
Speaker 11: Lists with.
Speaker 13: A couple of misleading graphs, which I provided for you. The only selection criteria was incredibly simplistic. Look at the top 100 cities in California in terms of population and see what they are doing. This is an inept criteria. Why not study cities from all over the country for their approach to success? Why are you looking for answers from loser cities.
Speaker 1: That have failed.
Speaker 13: To provide enough housing and have had to implement rent controls? And another report did not mention rent controls, but they used all the rent controls cities and their policies in the reports for the graphs and their presentation up here that I just saw. They said it wasn't just because eviction or rent control was false. It is next. The purpose of a graph is to make sense out of data so friends and issues could be easily recognized. If you look at the graphs on relocation in just cause, you will see fake numbers and see the chart has been truncated to allow the small numbers seem bigger in relation to the total. I believe this to be deceptive. Finally, most importantly, I find it highly offensive. The report would propose recommendations where there is no analysis.
Speaker 1: Of the data.
Speaker 13: Stanford University came out with a San Francisco study last year in Los Angeles, keeps losing apartment owners because owners are going out of business. These are a couple of huge missing issues in this report.
Speaker 9: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. My name is Mike Murchison. I'm here on behalf of quite a few rental property owners, property managers and realtors. I want to ask them to stand up, please. Mayor and council. I want to point something out. I know that you know quite a few of these people, but what you may not know is they're the ones that hire your local contractors, your plumbers, your electricians. They're the ones that are providing employment. They're increasing the sales tax base in our community. That cannot be ignored. We need to protect these owners. We need to protect these property managers. These are not the syndicators that came in in 2017. And I don't hold anything against a syndicators. They were investing in old housing stock in districts one, two and six. They were converting old housing stock to rental units that were upgraded. It was not a citywide problem. It was in districts one, two and six. The rest, the districts didn't have the issue. So now we're talking about solving an issue that was in three districts and doing it in all nine. I would encourage you to give a balanced approach tonight when you're thinking about this. I would encourage you to remember that the press telegram two weeks ago on its front page said, and I quote, 28% rent growth in the last ten years, 28% in ten years, 2.8 compared to Los Angeles with rent control, 34%. What does that tell you? We do not want to become L.A. or San Francisco. We want to become Long Beach because we're long term investors in our community. Stay with us tonight. Go with option three if you have to go with one. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Honorable Dr. Robert Garcia and Counsel, thank you so much for listening to us. I am a small property owner of Four Plex. My parents worked the fields. They were in the WPA. They taught me to get an education and to work hard. And I have done that and I'm able to purchase a four plex. I had an incident in which I had a problem tenant. I worked the legal system to get him out of the complex or I would lose the other tenants. I'm not a greedy landlord. My rents are where they should be. I just ask. It cost me over three months rent attorney's fees, close to $15,000 to have this tenant move. I can't see relocation fees. To me, that's the beginning of rent control. I work hard and I respect each and every one and I sympathize with those who are having problems with housing. But please. There are many of us like myself that work hard and try the best thing we can do. I really thank you so much for listening to us and I'm sure it's not an easy solution, but I thank you so much.
Speaker 9: Thank you, sir. Let me just 1/2. Excuse me. I just want to make sure the fire marshal. I know we've got about 75 people outside still. I just want to make sure that we're are we are we cycling them in or are you going to are we going to go through these and then we're going to bring people in? Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. Please.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you for having me tonight. And thank you for taking your time out. I know it must be a strain on you to listen to all of us. I had a speech. I'm not going to do it. I'm just going to tell you about me. I grew up in Long Beach on the West Side. It wasn't easy, but I enjoyed it. And then when I became about 18 years old, I became an onsite property manager. My first task was to clean up the application of a homeless person in the laundry room. The next thing that I had to do, I'm the first responder. Everybody calls me when there's problems. The next thing I did was I lived on site and we had a gentleman take a rifle out and shoot up the apartment complex . So that was not fun. The other things that I do is I'm the first call. So if somebody is worried about their neighbor, they call me first and they ask me to check on them. And yes, I have had to call the police to handle the task of handling calling the coroners in the month of December this year. I had two different fires. One was ten. It caused it took two and a half months to get them back in. And the other one, the tenant, was amazing. So what I'm trying to say is, please do not penalize us. We work hard, and I love my job. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Speaker.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Honorable Mayor Dr. Garcia and members of the City Council. My name is Silvana Arriola. I'm a resident here in Long Beach, a property manager. Property owner. I also a member of SPO Small Property Owners Alliance. I think we all pretty much believe in our group that the rent regulations are akin to rent control. Regulations have unwanted consequences and they can be verified with the cities that have rent regulation. They reduce the supply of naturally affordable housing, cause higher rents and decrease the quality of housing. Good government policies can help create affordable rent units. We need and we want fair solutions that work in the long term for tenants and for property providers. Solutions with weighty laws may appear to address the problem, but they frequently are short sighted and fail in time. Equitable policies require better understanding and study by the community. We need solutions which address systemic growth and and create a healthy housing environment, which is also sensitive to our city's unique needs. We want solutions which are not punitive but fair and effective for all parties, tenants and property providers alike. Policies should foster thank you cooperation and make you miss, not hostility. And I see that this is happening all too often. I ask you to vote for a modified form of the third position. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Rich Rat Kellis. In its own proposed guidelines. During the research groups, city staff advised participants to consider the unintended consequences of their recommendations. The staff's recommendation number two to you does not do this. There must be parameters around the length of tenancy before a tenant can qualify for relocation assistance. Otherwise, people can just game the system, move in, become a terror to their neighbors, and a tremendous headache to the landlord, basically inviting a no cause eviction and a payout. This unintended consequence negatively impacts the staff's recommendations for relocation benefits.
Speaker 9: As well as their definitions for no cause evictions.
Speaker 1: This unintended consequence can be easily remedied with more discussion among the stakeholders. The staff report is big, although it's not thorough as it relates to the negative consequences of these recommendations on landlords. The devil is always in the details and in this case, the details. The staff recommendations were only released to us one week ago. One week is not enough time to review these and provide quality input. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Vice Mayor Andrews. Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council. My name is Elaine Hutchison and my address is on file. I'm here tonight on behalf of Small Property Owners Alliance and the Apartment Association of California's Southern Cities. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. As you know, at the time the city council requests this study, large investors came.
Speaker 6: To Long Beach and displaced tenants in larger buildings.
Speaker 7: It was not the small owners, the long term owners who are committed to this city and have invested in this community for many years and who also care for their residents. We ask that your decision not penalize these owners.
Speaker 6: We remind that.
Speaker 7: It is us, the small.
Speaker 6: Owners, who carry the burden of the vast majority of affordable housing in Long Beach also, and that rental.
Speaker 7: Costs in Long Beach are the lowest of all the beach cities up and down.
Speaker 6: The coast. We thank Mayor Garcia for his.
Speaker 7: Hard work to make Long Beach so desirable. But we ask that your honorable council will not bring hardships to those who did not cause the problem. The small.
Speaker 6: Property owner. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Honorable Vice Mayor and council people, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today. And my name is David Clement. I have lived here almost 20 years. I have invested in real estate here and lived in each of my units and fixed up each of my units. And I've only had to evict or ask people to leave three times. My rents are low. I've got a lot of sweat equity invested here in Long Beach, and to me this is another tax and I really don't appreciate this form of it seems like rent control to me. So I'd like to ask you to please consider not passing this this ordinance. Please stay out of my business. Thank you. Yes. My name is Christopher. I'm loving how seniors are being given consideration. I really like that. I'm also a veteran. I'm also disabled. So I'm very appreciative of that. But also but I know we're not going to touch on the subject of just cause evictions, because what I'm fearful of and I'm not talking about these good people here. But what about those people who are going to try to just evict people by misuse of just cause? Are you going to scrutinize that? Why not put this on a limit of how many units before you can ask these hardworking people to pay perhaps $7,000? Why not have it? Commercial property only? I think there's a balance between the two. That's right. Thank you. Honorable City Council Mayor. My name is Dave Burris. With regards to the relocation costs, to quote Adolf Hitler in his book, Mein Kampf, National Socialism and Marxism is one in the same thing. End quote. To pursue such an agenda as this, which interrupts a free market, is to do exactly the same thing which Adolf Hitler did prior to World War Two. This is nothing more than communism and Nazi control. Incognito. To interfere with the free market is the beginning of National Socialism, a.k.a. Nazi ism, where the government dictates all. What I'm saying is people who are willing to pay for rent determine the free market. It is not the other way around. The big lie, which.
Speaker 7: Is said often that.
Speaker 1: Landlords price people in the community with high rents that is so far from the truth and false. The free market is simply. Is willing to pay in exchange for services. If the price is too high, they walk away. There has to be an equal medium to which a tenant wishes to pay. This determines the free market. Example I'm renting a unit for 2000. I get no phone calls, so I lower to where somebody agrees for that price. That's the free market. Stop interfering with the free market and please leave it alone. Thank you. Hi. My name is Rob. I've lived in Long Beach for several years. I grew up in, I believe it was the eighth district. My dad went to Polly. My grandpa went to Jordan. I've been in the real estate business a long time and I owned several rental properties in several districts. From what I found in my experience is it's good.
Speaker 10: Business to be fair to your tenants.
Speaker 1: And we don't need the extra regulations and oversights from people who have never been a landlord and just don't understand what it's like to provide housing. But I really sympathize with the people who spoke earlier in the wheelchair who couldn't find a place to live and. I have a situation where I currently live in a building that I would love to rent it out to a homeless person, a veteran, or someone in a wheelchair. There's a there's no steps. There's an elevator, you know, all these things. And I'm going to be moving out of the city for about a year. And I would love to rent this unit to one of these people and make it easier. But due to these kind of regulations that you guys are proposing, I can't do that. And so I will be taking that particular property out of the rental housing stock. And I'm not going to rent it. I'm going to sell it. And these people will have a harder time finding somewhere to live. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. My name is and I can say.
Speaker 10: I am a tenant.
Speaker 3: I'm a renter and.
Speaker 1: I'm a taxpayer surprise.
Speaker 10: And I'm also a laborer. You know, I understand the conversations about sweat equity, but collecting a check in the mail from places that you haven't gone to in years doesn't make you a laborer or a hard worker. It's makes you someone that collects money, much like the IRS or, you know, anyone, anyone else that you know sits . Anyways, I didn't ever really expect that. I'll be hearing quotes from mine company at a city council meeting, especially incorrect quotes. You know, the Nazi Party was a big advocates of social welfare and state public housing and state ownership of public housing. You should probably do some more reading. But that being said, I think city staff for the recommendations that they've given tonight, I think option one is the the best for what is available here. I think option one is the best recommendation. That would be the one that I would like to be see come into existence. Me personally, I live under a mom and pop property owner and I have a great situation with him. But perhaps Kenny is not a small business. Berkshire Hathaway is not a small business. It's really weird to hear corporations using small business owners and mom and pop providers as masquerading as them when they are corporations with thousands of units that they own. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Mayor Garcia and our honorable council members. My name is Kevin Shinn. I am District seven resident. And I also happened to have the good fortune to be a landlord, albeit in a different municipality, in the jurisdiction where we.
Speaker 13: Are, where my wife and I are.
Speaker 1: Landlords. We needed to obtain a business license and certify that we meet basic standards of habitability. So the requirements that are already in place here in Long Beach and in California are significantly lower than they are in many other places.
Speaker 13: Around around the country.
Speaker 1: Some of the rules that have been proposed, the four plex rule and seems completely arbitrary. Why not base.
Speaker 13: That on something like the number of units owned?
Speaker 1: Because you can have multiple for plex's, so why not base it on a requirement that actually makes sense. Also, the 10% increase is too high. The Consumer Price Index in February of 2019 went up 2.5%. Real wage growth from February 2018 through February of 2019 was only 2.2%. 10% is only going to significantly increase and widen the gap between the cost of housing and what people can actually afford. Our residents are being pushed out. Families are leaving because they can no longer afford rising rents, and yet we do nothing to help them. So let's take action to help our most vulnerable residents. And my last my parting thought for you is landlords need not. We are all. To be a landlord is a privilege and a responsibility. We landlords cannot forget that we have a responsibility to our tenants to keep people in their homes.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Shin. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Alex. I'm an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation here in Long Beach. And I have done housing both here in L.A. and Compton and Inglewood. I just wanted to quickly touch upon some technical issues in the ordinance. I just wanted to make sure that the Council is aware that regarding component one A, it should read one or more notices totaling 10%. That way we can cover some loopholes that we should revise component one be to make sure that it aligns with state law. That regarding component two, we want to make sure that it includes a private right of action and an affirmative defense to an eviction. If not, this or this ordinance has no teeth and there's no way to enforce it, especially if the city is not going to put its own enforcement behind it. We need to give tenants the ability to fight for these rights. I also want to say that there should be a timeline for relocation that should be specified in the ordinance. And lastly, I want to talk about the tenants that I see on a daily basis here in Long Beach, our offices on Sixth and Pacific. They all are not only low income, but they find two, three groups that they're either elderly. There are families with kids, are there disabled. And I see them every day come in and say, I get a 30 I have a 30 day notice or a 60 day notice. I don't understand why I have to leave when I did absolutely nothing wrong. Most, if not all, are facing a landlord on the other side that is small. And so I just want to make sure that option one not only is a clear the easiest way, but that it's necessary.
Speaker 9: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor and City Council.
Speaker 5: My name is Christine Pettit. I'm a sixth District resident executive director.
Speaker 6: Of Long Beach Forward and a member of Everyone Home, Long Beach. Long Beach Forward is proud to stand alongside renters and their allies in calling on you to pass a strong tenant relocation assistance policy to help prevent more people and families from falling into homelessness.
Speaker 5: We are grateful for the hard work of city staff in putting.
Speaker 6: These recommendations before.
Speaker 5: You. They are the result of extensive stakeholder engagement and rigorous research. We are happy to see options presented by staff that would make significant.
Speaker 6: Progress toward keeping people in their homes. Additionally, I submitted a letter on behalf of myself and 13 other everyone Home Task Force Members on a tight turnaround that emphasized the following regarding component one, we strongly support both triggers for.
Speaker 5: Relocation assistance and specifically the trigger of a 10% total rent increase in any 12 month period. A 10% rent increase over the course of a year is unaffordable to most folks, actually, especially the populations we work with under a applicability requirement.
Speaker 6: Options Option one is the best choice for preventing homelessness. Option one's relocation assistance amounts are closer than any other option to making a family whole. When considering the enormous financial burden caused by moving, it is also the most straightforward, understandable and easiest to monitor and.
Speaker 5: Enforce the option because it applies most broadly.
Speaker 6: Option one provides the largest safeguard against residents falling into homelessness for our community. As time.
Speaker 5: Is of the essence, we urge you to pass a strong.
Speaker 6: Policy tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor Garcia. City Council.
Speaker 1: I'm Luther Richert, chief services officer for Mental Health America. I just want to say Long Beach is a great place to live and work. We enjoy an incredible quality of life here. One of the biggest threats to our quality of life here is homelessness. And the harsh reality is that many people who.
Speaker 3: Lose their apartment, there's a.
Speaker 1: Straight line to the streets. I feel blessed to be in a city where we have a mayor and a city council that take homelessness seriously and are investing in affordable housing and investing in policies that will not let it reduce the quality of life here. This is part of those efforts. This is homeless prevention, and it's also a very affordable and efficient form of homeless prevention. And I also think it's a win win for many landlords. It is called tenant relocation assistance. So it helps landlords not be back in a corner when they're.
Speaker 3: Dealing with a good person.
Speaker 1: And they want a good outcome for them. So I thank you for this opportunity. I thank you for this win win policy and strongly support it.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next week.
Speaker 1: Courtesy of architect. I have been involved as an architect in affordable housing for over 35 years, both as well as a renter, as a small landlord and as an advocate for tenant rights. I am hearing some sort of disturbing things. I'm not here to represent one side or the other, but I have a question for you. Depending on how the council votes, the result may affect more of the mom and pop landlords. The end result of which is that these landlords may be obligated to sell. To whom? To the developers who can afford to tear down their small buildings and build really large buildings with luxury apartments that that are costing now in excess of 20 $500 for a small studio or a single. So many of these big landlords are coming from from out of town. Like somebody said from the 714 area code. So the real problem is that that I see is that there's a deficit of 20 to 28000 affordable housing units in Long Beach as identified by staff. And at the rate that affordable housing is getting built, it's going to take about 150 years. So that is where the real problem is. It's not tenant relocation. It's not it's not doing any of these other things. Let's build affordable housing at the rate at which it's required so that we can meet.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Good evening, councilman and staff. My name is Peter Madsen, nearly a lifelong resident of the third district, an organizer with Long Beach residents empowered representing some of the folks who had to leave early because some of these meetings can be a bit inaccessible for seniors, people who work, people have families. So I'm speaking on their behalf tonight. I want to thank everyone for all the hard work that went into the report and to all the community meetings and in support of Option one tonight. For a few reasons, the flat fee is the most equitable way to provide assistance to displaced tenants. It's broad and simple applicability compared to the other options reduces the burden of monitoring and enforcement on the city staff and does the most to actually achieve what renter protection policy should do. Prevent homelessness by keeping people in their homes and preserving the communities that make up our beloved, diverse city. I appreciate the attention paid to seniors and disabled folks. I'd like to see the extra recommendations be expanded while still protecting the set aside for the seniors. And I'm encouraged by the recommendation to establish more communication with HUD. But I would. I'm looking forward to future conversations where we can, as a city, offer more protections to them to prevent any oversights and for cases where they might otherwise qualify for relocation assistance as residents of HUD buildings. And I also want to note that this isn't to the good landlords taking care of good tenants. I urge you to really read the policy and and see that there's still the protections in there for you, too. To do that well. Thank you very much.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: Good evening, mayor and council members.
Speaker 4: My name is Ailsa Chang, seventh district resident and also a landlord in another city with much.
Speaker 8: Stronger tenant protections than than Long Beach. And I'm.
Speaker 4: Here to say, as a landlord, the.
Speaker 8: Sky hasn't fallen. I'm doing just fine.
Speaker 6: But this isn't about me. This is about our thousands of neighbors.
Speaker 4: The majority of our city's residents who are at risk of falling into homelessness tonight is about taking.
Speaker 6: Action to keep people in homes.
Speaker 4: And off the streets. I'm here tonight representing Long.
Speaker 8: Beach Forward, which has been working alongside Long Beach residents.
Speaker 6: Empowered housing, Long Beach, the Legal Aid Foundation and many others to strongly support this tenant relocation assistance policy. A huge thank you.
Speaker 4: To the city staff and to the mayor and council for your leadership in bringing this policy forward. First off, Long Beach Forward emphatically supports.
Speaker 6: The staff recommended trigger of a.
Speaker 8: 10% total rent increase. 10% is more than reasonable given that no other regular cost cost of living, property taxes, insurance, cost of construction comes even close to 10%.
Speaker 6: Annual growth. In terms of equity applicability, we strongly support option one as.
Speaker 4: The cleanest, simplest, fairest.
Speaker 8: Option. And Option two.
Speaker 4: However, we do have.
Speaker 8: Serious concerns about two months rent simply does not cover.
Speaker 4: The huge financial.
Speaker 6: Burden of moving. Secondly, paying.
Speaker 4: Relocation by zip code would create an unfair advantage.
Speaker 6: To those who.
Speaker 4: Live in higher priced neighborhoods of.
Speaker 6: The city. Third option two excludes duplex and triplex buildings, which.
Speaker 8: Does nothing to support.
Speaker 6: Truly small mom and pop landlords who.
Speaker 4: Own only one, two or three units, no matter the size and shape.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much time.
Speaker 6: Thank you, counsel. And please pass ordinance to prevent homeless. Thank you very.
Speaker 9: Much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: My name is Mia and I have lived in Long Beach for 18 years.
Speaker 0: Last year, me and my mom started renting an apartment here in Long Beach. We have been in there for one year, one year and I haven't seen that.
Speaker 8: I have seen the rent go up three times, three times in one year, hired in 10% US tenants. We are the true hard workers and we are the people who are living here in Long Beach. I support Option one and want to thank.
Speaker 6: All of the staff on your hard work. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 10: My name is Malika. I'm currently ex-Soviet student and I appreciate you all considering such a complex, complex and serious issue both here in Long Beach and throughout our country. I would like to acknowledge something from my own studies and what I've heard from the room today. I would like to acknowledge that the inclusion of elderly, family and disability disabled people is vital to the discussion that also valued community members and deserve their voices heard. I would like to add a little bit of perspective from one student who has been a renter, as I cannot speak for all. According to the report issued by CSU, officials believe that nearly 11% of students of the 23 campus systems are either homeless or have experienced some form of homelessness during their college career. As many feel strongly about this issue today, I would like to acknowledge that we consider that some people are talking about losing property, while others are talking about losing livelihood and ultimately autonomy as the majority of the citizens who live in the city. Conclusively, I support option one. Thank you so much.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for allowing me to speak this evening.
Speaker 1: My name is Matt Beatty. I'm a life long member of the Long Beach community and I'm active in my community. I'm a provider of real estate services here in Long Beach, and the energy and growth that we've experienced in the last five years is palpable. We are on the brink of brink of something truly remarkable. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of investment money that are flowing into our city as we speak. Not all major developments, but duplexes and triplexes as well. As you said, most of these buildings are being turned over their Class C properties. They have deferred maintenance, poor living conditions and as a result are a blemish on our.
Speaker 3: Own, our city.
Speaker 1: These investors are coming into our city in droves right now, increasing tax revenue through reassessment and beautifying our neighborhoods through renovation. If we pass these ordinances that discourage this investment, those investors are going elsewhere and they're leaving with their investment dollars. This means instead of our investors beautifying our classy properties in desperate neighborhoods, those properties will continue to slump. The blemishes will remain in our city, will miss this incredible wave of growth that will forever improve our city and our lives. Let's incentivize growth and not discourage it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. 1/2, Mr.. Mr.. Wright. I know I want to make sure I know. The farmer also is trying to get folks in that are outs that are currently outside. If you've already spoken and you can help kind of fill in on this side. So I know that he's trying to put in folks in the first few rows. If you've already if you've already had a chance to speak and you're in one of the first few rows on this side, if you can just fill in the rest of of of the auditorium on this side, that would be appreciated. We do have some some kids and some seniors at that. We want to make sure they have a chance to sit down from the outside. And so if you're on this side, hold tight, because a lot of folks in this that haven't haven't had a chance to speak yet. If you check, if you already spoke on this side, we do have some seniors and. Seat. And so if you can help fill in that, if you're on the front section and you've already had a chance to speak. Let's let some of these folks come in and have a chance to sit down. Please continue.
Speaker 1: My name is Juan Elvira. I've been a provider of housing since 1997, mainly Class C properties. So again, good evening, dear neighbors and Council members. Before we contemplate any such ideas, a tenant relocation fee list, first look at the reality. Local small property owners do not haphazardly evict tenants. Most small property owners, however, are hard working family owned businesses that rely on the income of rental properties to provide the tenants housing, as well as to sustain their livelihood and provide jobs. Many of these small property owners did not wake up one morning with units. They had to work hard for them. They had to work diligently and save money for years. So just like I did. So rather than picking on the low lying Fruit Council members focus on the big picture. Focus on the housing shortage from a holistic perspective rather than a myopic view. Again, what you are proposing and other such failed attempts go to the heart of the small business owner. What you are doing is marginalizing them and opening up a door for wider for a greater Wal-Mart discussion of the real estate market. What we what that will eventually be owned by less and less by small business people and more and more by large developers and national corporations covering up a failure on the city's part to actively address the issue of housing. Yet a housing shortage goes to the real intent of the current.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Kevin Yeager, CD2 and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. I just want to turn this whole conversation back to housing stability and the societal cost of these rampant evictions we're seeing. It's across the city. We're seeing destabilized neighborhoods, entire gender, generations of people being displaced. And one of the tenant is evicted with no no support structure behind them. They have the chance of moving directly into homelessness, which everyone here is on the same page, that homelessness is an issue in this city. So what's happening is these corporate landlords are evicting tenants and placing that cost of the eviction in terms of public safety cost or just the cost of caring for these people onto the public. And we've heard from a lot of, you know, mom and pop landlords who say they are not evicting their tenants haphazardly or don't raise the rents over 10% so they wouldn't be affected by this policy. So I don't understand why they are trying to keep us. You know, they're even complaining about the private equity landlords who are sweeping in and buying up all this property. Well, this policy is designed to hold those corporate landlords accountable. Some of those corporate landlords might have, you know, a portfolio of duplexes. So we definitely don't want to leave all that. That's arbitrary for Plex rule. Lastly, I would just say that this the city staff has wrote a 260 page policy. These conversations have been going on for years. There's been ample stakeholder input on both sides and the city council needs to take action today.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: Tamara, district two and I support option one. Thanks.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Hello. Hello. My name is Adrian Reyes and I am not a resident of Long Beach, but I come from the 714 area code, so I would just like to say hello to all my neighbors here, all the landlords from the 714. I thought this was a Long Beach City Council meeting, not an Orange County City Council meeting. And I keep on hearing that there are a whole bunch of struggling landlords, but these are my neighbors and the lowest homes, they're all homeowners, the lowest. What the average homes are going for in this area are 700,000. So these struggling small time landowners are living in homes ranging anywhere from 700000 to 1.2 million. So all I want to say is that the people that are in this room right now are not representative of the people in Long Beach. There's this room. This room is heavily.
Speaker 9: No, actually, no, guys. Hey, actually, you'll be asked to leave if we do that. Everyone has a right to say their time, and you get it. You get a few more seconds for making an announcement. So please, everyone, give them another respect.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. Um. So all I say is that the people in this room are not representative of the Long Beach. And I urge that if more people from outside can come in, or if they have a time to come in, you would see that the real workers, the real laborers, the people that put the sweat, sweat and all their work into the city of Long Beach are outside. And it's mostly the black and brown community out there. So I hope they can come in later to speak. So all I support is option one, please. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: Hi, my name is Jacqueline Case. I am. I used to be a renter. I'm a homeowner now with my wife. I also was a renter and did have landlords that weren't always necessarily positive. So I will commend you as far as some of them didn't come in, check up on our home that was riddled with termites. But then on the other side, I've also had amazing landlords, so I think you can't put everybody in a box. I think this is a huge issue that we have. I think, number one, it comes from affordable housing and everything just kind of trickles down. I'm a realtor and I work with Berkshire Hathaway, so I have to I have to stand up here because somebody made a comment about my company and my broker and the people I work for really do care about the community. We are all about education and about working in our community. But I also want to make a comment too that we do have 50 we have more renters in our community. So, I mean, as a realtor, I have to know all these things. And so this is not a fun this is hard for both worlds. And so as a realtor, I want to support, you know, some of my landlords that are mom and pops or not even mom and pops. But they do have for, you know, for units and that this may affect them. I also want to support some of my family members that are homeless and they will not even take any help from me. And I'm a realtor, you know, I work with there's so I sit on both sides and it's really difficult. And so to find a medium is going to be hard. But I appreciate everybody coming to the table and and doing their due diligence. And I think we still have more to do.
Speaker 9: You very much next speaker, please.
Speaker 13: My name is Bill Laurel.
Speaker 1: I talk shows.
Speaker 13: I'll try not to waste a lot of time praising you guys like your first speaker, Mr. Stephen did.
Speaker 1: Anyway, I've been building here. I did my first project, 1959. I've been developing here on and off ever since. And I'm still a developer. And I want to remind you guys that when we as developers buy this property. A rent increase.
Speaker 13: We have all improved our property and made.
Speaker 1: It not a place to live. And all these people that have got up and told us sad stories.
Speaker 13: Jeff, I sympathize with them, but I want you to keep in mind that it is people like me that come out and buy these buildings and remodel them and everything is what makes this thing keep going is not there.
Speaker 1: And anyway, rent control, you say it's not rent control. It needn't about rent control, but it is all tied together. Rent control does not work in any city words. What? I hope you don't try to put this do. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Nick Speaker.
Speaker 4: No. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Council. My name is Diana Wences and I'm a.
Speaker 6: Beach residents and powered a housing.
Speaker 4: Justice organization in the city as a formerly displaced tenant and an organizer who works directly with senior living.
Speaker 6: In affordable seniors, living in affordable housing. I want to encourage you to adopt the strongest version of the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, which is option one. I want to thank the city staff for the hard work they have put into coming up with these options. And I would like to ask that you vote on the option with the broadest protections. One that is simple to implement and prioritizes the most vulnerable in our community. You know, having to move out is a difficult process. And we see tenants go through this every day. This ordinance could alleviate a major burden for tenants. And in my case, we lost a lot of essentials from our home because we couldn't afford to relocate those items. And lever we have been able to support is in a variety of ways. And a lot of those times you have also been supportive of that when buildings have been bought out. Unfortunately, many other tenants have to engage, engage in their fights alone. And this ordinance provides a real opportunity to keep families, seniors and disabled tenants in homes, calm homelessness and activate real solutions. Lastly, I just want to remind everybody that the options on the table are in regards to tenant relocation assistance, though you might hear that very money is confused with rent control. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Council. My name is Manuel Martinez and I am a resident and renter.
Speaker 4: In District two. I'm here in support of a realistic relocation assistance program that is fair to all the renters in Long Beach. As a human resource professional, I believe this relocation assistance program is very similar to the benefits to help those who have recently lost jobs. These benefits are there in assistance to help people remain somewhat financially stable during this unexpected transition. A relocation a relocation assistance program would be helpful in a similar way. As renters, we are at a disadvantage in our communities. As you can see tonight, landlords can charge whatever amount they want because they know someone will be desperate enough to pay it. Many of us have lived here for many years and have established community ties and we want to stay here in Long Beach. I love Long Beach. I love my community. I don't want members of my community, especially those who are living paycheck to paycheck or on a fixed income, to run the risk of becoming homeless because they don't have enough money to pay for their first month last month rent, security, deposit and other fees associated.
Speaker 0: With having to.
Speaker 4: Relocate. For these reasons, please choose option one of the staff report because it's the most fair to all the renters in Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Gretchen Swanson District. I know a couple of things. One is I live in a neighborhood rose park that's 80% redder. So when all this turmoil has gone on, those are my neighbors that are being moved out for all of this, these new properties, a new property owners coming in. But what my expertize is in my doctoral work is in is frailty, resettlement and keeping the frail elder in the in their home, in the community. I've spent a lot of years in that. I spend time every day here in the city of Long Beach, stabilizing the frail elderly in their homes. One thing that is true is that the frail don't relocate well. They don't relocate at all. So when you think about this and there's a lot of landlord versus tenant issues here outside of my scope. My scope is understanding what it will take to stabilize a frail, elderly person in their home. They cannot move. So I'm for option one because of its inclusivity. But I ask you to look towards in your thinking the calls for service from our paramedics, because they are helping those older adults who are not stable in their homes. I'd ask you to look at discharge planners. There's no place for people to move when they've been admitted because their health status is unstable, because their housing is unstable, there's no place for them to be discharged to various places in nursing homes. So please. Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Holly Stewart. I live in a Walker's building over here a couple of blocks. And so, therefore, I'm a loft owner and an investor in this city. And I'm going to try and make this fairly quick. I supported option one because just like the last speaker, it provides a way for many people with disabilities and other problems, as well as low income renters to stay in a place. And I think we have a responsibility, I mean, all of you and all of us, to realize that we're our children's future. And when we see families put out because of rent increases and things like that, then we see children whose best future begins to drop down, especially when there's more and more rental evictions and things like that that happen because people can't afford it. You are working to do something here, a place for children to grow up with stability and education, with stability, with families and free excuse me, friends and the other children to live with so that we can have a society where we develop better all the time. And landlords can help do this. Tennis can help do this. You can help do this. But it means making that commitment to the idea that, yes, we want a stable and perhaps growing, but also a stable city where people can go on with their life without worrying every month about getting put out. Being in the Walker building and I see old people being evicted almost every month, not from our building, but from near the closed west side. I see women with children there not knowing where they're going to go. These are important issues. Go for option number one and let's build a better society. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor and city council. That's a hard one to follow. You have a very difficult decision to make tonight. I'm Ray Gavel from the eighth district. You know, I moved here in 1967 and my rent was $85 a month. And I moved up every month or every year when I could move into something that that was a maybe a nicer place to live that I could afford to live in. So I think that's something that we keep forgetting to think about in this process. We are becoming gentrified. That's not necessarily a good thing. But for instance, D in your district, you are doing some amazing building that is serving seniors and disabled. And I really respect you for that. But you also have a very large portion of your district that probably have terrible landlords. You know, there's a lot of crime. There's a lot of poverty down there. And those people need your help. I think that having a greater program that addresses those landlords or those property owners that are not maintaining their buildings, that are not keeping them safe for people, should be addressed. And Lina, I think you probably face you're probably second in the district, in the city through for your district, realizing the same issues for people that live in poverty. My concern is for seniors and people that are disabled. And I see that one of these things, one of the things that could happen here is if you pass this, is that people may just decide not to rent to those two populations. Thank you very much. We don't want that to happen.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Mayor, city council members. A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig and this is still run control. You know, I had something that I wanted to I wrote out before I came here, but listening to the three plans up there, there are unintended consequences. There's actions I'm going to take that I wouldn't normally take. Now, I've been a landlord for over 33 years here in Long Beach. I have a duplex in Belmont Heights, each one bedroom, and I'm charging 1100 dollars a month, also providing them laundry service. They launched free and in a garage. With that 1100 dollars, I need to raise their rent. Their rent? I think the average here is something.
Speaker 3: Like.
Speaker 1: 1543. I need to raise their rent. What I've learned tonight is. Brandt over 9%. So I can game the system. These are the unintended consequences on all three of those options you've been taken. Do not. Do not rent to seniors. God bless them. But I don't want to I just don't want to do that as a landlord. If it's going to hurt me or my children, I will not work with tenants who are late with rent. Right now. I've got someone whose rent but late with rent, but I'm not going to work with them anymore. I'm going to evict them. I will not rent to anyone whose FICO score is below 700.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much, sir.
Speaker 1: Next, before I got more. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Next speaker, please, guys. Let's make sure everyone let's just let everyone speak. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Boy.
Speaker 4: Hot topic.
Speaker 0: Linda Sopo.
Speaker 4: Fifth district. My address is on file, boys. Try and say what you want to say in 90 seconds is tough. But I.
Speaker 0: Think one of the things that's so difficult about all this is that we're all.
Speaker 4: Human beings in this room. And there's an emotional component on all sides. For those that are being evicted and that.
Speaker 0: Have had people come in and buy your.
Speaker 4: Buildings up and are, you know, raising rents to a point.
Speaker 0: That you can't afford it. My heart bleeds because.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Can't afford to take care of you or help you in that way. But for those of us that are home, that are property owners. I don't know anybody here. Someone talked about all the hard work and hard swear. I'm sorry. I may not have to physically go out and labor, but I have in my lifetime had to do that. And I worked really hard to get to a point where I didn't have to do that. And I worked really hard. My husband and I sacrificed a lot to be able to own a rental property. Okay. And what I want to say to all those people out there that are property owners, that are landlords.
Speaker 0: How many of you have a really great positive cash flow on a property that you bought.
Speaker 4: Within the last ten years?
Speaker 0: Okay. How many of you have a positive cash flow.
Speaker 4: And you've owned it 25 years. Okay. So how are you going to be able to afford to evict somebody if they play the game and they game this thing and you got to pay them a ton of money to move out or if you want to go in and do some renovation.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 14: My name is Nadir Tushnet.
Speaker 6: I live in the third district and I'm glad that this is on the table. I want to make a couple of comments that seniors, of which I am.
Speaker 0: One, and the disabled are protected class under.
Speaker 6: Housing regulations for the U.S. so you can't refuse to rent to us.
Speaker 0: The other point I want to make.
Speaker 6: Is that relocation assistance is particularly important for two groups of people, seniors and people with young children. Both groups, if they are displaced, have long term effects on schooling. This is all from research. I'll send it to you if you want it on their on their school achievement. And for seniors.
Speaker 0: On their longevity, actually.
Speaker 6: Moving kills seniors. They that breaks their ties with the community. So relocation assistance is important. And the last thing to emphasize is not that number, which seems very abstract. It is first.
Speaker 0: Last and security deposit. That's a lot of money for.
Speaker 6: Somebody living on Social Security.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Zoe Nicholson. I live in Rose Park. I'm a renter. My self-appointed task is always to ask where the women. I want you to know that I have sat here all these hours and how this is the first person to say.
Speaker 7: The word woman out loud.
Speaker 6: It's not in a chart. Wasn't in the data. Today is April 2nd. April 2nd is known as Equal Pay Day. It took till April 2nd for a white woman to earn what a white man earned in 2018. It took her three more months. For a black woman. It took 20.
Speaker 2: Months.
Speaker 6: For a Latina. It took 21 months to make what a white man made in 2018. So when you're looking at first and last and deposit and I hear us talking about all people as if they are the same, our people are not the same. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council Andy Cur from District eight and Measure H Oversight Board. I have been speaking to you and writing to you for quite some time about the housing crisis and the problem of homelessness. As you know, tonight, you have the opportunity to do something that will have an impact on the people house today who will not have a home tomorrow without your support of a strong policy protecting renters in our community. That's an awesome responsibility and really excited about the opportunity tonight. I have spoke to you and written to you about housing supply and affordable housing development. We need those solutions, but they will not material that materialize anytime soon for young families, for people who are chronically ill and disabled and folks just trying to get by today. I have been blessed to be a homeowner almost 23 years. If I were a young man paying rent and trying to support a family today, there's no way. That I could afford to save a down payment. Yet alone the cost of displacement from rising rents and forced mobility placed on people today. I want Young Long Beach's to have the same opportunities I did. I strongly support Option one and the strongest protections possible for folks struggling in our community today. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. My name is Jordan Wayne. I'm a resident of the seventh District. I first want to recognize the renters who are out. Can or third job tonight in order to afford their rent here in Long Beach. I'd like to thank the council. Thank you so much for bringing this forward and I strongly encourage you to pass this at its full power. Option one. Renters have endured tough conditions like gentrification and displacement for.
Speaker 12: A long time in Long Beach, and I'm glad that we are taking a step as a city.
Speaker 1: I also want to thank Tom Modica and reiterate his point that this is not a rent control policy and has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Let's make that clear. This is an anti gouging measure. If you're like the landlords with the heart that were described earlier that you don't raise your rents more than $50. You literally won't be affected by this ordinance. This is an anti price gouging measure. We must listen to people over profit. Tenants are not the enemies as much as the horror stories of some people here tonight may want you to believe we're just trying to survive. This ordinance applies specifically to residents who are responsible renters. Each year, each of you as as residents who have come forward with extreme ends. Half of the families in our city that's over 250,000 people are cost burdened by housing. And rents have risen 28%, not 2.8% over the past eight years. A one bedroom apartment cost about 5000 dollars. I can't move out of my own house, my own family's house. Thank you once again for bringing this item forward. And I encourage you to pass this relocation assistance item and the other recommendations at their full power option one. This is the first step in creating a long beach where everyone has a roof over their head and we need more supportive housing and affordable housing as well. And we need substantial rental protections that match the leadership of other large municipalities in California.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you very much. And before the next speaker, again, just a reminder that we do have these speakers right in front of us. So please talk right into the mic is just enough just for us to get to get the information. So it's happened a few times tonight and we can you know, I understand everyone's passionate, but we can hear just fine. Next speaker.
Speaker 1: Please.
Speaker 6: My name is Amy York, I.
Speaker 9: But thank you. But we do need you to speak right into the speaker. Thank you. Just right. Just. Yeah, thank.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 6: Did you hear? My name is Amy Burke. I live in the seventh district. I live in a rear house behind a duplex and would therefore be excluded from relocation assistance. I think the reasons for the exclusion should be reevaluated, evaluated. There are there are other cities that provide relocation to all units, regardless of size. And I believe Long Beach should do the same. I've experienced a retaliatory eviction in the past and my only recourse with small claims. Court Although the judge decided in my favor he only awarded $1,000 in moving expenses and $200 in punitive damages a fraction of what I asked for in a drop in the bucket for him. State law and small claims court is not an adequate remedy for retaliatory actions, and relocation assistance should be available again to all renters evicted for no fault and could also act as a deterrent to evicting tenants without cause and without protections. I fear asserting a legal right or complained because I risk another retaliatory eviction or major rent increase and I can't afford it, basically. So I just have to. It.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Honorable Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council. My name is Sully Zoro and I'm a sixth district resident and I'm a renter. And I want to thank the staff on their hard work at Development Services for this awesome report. And I also want to thank our Fire Marshal John here for keeping us in order and making sure we all get to speak. And so I really think that this tenant relocation assistance ordinance is a good start to prevent people from becoming homeless. Cambodian community leaders, including myself, co-chairs of the Cambodia Equity for Cambodians and other leaders, encourage you to pass a strong tenant relocation policy. Cambodians make up a large percentage of Long Beach renters population, according to a report by the Cambodian Advocacy Collaborative. Three quarters of the Cambodian community are renters, a rate 15% higher than the average in Long Beach. I urge you to please support component one, option one and other recommendation to make this the strongest policy possible to protecting not only just renters, but we're also consumers. If you're a good landlord, I want to thank you. Thank you for being a good landlord. But I really want to encourage you. I know you're busy, but please make sure you read the ordinance and see that it's protecting vulnerable renters and that it's an anti gouging bill ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Um, Mayor Garcia and council members. Most of you have seen me in events. My name is Adele, a single mother. I'm with Lina before in district one for seven years I got an I'm not is like 60 days notice the move with no costs and I'm a model tenant where I live and I had a hard time looking for a place. Three days before my voucher for Section eight expires. I found a place where I'll ask, they're not a district. I'm with him right now and it's a good, good area. And I love going to the events, especially at Michelle Obama Library. And I beg of you to have the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance because I have to rent a U-Haul. I exhaust all my funds through credit checks for me and my son, which cost me a lot of money for looking for a place for three months. And I'm a single mom, I'm disabled and it's really hard with no relocation assistance. So I beg of you to pass it, please. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Council honorable mayor. My name is Tanya Cardoza. I'm an attorney. I'm a landlord. Tenant attorney in the city. I have a small law firm across the street. I represent several landlords in this room, as well as throughout the city and throughout Southern California. I am an expert in rent control. My clients are in the business of housing people.
Speaker 6: Not in the business of evicting people. When they come to me.
Speaker 5: It is a last resort. What the proposal is today.
Speaker 4: Is rent control. It is also for forcing just cause evictions.
Speaker 6: This is absolutely.
Speaker 4: Requiring just cause evictions and potentially contradicting the Costa Rican State Act.
Speaker 6: Which limits rent control and just cause.
Speaker 4: Evictions to any properties built before 1995.
Speaker 6: I would urge the Council to reconsider including that in the proposal. Furthermore.
Speaker 4: It is rent control. When you put penalties on a rent cap, when you put a rent cap and then insist that there be some kind of a penalty to insist on on.
Speaker 6: Specific just cause evictions. You are.
Speaker 4: Forcing a landlord to engage in needless litigation costs.
Speaker 6: Where you are forcing somebody to give.
Speaker 5: A three day notice.
Speaker 4: For.
Speaker 5: I saw dog fighting.
Speaker 4: Or all sorts of illegal activity versus giving.
Speaker 5: Somebody 30 or 60 days notice.
Speaker 4: That is 10 to 20 times the amount of.
Speaker 5: Notice they need is impossible. It is difficult. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Josh Butler. I could director of housing on Beach. While I was sitting here, I looked at Costar and you can see apartment buildings for sale that are all in excess of $2 million sales. So we were talking about $7,000 per unit. It's a very nominal cost that gets built into the sale. They all know that. They won't tell you. They all know that. I want to thank Mr. Mayor, the members of the City Council and staff for their hard work on this issue, especially our efforts to pull together those of us that have been on different sides of this issue. We learned that landlords and realtors will not even support the most modest of proposals. They will not help to find solutions. And in fact, they will not recognize that we are in a housing catastrophe. Why would they? They've been profiting mightily during this time period that those of us who have been renting have been suffering. But the residents in our neighborhoods have paid the price. Our communities deserve stability. I encourage you to vote and support all of component one. People with disabilities need additional assistance and protections. I do believe renters should have more than seven days to decide whether or not they want to exercise the right to stay or go. If the landlords that are wearing stickers say that, say responsible housing providers, I find that ironic when we started this campaign several years ago. We started out for responsible renters ordinance. Well, this is one thing we agree on. If you pay your rent on time, you follow the rules of the lease. You should not lose your home. And if you do, you should get a real relocation assistance so that we, the taxpayers, don't have to pay for all the homeless services out there. For the beach cleanups, thank you to police officers for all the things that keep. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. Nice.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Fred Sutton. I'm here on behalf of the California Apartment Association. We represent housing providers here in the city, and I'm also a resident. Thank you to the city staff for a very thoughtful report. And Mr. Geary, for all those workshops, we greatly appreciate you and your team. Um, the subjects are incredibly complex, but there's still a fundamental misunderstanding of how rental operations work. The 10% other cities have instituted higher caps prior to bringing them down. Los Angeles. Beverly Hills. They all had higher capital. One point they no longer at 10% or 7% where they were. Under the scenario rent or owner, maybe a below market not raise rent for five years. Gave a 10% increase, and now they're penalized for not giving rents. The city is encouraging people to give small rent increases, not 9%, but two 3%. Why would we encourage housing to become more expensive that will hurt our communities. The city should more narrowly focus relocation toward the issue of rehabilitation. Josh just brought up properties being sold. This is where the issue is that this has been trying to address some buyers of property, fix it up. This should be more narrow and tailored to those issues. Part B rental property owners are not in the eviction business. Termination controls will handcuff rental property owners. Responsible housing providers should not choose between costly litigation or paying off somebody that is a nuisance. I think there are ways forward on this. It should be narrowed to where the issue is and not take all these responsible housing providers into it. Thank you. Thank you. Time. Good evening. My name is Ernie Vila. I am a property owner since 1970 and the first district. Like this says I'm a responsible housing provider. I've been doing it for a long time. Have I always increased the rents? No, because I didn't know. Well, because I didn't have a lot of value back then. But things have changed. When I look at the price of rent now, I see that I'm 25, 30% below market. But is that going to mean I'm going to raise the rent, maybe 50 bucks? I'm I'm very, very sensitive to the needs of my tenants. Actually, not. They're mine. They're my neighbors. I have an invested interest in my neighbors, and that includes those who live down the street. Whenever they come to me in regards to a purchase of a building that they live in, I. I sympathize with them, but I can't really say too much aside from maybe helping them understand what is going on and maybe what they can do this this penalty of over 4500. I. I cannot afford that. It's not something that I got into the business of doing. Got in the business of housing. Reasonable, decent tenants.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Akilah Pruitt. I'm a young woman who has worked very hard for the two properties that I have. The tenants in my duplex only pay 1575 with no written crease for a three bedroom house with front and back yard. No tenants have. My tenants have been there for 13 years. But with this relocation plan that you're proposing, it makes me feel pressure to convert my properties to a sober living home or other business. I would very much appreciate you letting me be the great landlord that I am without getting involved in my personal business. I would love to buy a Long Beach again, but with this. But this ordinance is unacceptable. I also feel like the rent, the the cost to relocate is ridiculous. I make no profit on my properties, but I love my.
Speaker 5: Tenants and paying 40 $500 plus $1,000 is just unacceptable. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Ian Patton, Honorable Mayor and Council. I wanted to tell you a little story. My grandparents immigrated to this country in 1949. They were refugees from World War Two. My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, and both their families were wiped out in the Holocaust. They came to this country with nothing. And my grandfather worked as a house painter. And he went from being a tenant to owning the small six unit building that he lived in. And he worked his hands to the bone. He worked every day for the remainder of his life on that building. In fact, my last memory in 1989, before he died, was him with labored breath working on a unit in our building. I don't think my grandfather was a villain. I think he was a hero. I think he was a housing provider. And and if you and if you deem it necessary to provide social insurance for tenants, that's fine. The burden should not be placed on the backs of the people who stepped forward to provide housing. If you. If you want to implement this policy, do it in an honest way. Social insurance should be paid for by the government. You should have to pay for it. Period. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Phil Jones. And I am here on behalf of the Pacific Quest Association of Realtors. I am the chair of the Government Affairs Committee. And I bring that up because in that role, I've had the opportunity to meet each of you, interview each of you when you were looking for our support. You completed a questionnaire in which each and every one of you said you opposed rent control. And my apologies to Mr. Modica, but this is the camel's nose under the tent. This is the first step to rent control. Part of our part of our discussions during your interview was to inform some of you of the elements of rent control and how unsuccessful it's been. You're hard pressed.
Speaker 9: To find an economist.
Speaker 1: On either side of the aisle today that would tell you that these these elements work. They do not work. One of the things that Mr. Modak is report the staff's report left out. They brought up the fact that San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa monica had the strictest rent control laws. What they didn't say is each one of those communities has seen a diminishment in the number of rental units available. We all appreciate that. This is a statewide crisis, by the way. We're having an affordability crisis not only at the tenant level, but at the homebuyer level. We're not building enough supply. Supply is the answer. None of these restrictions on property owners.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Phil Hawkins. I'm the CEO of the Pacific West Association of Realtors. And kind of to piggyback on what Phil Jones was talking about, I enjoyed the beginning of the presentation tonight, seeing the numbers on the on the low vacancy rate that we have in Long Beach. And the problem is supply. We should be talking we should have all these people here talking about supply and how we can get more supply. I would love to have this turnout on both sides on how we can get more supply. That's the answer. Doing what we're doing tonight is not the answer I. When looking at the three different proposals, I don't like any of them. I think we can come up with something better. I think we should spend more time to come up with something better. I think if we all sit down, we could figure this out. We have a House and committee here in Long Beach. Let's send it to that and let's see what we can do to get something better. I would encourage you not to move forward with any of the recommendations. And let's figure this out. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Good evening. My name is Henry Broome. I'm a property owner here in Long Beach.
Speaker 13: Thank you very much for your time. And I believe that this issue really comes down to being able.
Speaker 1: To maintain good properties. As a landlord, I've had tenants that have thrown fecal matter to other tenants, have physically assaulted.
Speaker 13: Other tenants, threatened other tenants with physical violence.
Speaker 1: Have brought in gang members unauthorized into units.
Speaker 13: All of those situations we would not the.
Speaker 1: Only way we.
Speaker 13: Were able to get rid of those tents.
Speaker 1: Was by giving them.
Speaker 13: Notices without cause. If we had to pay them to get to move, there's a good chance they never would have been able to get them to move, to be able to afford to do that. We would not be able to afford the $47,000 fee that we would have had to have made, or if we had to evict them with cause, all the other tenants would have been put in harm's way because then we would have to notify of who the other tenants were. They're reporting this issue as we need to do that. So I really hope that the Council votes no on this as this is just another form of just cause eviction that will ultimately result in buildings getting worse. And as a result, neighborhoods are getting worse. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Bless be counsel for I have sinned. I have a714 number. And you guys really ought to be going after the nine for nine numbers. Those are the guys with the money, let me tell you. And my house is worth about 700 grand. But there's a little concept I'd like to introduce to them called a mortgage. And I have a little concept for these guys. I want to know the studies. Have you done any studies on what it takes to run a building? You know, what a roof cost, you know, a plumbing cost, you know, an electrical cost. You know what I mean? It's on and on. Utilities. What are the utilities doing? You guys ought to know that, right? I mean, for sure. Okay. So the unintended consequences and I was born here. I've been here 60 years, okay? I wouldn't work in 60 to 100 hours a week since I was about 18 years old. So I empathize with your three jobs, but I don't feel sorry for you, man. You got to work, okay? That's how it works. Okay. We've kept rents low in our buildings. We've kept rents very low. We had a single family that we were renting for 1200 a month. When the rent is 2000, a 10% rent increase on 1200 a month is $120. It would take me years to get there. Okay. Unintended consequences is I'm going to have to go back and raise all my rents because they're all low and I don't the gun when I go to sell the property.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 6: My name is Blanche Harris. I'm a 69 year old senior. And I'm in the sixth District, but I consider myself as well in the seventh. How closely they are related. And how will they work together. So I have adapted and kind of pull from that. Seven districts will. I'm hearing all of the comments about the landlords. The owners. Their empathy, the passion and all of that that they have. But I want to read this to you as of last night. In a has association meeting that I have been attending for several years concerning this topic, and I haven't yet seen this over to my councilman because I don't know how to be computer savvy yet on scanning and all that. But I want to read this. Isabelle. I'm just getting in for my monthly Rigley Association meeting. Being a member of the association, I've never been so disrespected, devalued and humiliated as a citizen and member in the years of attending those meetings. I ask this question to stated that I'm in favor of affordable housing and to explain the definition and a difference. Remember, I'm coming from Ocean Boulevard. I had to read it real quickly. Low income is subsidized housing. I didn't know what that meant. So I can understand and follow the presentation a little bit closely is like I set off a bomb in the midst of it exploded with three prominent and one new member which came against me. It was very humiliating.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: So I want to thank the city staff, Lina, Janine Pearce. And City. Council. City Council. City staff for pushing bad policies related to rent control and being dishonest with false statistics that are actually harmful to the community. We have success. You have successfully pushed out many mom and pop landlords, many who include minority owners. I am a Hispanic owner and I rent to many low income minorities. Your policies are dishonest and are unjust to the community. I encourage each one of you City Council and staff to give up your pension, part of your pension, to to pay for relocation fees.
Speaker 4: My name is Marlene Alvarado. I'm a horn over here in Long Beach, but I also own a condo and I am a responsible rent homeowner property owner.
Speaker 0: First of all, always people who are complaining, who own homes that oh, how much it costs and everything these tenants do. You know what? If you're I know I own a condo and I rent it, I get a depreciation allowance every single time I fix that place up. I get also tax rebates on that. So you're screaming about.
Speaker 6: Fixing up the houses.
Speaker 0: I have had a property for for ten attorneys for ten years. I have not raised their property once. They love me and I, they will never they will not ever leave my property because I pay. I take care of them so well. So why do you care about it's going to cost more money.
Speaker 6: All this amount. Keep your tenants.
Speaker 0: Treat them well. They won't leave another thing. Every time we write rent here we get. There are 500 students in Long Beach City and libraries schools that are homeless. Every time you raise rent.
Speaker 6: You create more homelessness.
Speaker 0: You need to find a recommendation to it to pay for these these dislocations of people. Because, Tommy, I live in the Willmar District. We've got homeless people who have who are living on the streets. And I have an attorney who has five four people living in an A property because they only can afford.
Speaker 6: As one room.
Speaker 0: To pay rent between four people. Excuse me. I think we really need that. And these other people are greedy and what they should be raising is wages. Right. Thank you. Wages.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mayor and council people. My name is Susan Doan and I'm a 78 year old senior and I've worked my buns off all these years to have what I have. I came here in 64 and started buying real estate with everything that I had. I've had three jobs. I'm a single mom, single grandmother, and I've worked so hard to have what I have. And it seems to me that raising or putting out another fee for us owners who who do spend a lot of money on utilities, on roofing, on everything to keep our properties nice, is just another gouge to us owners. And I urge you to not pass any of this or.
Speaker 7: To reconsider another.
Speaker 6: Fee to us. We don't deserve to be punished for supporting the city and the people who want to build and live here. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right. Okay. Excuse me for you. Start talking. I think everyone is inside the building that's going to speak. You know what? If not, I'm going to close out the speaking. So. But everybody else in the building that wants to be quiet.
Speaker 12: So, Mr. Vice Mayor, we believe we have still about 20 people or so outside, but we believe everyone who wants to speak has been inside and they're sitting and they'll be called out by the fire marshals.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Inside. Okay, go. Excuse me.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 6: My name is Blanca Flores. I live in the ninth district where I live in a complex for 20 years plus was recently sold. And I've been affected not only myself, but my mom. My parents lived there in a unit. My sister lived in a unit. It's a 16 unit complex where we all have been affected with a 60 day notice termination letter. Right now we have till May 19 to just move out. I have no place to go. I have two kids and I'm not the only person in there that has kids. We have 19 kids in that unit. Boy, right now we're really, really concerned where we going to do with our kids? Not only like where we're going to place them. We have no earn money right now. You need like over $4,000 to move to a place. You need deposit, you need rent, first month payments. Some are complex. They ask you for two months rent beforehand. So right now we're really in a situation that we have no idea what to do. This will really you guys really have to consider, you know, our hardworking people. I'm a really hardworking I have never been late in the rent. I have always paid on time. But right now it's a concerning that what am I do with my kids? I'm have to remove them and let them miss a school for a whole month only because I have nowhere else to put them. It's just something that's really concerning in this. If you guys pass past this law, it would really help all of us, not only me, but the people that are coming behind me as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Hey. My name's Jen. I'm from a student since you will be a resident of District four. First of all, I want to say that this isn't a rent control policy. So this is a policy for tenant relocation assistance. That being said, someone earlier called this policy tenant welfare. You know, if this was actual tenant welfare, then the city would be paying for it. But it's not. Right.
Speaker 0: So moving on, if homeowners are complaining, at least the homeowners that have the capital to own more.
Speaker 4: Than one property are complaining that this baseline solution, quote unquote baseline solution, because it really is minimal, is hurtful to those owners just getting by. Then why don't I see you're fighting in the city for more public housing? Why don't I see all fighting from for rent control shit that will actually help your tenants, you know, instead of instead of letting the city just build more gentrifying sky rises, more expensive condos, etc. like this really is just minimal protections for people who are just trying to get by. I'm here.
Speaker 6: Talking for people who.
Speaker 4: Who need baseline solutions like this. We're literally asking for the minimum. I'm looking at the generational wealth that I see and the spirit and the racial disparity lessening between the people who have property and the people who do not. Because, listen here. I don't own property, y'all. In the sixties, we're paying rent for, what, 68 bucks like. Damn, I wish I had that kind of shit right now, so. But that's why I'm here asking for fucking tenant relocation assistance. Y'all need to pass this pass. Pass the ordinance and option number one.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Speaker, please hands up to the.
Speaker 9: Next speaker place.
Speaker 0: When I mentioned when I'm president, you'll be walking.
Speaker 6: In a room which is a member of the ICA Interfaith Community, Django Dresselhaus In response to your travel hummus, Ibrahim was the Leah Leah chick at chicken. Let me put it on, Mayor Lin.
Speaker 0: I represent an Austrian company that is partner.
Speaker 6: E protagonist Ross, Rachel's protagonist Ross family ask almost entirely within the order's EBV Enders, but on Maestro Seahorse Crisis, he put forward a point and option or not sexy.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And we'll do that, guys, please. We're going to do the translation.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is.
Speaker 6: Konya. I live in District 13. I'm a member of Ikwo Interfaith Community.
Speaker 0: And I have three children. My husband and I.
Speaker 6: Work and we live paycheck to paycheck. I ask.
Speaker 0: Mayor Garcia and.
Speaker 6: Lina to please represent us, represent our rights for our families so that we can have the benefits of a secure living in. Please support component one. Option one. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Oh, no, not just me. No, but as my Peter is, they have all the component they wanna know it's let me petition for the gig as Familias Trabajadores to be viviendo accessible as important as any color you get. And also we are going to meet on the back in the renter. You get.
Speaker 9: 1/2 somebody. Templeton's in one of our guys. I just want to make sure that there's no talking. Please, in the audience. If you have to speak, please just go outside. I want to make sure everyone that speaks to us gets a chance to speak. So we're hearing a lot of conversations and not able to hear the speaker. So please continue before what.
Speaker 6: Is a mute as Amelia is getting, as well as and thus in ordinary Lugares group, Amelia's is the only really spoke more common mother Amelia getting on in Quinta E It was B And think is my whore. Then they don't have to index and accessible. Get familiar to me like I communicate this. Good evening.
Speaker 0: My name is Maria Dolores. Annette Peter.
Speaker 6: I live in District one and I am in favor of option one. And what we would like is for you to represent our needs as working families. As working families have done nothing for our families and to have secure living. And we ask you to support us in that. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: But that's not just I mean, a lot of people in D.C. don't know because see.
Speaker 9: The microphone crashes.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 6: You know, Barbarella. Sorry. But then in Central District owner. So. Bingo. Sorry, I forgot the component. No, no, no. Vivian, the mayor of Abkhazia, then I. Gonzalez okay, let's consider personas because almost Deborah Corso is an assistant and it is a local paradox. But I support this role. Look at that, Moses Aluminum. So as I think we're going to see, because Kareem also now, you know, a lot of soap opera sequels. Good evening. My name is Roberto Adela. I live in District one and I'm in favor of component number one. And I'm asking for you to help us out because we don't earn too much money, and it's very difficult for us. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Which is? Yes. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mayor and council people. Thank you for your time. My name is Malina BALDONADO. I am a resident in District three. And when I moved here to Long Beach, I was a renter. I'll give you a background so you understand where I'm coming from. And when I met my boyfriend, we had a plan. We wanted to purchase a home together. And so stepping away from renting, we moved into literally a garage and a family member's home so we can save and we live below our means. And we were able to buy a condo here in Long Beach. And for five long years we saved and saved and live below our means. And we were able to sell that property and purchase a rental property where we own and rent other units. And so this ordinance would not only affect us, but the people that I serve every single day as a realtor here in this city. And no one's really talked much about this point, but it costs a lot of money when a tenant moves out, whether on their own volition or not. And so as a property owner, to fill that vacancy is already a huge monetary loss to us, and to impose an additional penalty is what it is. On top of that, I would personally suffer, my family would personally suffer and my clients that I serve every single day in this city. I had a client recently sell property. It would have cost them 40 $500 to make that move. And so that would perpetuate this shortage of housing supply that we have.
Speaker 9: Thank you next week or please.
Speaker 1: Wayne Zimmerman. I reside in District three, but I grew up in District one. I apologize if I tonight was the first night I've heard of the proposed ordinance, and I'm not real literate on all of the details of it. I did see the presentation as I understand and correct me if I'm wrong, that single residents would be excluded. Okay. So this wouldn't apply to me, this ordinance. But I do feel that I need to say a couple of things. I started planning for my retirement in my twenties. Okay, I'm retired. This my my plan involved my rental property here in Long Beach. And I've had my renter my I have two renters in District one. One has been there 22 years. The other 15 years they've stayed there because I've kept my rent low. Okay. And they have saved a huge amount of money over the years. So to reward me by allowing them to save a huge amount of money, by adding a penalty of having to pay to have them moved, doesn't seem to make sense. I do believe that the idea of extending the notice period of 90 days is an excellent, rational solution. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Your next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hello. Good evening.
Speaker 8: My name is A.J. I'm the resident.
Speaker 0: Of the sixth District.
Speaker 8: I'm here in support of option one, the relocation assistance. And I'm here representing my family, my friends, my.
Speaker 0: Neighbors who cannot be here today.
Speaker 6: Many families are living paycheck to paycheck. My father is 68 years old. And if he works 80 days to 100.
Speaker 8: Hours a week still, and if rent skyrockets, he will be homeless. And let's think about.
Speaker 6: The elderly when we're making a.
Speaker 8: Decision. Let's think about low income families and.
Speaker 6: Think about others who cannot afford to move out. I support I urge you to support option one. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please, guys. I don't know if someone was hissing or what that was, but please, let's just let everyone have a chance to speak respectfully. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Bianca Perez. I am a recent property owner in District two. I became a property owner in 2017 and I grew up in the east side of Long Beach, which is not easy, but I made a decision I'm going to become a property owner. I one of my tenants is Section eight tenant. I have not raised anybody's rent. I'm not making any money off of my property. If you add this burden on me, I'm going to have to sell a place or file bankruptcy. I cannot afford to pay my tenants $4,000 to move out. I worked two jobs to save to buy my property, and I really think that this is what other people should do. You want something? You need to work hard for it because everybody likes something for free and nobody helped me when I was renting. Nobody helped me when I was renting. I did it myself. I worked two jobs and now I'm a property owner. So work hard and you'll be able to reap what you work for. That's.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next picture, please.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Ivan. I am a resident of District One. First of all, I'll start off by saying I support option one. I say that because I come from a my mother is a single mother and she rents and she's low income. And I have many neighbors who are in the similar situation as she is and when. The properties are raising their prices by raising the rents. These families have very little to no recourse in terms of having money to be able to move out and move into a different property in a timely manner without having to go through homelessness, which is the worst which worst case scenario would be going through that. But also, it's more about having people living dignified lives, you know, I mean, as as many people have said before me. These small these small land landlords don't. This doesn't really apply to them. This is more so the larger landlord, large companies. And so, I mean, 10% a 10% raise doesn't happen very often. But given that it's been occurring a lot lately, it is something that the council ought to be considering and to send it off again. I am in support.
Speaker 9: Of option one. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Pat Kennedy. I'm a resident of the fifth District. I work with the Greater Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization. Complements in terms of looking at a good tool here. I think what we all want is stable neighborhoods. I think we want sustainable neighborhoods. I think this is a tool that we could use to help get there. I support option one and I hope we make the step forward. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Cynthia macias and I live in the great district number two and I am a tenant. I also work for housing on which I am the new president of the board. And I just want to say I have this week alone, I am dealing with three buildings on Alamitos 909 14 904. That is over 40 families that are all getting displaced. Or while I'm hearing all these landlords say I'm a good landlord, I don't kick nobody out. So who's kicking out 60 tenants? Nobody. The Holy Spirit like you don't work that way. So, you know, and I also heard a comment talking about, well, the pig in lipstick is still a pig. Right. Okay. Well, there's also Spanish thing. My grandma used to tell me that topical commercial, Alaska commercial, La La Plata, he who kills the cow is as guilty as who drags the cow out. So thank you for coming up with this. I appreciate it. Thank your time. And I hope you guys do pass it. I support one. And just remember, if you guys don't, all those families that are getting displaced are on your conscience.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 0: When that's not. Yes. You may remember Trollope made the Bible akinwale zombies.
Speaker 6: Well, let me tell.
Speaker 0: You everything about SARS on notice as a little scandal at Los Apartamento you got on the analogy, Carmela drawing this up on their own accord. Comportamento Gigante I mean, Pietro Bahar labor or be unable to chop out Alberta. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Bartolo Pineda and I live in 900 Alamitos where we are being evicted. They came out like a thief in the night to put a notice and they told my.
Speaker 6: Daughter, Turn in your key or we will remove the locks.
Speaker 0: May I get aimless cannot support you.
Speaker 6: Condemnation of communal vandalism over.
Speaker 0: Your Thanksgiving, the annual review and why this is for. We would.
Speaker 6: Like you to help us.
Speaker 0: With money so we can.
Speaker 6: Move. I lived there for 20 years. Otherwise, how are you going to move?
Speaker 0: Please. Criminals capturing our children are poor for our.
Speaker 6: And we would like you to support option one, please. Families and families cannot see us. We are several families. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening. My name is Karen and I'm a homeowner and I'm a landlord and I don't support.
Speaker 0: The rent control that you're talking about tonight.
Speaker 4: But I did I did want to say one thing.
Speaker 6: The homelessness in Long Beach absolutely is disgusting. Me There are three.
Speaker 4: Buildings in this area you guys should partnership with. There's one in Downey, there's one in Norwalk, there's one in Whittier.
Speaker 6: The grass is 25 feet tall. You guys talk about homelessness all the time. Why cannot we do something about these buildings? Fix them up, do something. It is a disaster. What's happening? And I can't believe that none of you guys can figure this out. It just absolutely amazes me.
Speaker 4: So I don't want to talk about the rent control, but I do want to get that on the record. It just drives me absolutely insane seeing this going on in our city anywhere.
Speaker 6: Do something about these buildings, get them figured out, do something, but get these homeless people.
Speaker 4: Off the streets.
Speaker 6: It's just awful. That's all I have to make.
Speaker 9: Speaker, please.
Speaker 11: Hi, my name is Atlee. I want to let you know I do.
Speaker 1: Support option one and would tell you why. We have careers that we choose. It's a choice that you make. And if you're going to be a renter. You go to that property and you do you pay them? I think we should have the memory of rent. To be honest with you, rent so sky high. It's not even funny. I understand what they come from, but is a choice in career that they choose to.
Speaker 11: Be a renter.
Speaker 1: D instead, it's a choice they made to become a property owner or a property manager. But understandable. We all got to live in the same, either in the same state or they devastate. But we all got to live equally. And we talk about the homeless. There's not enough homeless places at all. The shelters are poor, no matter if you go to L.A., Long Beach, whatever other city, Carson, there's really no shelters. All we asked them for is this a comedy so we can live equally and enough so we can live comfortably. That's all we ask for. Let them get what they need to get support, though control. But at the end of the day, we should have no pill, that they should have no penalty for ignorant people. That's all I'm saying. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: My name is Derek. I'm a public servant and also a property owner, most renter as well. I work pretty hard to be able to afford to buy the properties that I bought and I own two small properties and also rent myself. So I'm on both sides of the coin. Understand where people are coming from. But being from the landlord side, I do understand that when you purchase a property, you know, if I purchase a duplex at $550,000, it costs a certain amount to pay the mortgage, to pay the, you know, all the utilities, to fix it up and all that kind of stuff in it. For me to rent it out for a less than what it cost to, you know, to to pay for all those fees, it just doesn't make any sense. So that's just going to drive people who do want to help out and provide good housing. It's going to drive them away. So that's my take on it. You know, I know a lot of people aren't going to agree with me, but at the same time, like, you know, most of the people that are here, I think everyone here agrees that we want everyone to have a good, affordable place to live. And the on the other side of the coin, the people who are owning want to provide that. And I think this is just a step in the wrong direction.
Speaker 1: So thank you very much.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And Speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Hello. My name is Avandia, Ileana Lopez Carrillo. I live in the wonderful district to most member of Democratic Socialists of America, Long Beach. I'm broad support of the first option. I want to provide protections for people that live in their homes and that don't have the power or the say to decide where their next place of living is going to be. Now, I understand people in the audience here have been in pursuit of the American dream, trying to make their money, trying to make their place in the world. But unfortunately, if you bought your property here maybe in the last four or five years, you know, it's not my place to say you made a terrible investment, but it is my place to say that I don't want people's lives to suffer because of it. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Nathan Carbajal, First District. I was raised here in Long Beach. I came in third grade, used to be from Wilmington. But at the age of 19, I had to run away from home. And I got an apartment in the second district. But then I lost that apartment and then had to go to the where I am now in the first district. But when losing that apartment, having something like option one would have helped me a lot. Now I have to rely on my friends for housing or food again, groceries for this time period. And having money that could use to find a house or find a apartment during that time would have really helped me. Furthermore, a lot of these landlords are saying that they see their tenants as friends and they talk to them. But I've been in my new apartment for six months now and then I see my landlord. All they are to me is a parasite. I go, I have two jobs. All I do still my labor and still my wages. And I pay like what, 1000? Yeah, 1200 for this. Really? About a part of me. I got three roommates. I got one cat in there and she bites me up and shit at my you know, this really helped me a lot option would help me a lot as a young person, as a Latino person, as a first generation person in this country having the option one would have really helped me and provided me a safety net that I was able to get through my through my parents. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And I thank you very much. And I just also, if we can please not had the profanity, we'd appreciate that I I'm I'm just given guys. I just wanna make sure we just keep as much decorum as possible. I appreciate everyone that's speaking tonight. Well, thank everything. Everything matters. I'm just trying. Also, keep just the decorum as well as we can't. Thank you next speaker.
Speaker 6: But I notice Mary don't go no look and say hi let me know. But if I go to represent all Latinos in California, be one at the Sedona better represent all 43,000 or 30 la familia. Scope of the day. Senator regarding Sasha. Good evening. My name is Marta Gorton, but I represent the National. Well, Latinos in action, California. Latinos in action, California. And I'm in favor option one. But you know you're away for another year. This. Let's get over to see if our retirement etc. interpret the standard. Obviously we're not in yet and also in our voter thing of mutual fund use a standard key dynamic or nothing but a surrogate military base to get government comes along. Ms.. Kathy Gordon. Most potentially will still be in the U.S.. Yes. Also, may I say a same as who? M.A. Kondo. They support five or five or see no photos. They must umanos. It's almost the know that they know we being the winner yet to see. The interpreter asked me if I was nervous, and I said, No, I'm not nervous. I've been coming here for 30 years, so I'm not nervous at all. I just want justice for me. Definitely. Don't look at me. Stand in the. In the sovereign. Sorry. Look at your slides. See, in those things Saddam killed. No, nobody else. Look, I interpret that and say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Anton says it's more important now. Ella Stuckey. They got more fiber, no alcohol. They know. I know. They lost. They lost me and brother. A key Jose Padilla materials have been in the Casa Grande since.
Speaker 9: Are the best out of this southwest symbolism.
Speaker 6: Good access, Michael. Okay, okay.
Speaker 9: Okay. Okay. I get to.
Speaker 6: Get out to Alcala and so says Bahrami and that he's thinking I'm poor Firebaugh. Julian's instable status is I guess it's looking Illawarra's only began June the about a year paraprofessional condo. Meanwhile Edificio la casa better why? What I saw you didn't know that then if I be in the better? No. Also U.A. sibutramine. I notice how they all is. They never allow mental baby in the yes three support. No no Julia. So yes I seen here between Los Ninos Vietnamese and yet those many Tantos Ninos guessed on baby and don't care all you have. Like one episode name is Senora Gallo, Consuela Bibi and Alice in Europe. I mean I mean, look, I do not think it is. They don't think. What a valuable specimen. Gracias. Gracias. Yeah.
Speaker 9: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 6: I couldn't even in. My name is Lily Ocampo, and I live in District one, so I came to us. Lena and Mayor Robert are pleased to support the work. Hardworking families, to have help, to have dignified housing. We have our kids. They are the future. So let's help them also not to become. Sorry to have a house, to have a roof over their head and to be able to go through their life without having to wonder if they're going to be like the homeless we see in the street. Listen, they'll have more than that. We have enough of them less liberal, hardworking families and support. Option one. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. And before 1/2, I think we have four speakers in line left. And I think that I want to make sure the fire marshal. Are we all are we done? We got everybody. Okay. Just one to make sure that we have everyone that that was here to speak. Okay. So you have the person at the end who hasn't spoke yet, right? No, she hasn't spoken. Okay. So I just want to make sure and then the I've we have five speakers in line and they're going to close the speakers list. Speakers list is closed. Go ahead.
Speaker 7: Hello, honorable mayor and council members. My name is still releasing on and I'm a resident of the ninth District and grew up in Long Beach. I graduated from Jordan High and was awarded the Gates Millennium Scholarship. I am a public health scholar and practitioner that graduated with my Master's in Epidemiology and Biostatistics from Johns Hopkins University with a certificate in health disparities and health inequalities. I'm here, and I'm here in support of Option one. My training at Hopkins has taught me displacement is a factor that adversely affects health outcomes of individuals and communities. My mentor is currently studying childhood evictions and its impact on childhood development. This is why housing is critical to the safety and health of our communities. As a Cambodian American and child of Cambodian refugee survivors, displacement and investment and resettlement is something we're very familiar with and it is part of our diaspora. Cambodian folks in Long Beach are primarily renters and we have replanted our seeds and community here. If there is a case where we are pulled away from our homes because of rising rents, I ask that we minimize the harms and trauma by by. But that comes with moving. Relocation assistance would do that. And this is why I'm in support of option one. I'd rather have us not leave, but we do. Having no financial support is an injustice. Cambodian families resonate with having to leave and repent. Aristides with no money before most of our families had to come with no money in our pockets. Please do not subject to commune. Please did not suggest us or our communities to relocation without support. We are watching today and we will remember your actions today. So thank you. Thank you for your report and urge to support.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. My next speaker, please. Okay. Next. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Yes. Hello. Good evening. My name is Tara Lems. I live in Long Beach for more than 20 years. I. In District number six, please. Mr. Andrew. Andrew I help us because most of the family in labor paid rent. I am a single mum and I need to do more than to work for support my rent. And I am here too. Because I am. Most of the family is affecting how? Affecting me and my family. Please support option one. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next week for please.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Mark Pineda. I am a 17 year old and although I'm not a property owner, I do work with properties. I work for legal and some properties. And I do get to see a lot of the money and I can agree with them. Most of these property owners is that a lot of these people are not trying to be greedy and trying to make them make a huge amount of money off of these people. They do genuinely love these people. But I also like to thank you guys for allowing us to be able to speak and to hear the voice of the people. I know that's one of the most important principles of America, right? It's really part of the moral makeup and the fiber that is America. I really do. Thank you for that. I'd also like to piggyback off of that and just say that last year we did vote against rent control. And I know that this isn't named rent control. It's called tenant relocation or tenant tenant collections or excuse me.
Speaker 7: But it's really just.
Speaker 10: Another step towards rent control. If you can imagine stepping.
Speaker 7: On an escalator.
Speaker 10: And you take that first step, it's going to carry you up. And so up and forward, this is just kicking the can down the road. This isn't really helping tenants. This isn't going to help anybody. It's really going to make it worse. I'd also like Mr. Phil Jones. He spoke earlier and he spoke on the law of supply and demand. If you want to fix something, I would ask you to consider about checking on supply, maybe proposing something that would help with the supply, not helping with the tenant relocation. This is not the answer. I would ask that you would reconsider on your thoughts. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next speaker, please, Mr. Chair. And then our final speaker.
Speaker 6: Oh, yes. Good evening, counsel. Mayor, my name is Johnny Weir. I'm with better housing for Long Beach and will thank everyone for coming out every property and to give yourselves a hand. You're not supposed to boo. The mayor is supposed to shut you up when you say that. Listen, I want to say you.
Speaker 9: Don't have to. We got to. Oh.
Speaker 6: That's actually. You're not supposed to interrupt me because I'm supposed to. It's my time. Thanks. Could you stop the clock? Okay. Thank you. So, Brenda Lopez, stop the lie. The lie is. Are you turning my mike down? The lie is this is going to help these people that you're having speak. We know that these programs are going to push them out of their homes and you guys all know that as well. And I think it's kind of stop the lie. The lie is that rent control works. Tell me a city it's worked in. Lina, has it ever worked in a city? I don't think so. San Francisco has the highest rent. Santa monica, highest in the nation. People, wake up. Why are you supporting programs that are going to take you out of your homes? It's really true. Google highest rate in the nation. Tell me what comes up. Rent controlled cities. So as you are supporting this program, you're pushing these people out of Long Beach. And 73% of the city staff doesn't live in Long Beach. So they're not going to be impacted by this. But here the property owners are going to be in Long Beach and they're going to be here and they're going to have a hard time keeping their business around. They're going to sell. And you should find out how many people are selling and leaving now. It's so not good for the community. So as you guys move to your political careers, we're going to be living with the message you're going to be your vote on tonight. So thank you so much. Good night.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Hold on a second. I hold on 1/2. To the ladies that are on the back. We we close the speaker. We close the speakers list. Are they just supporting. Okay, they're not speaking. Okay. This is our last speaker. Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is our play. Everyone, please. Thank you. This is our last speaker.
Speaker 0: Good evening, council members. Mayor, my name is Maria Lopez. And in a time when everyone's living in fear, I say I'm undocumented. Unafraid, unapologetic. I am a proud one day Elina resident since the age of three. And I am also the director of Community Organizing for Housing in Long Beach. I have been doing this work for over three years as of this month, and this is the first time in those years that you all take up a discussion on a law that will positively, I guarantee you positively will impact the people that I work with. I commend you for that yellow. Yet I want to encourage you all to continue pushing tonight and to pass option one as it protects most tenants. As a leader, I am tired of having no solutions, resources or better words to tell tenants other than we must. We must prepare for court on top of already being impacted by what is the worst housing catastrophe that Long Beach has ever faced. So what I hear is that it's not time. Let's recap. We said we wanted Rip. They said it's not time. So you all gave us Rip. We said, okay, we'll call code enforcement. They said, Don't open the door. We said, we're being evicted. They said, Well, if you can't afford to live in Long Beach, leave. We said the rent is too damn high. They called us criminals and said We need to build more. We said we look. We need relocation assistance. Thank you. They said it's not time. We need to build more. Thank you very much. I just want to close off by. Look at these faces. This is 994 Alamitos Avenue. This is my mama space. My sister space, my face.
Speaker 1: Time for change. The time for change is always now.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Just so you make sure if the fire marshal can just come head down here, just check in. And I think we have we've gone through the speakers list, so we're all done with speaking is now closed. So let me go out and close the speakers list. Thank you. And I'm also going to ask before we begin, counsel is going to begin, obviously, their series of questions and deliberations. This is a important topic. Obviously, everyone has a variety of opinions on the topic. I also ask that we be respectful to the council members as they answer questions, as they deliberate, as they're able to inquire, because this is a very complex process and it's important to everybody on this dais that they're able to get it right and that they're able to ask their questions. So I just ask please that also we respect the council's ability to ask questions and get to what will be eventually some type of vote tonight. And so that is my ask of everyone that's here. So thank you for that. With that, we begin with Councilwoman Gonzales.
Speaker 4: Yes. This has been a very long night for all of us, but I definitely want to thank everybody who is here today. This has been a very long road and I just appreciate your patience and I just ask for additional respect, not for here, for me personally or any of us on the dais, but for each other , because this is a very divisive issue that it looks like to be. But I just hope that we can come come together with some sort of compromise and collaboration, because we all have the best interests in our in our city. And for me particularly, this has been a very tough it for me as a city council member in a downtown that has expanded and grown and has really displaced so many of my residents, so many of my residents, it makes me not sleep at night. I will tell you that it's very difficult. So I'm going to start with a few questions and then a few comments, and then I'm going to go into my motion to start off. I. First want to ask our city staff just some clarifying questions here. So I've heard a lot of discussion about raising rents. Can can in this ordinance, can landlords raise rents as much as they want?
Speaker 12: Yes. So one of the things we started off by saying is that this is not rent control. One of the things that rent control does is sets a cap on rents and says exchange not, you know, in a single year go above a certain amount. In the proposal in front of you. There is a trigger for relocation assistance, but there can be increases. And if somebody has a rent increase of, let's say 10% or 12%, they have a choice to make. They can stay in their unit and they do not receive relocation benefits or they can say, I can't afford that and I need to leave. And then relocation benefits with.
Speaker 4: I just want to make sure because there are a lot of landlords that said that they were keeping their rents very low. And if that's the case, then guess what? This ordinance doesn't apply to you. I'm glad I'm glad you're keeping them low. This does not apply to you whatsoever. The second question that wasn't really touched on a lot, but I just want to make sure we address this as a city. As a city is the covenants for current low income housing. Specifically, I have residents like in Plymouth West and in some of our seniors and people with disabilities. Some of those buildings that currently have covenants that may expire soon. Have we ever in our most recent history or experience here as a city, have we ever had any covenants for low income housing expire on us? And if they were about to, what did we do to remedy the situation, to extend keeping those covenants?
Speaker 13: Councilwoman Gonzales, as you saw in our presentation, we've helped to preserve over 2000 units since 2007, with the majority occurring since 2015. In the 20 years that I have been with the city and in the Housing Bureau, I'm not aware of any restricted properties that are converted that have converted to market rate. I will mention that there is a state. The state requires that when covenants are getting ready to expire and that includes covenants on the property and also tenant assistance contracts with HUD that tenants are notified. And I think that the that the fact that tenants get notified because the state requires that is scary to tenants and I understand why that would be. And that's the purpose for recommendation number four is we want to help. We want to work with those property owners, with HUD and hopefully be able to get the tenants a little bit more comfortable with what's actually happening at those properties.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you very much. It makes, I think myself as a councilmember that has a lot of these covenants. It makes me feel comfortable in expressing that, of course, to the residents that are currently under these covenants and hoping that they can continue renting at those at those low rates. So thank you for that clarification. And I just want to first say thank you to our city staff. They put in a lot of work and time and energy. And I know this couldn't come soon enough for a lot of our residents and tenants, but I just want to thank you each as well as to all of the advocates, both on the housing tenant side as well as the landlords for engaging in these multiple discussions and just connecting with our council offices. I know I met with basically everyone to ensure that we got this right. So again, just to be clear, the city council has never engaged in a rent control or just cause policy. We've never engaged in that. And that's even despite the multiple resident and economic pressures and rightfully so by our residents, we've never engaged in those discussions or policies. We've actually engaged in land use discussions that held the line for neighborhood character when we wanted to, and we should have created a little bit more affordable housing. We've also been chastised as a council in some regards for garnering funds for an annual homeless shelter, and even with all of that, to ensure that we had roofs over people's heads to ensure that we were pushing when it came to affordable housing. People in our districts even now, and specifically in my district, where 80% of our renters are being displaced now, there now. And what I ask oftentimes is when is enough enough? When do we have to turn the curve and say, you know, while this some have called this tenant welfare, some have called this, you know, Nazi control, which is really sort of out of line and inappropriate. I would call this relief and improvement of quality of life. And with roughly 60% of our residents renting their homes, Long Beach has almost double the amount of renters compared to the nationwide average. And like I mentioned, the first District has 80% renters. This has been an issue personally, professionally for me that I wanted to make sure we're getting right, not just to offer protections as the true spirit of the item. When we first brought this forward in January 2018, but also, as people mentioned here, to create housing stability. It's really unfortunate when we have people consistently being constantly being displaced at a very rapid rate with absolutely no relief, and especially people with seniors, people with disabilities and very low income individuals. So what I'll just say here, and I know that there's been a lot of misinformation about what this policy actually says and what it includes. But I just ask my council colleagues to be very open minded. We have a lot of work to do. I'm going to start with emotion that I know that will engage additional discussion and I hope will add additional thoughts about what we can add and create. But I think that the time is now to do something. We cannot sit here and do nothing as a council because we have to ensure that we are doing right by the residents that work so very hard to make sure that they are taking care of their families. So I will start with our motion here. The motion we have in it's a bit of a hybrid. I move that first and foremost. We adopt staff recommendations specifically to include the following, which will apply to all units in multifamily rental properties with four or more units instead of the proposed table in attachment D, the relocation will be two months rent on the housing authorities. Average fair market rent table. Which currently are for a studio $2,706. One Bedroom $3,235. A two bedroom $4,185 a three bedroom or more $4,500. I also want to include an additional $2,000 benefit for people with disabilities and seniors. From option one. These relocation benefits will be paid to any resident, regardless of income. So I would like to start there. As I mentioned, I think this is a very reasonable approach. A lot of people might not think so, but it's absolutely reasonable to be providing relocation assistance and then provide a little bit more for people that may have disabilities or seniors that are even great, that are impacted even to a greater magnitude. With that, did I just say thank you to everybody? And I look forward to additional conversations. And again, I just ask that my council colleagues keep their lines of communication open and that we get to a good point for all of our residents.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilwoman. So that is a in a motion. And so there's a second on the motion. Vice Mayor Andrews.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I think tonight's discussion has really been long overdue. You know, I am a renter and my management company is overall an easy company to work with. But not everyone has the same experience when dealing with management and companies or landlords. This is just one example of many, but I've had residents just across the street from me when a man has gone up for $400 and that she lives on SSI and care for a mother who is on a ventilator. Those are the kinds of people that when we first started these conversations, we wanted to have protection for us. She did. I want to make it very clear that tonight this council is going to make some decisions. Not everyone is going to be okay with. But we all have the different constituents to represent and defend. And I represent one of the most dense districts and one of the districts that has been heavy, burdened with 30 days or 60 days rent increase, sometimes vacation notice with an explanation, is this not fair? Or to people who have been loyal and committed caring for properties they are interested to pay more to mine for it is call for some compassion. I do believe property owners purchase property and want to keep good tenants in place. And sometimes despite these efforts, there are scenes they are seen as slumlords. But I do know many good owners have had given people opportunities to lease even when their circumstances are less ideal. Tonight, we need to pass a policy that applies to renters who need it, who need it, while being considered rated of landlords that are not what some call investors of property. My office have seen tenants in everything from four plex, ten unit complex and single family home faces with some sort of rent increase or notice to vacate. This is a problem that we need to be addressing across the board with a clear room. We need to come up with some number that is fair and substantial. As for those monetary assistance, because we want people in Long Beach to stay in Long Beach, I want to be respectful. I want to be respectful to the private contracting this because it is the American dream to own a piece of the land that has been right to use. Best way ordained. But I do know that sometimes we must do things tonight that some limitations need to be said place. I want to thank everyone for coming out here tonight and being patient to listen to all of us. It's going to take a long time. Thank you guys very much.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Vice Mayor Andrews. There's a there's a motion in a second, which is the motion as described by Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Pearce.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you, everyone that has been engaged on this issue. And first of all, I want to thank the makers of the original motion.
Speaker 9: Councilwoman. Yeah, I'm getting that somewhere. Someone's mic is on and we're getting some sort of feedback. I'm not sure if it's staff maybe. Or I've had a few people mention it already. So just. Just a quick note, so.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Okay. Very good. I'm going to restart. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 8: So I would like to thank the. Very good. Yeah. Okay. The makers of the original motion that recognize that in our city, we've had a lot of great development, a lot of growth. My district alone, I think we've had 13 projects approved in the last three years. But with that comes needing to make sure that we're protecting our residents and the people that really make our city thrive. It's the diversity. It's the sweat equity. It's your contributions, your creativity that makes the Long Beach a place that people want to come. And Long Beach will not be Long Beach if we cannot keep and maintain our residents and our city. So I'm really happy that we're having this conversation. And I definitely, you know, as somebody that was in the community in the middle of the downtown plan, this has been the issue for me that has kept me up at night as well. I think Leana and I have both kind of shared that gut wrenching feeling about wanting to do something, but waiting to make sure that we have, you know, the right support from staff, the right research, that we do all the work to make sure that we don't go into this blind with just a big heart. And so to those that feel like this has been fast, it has been excruciatingly slow for my residents. It's been excruciatingly slow for me, someone who sees herself as a lifelong renter. So I started paying rent when I was 16. I did not have the option of having a nest egg and being able to invest something by the time I was 20. So we have to recognize that while it's wonderful that we have people that are able to invest in a home and are able to save up, that, that's not the case for everybody. I unfortunately go for I mean, unfortunately, people need to be recognized for the fact that we all go through different struggles. And it doesn't mean that all of our hearts are in different places. I believe everybody in this room cares deeply about Long Beach, cares deeply about security for their family. For some people wearing the white hat, security for your family is that that's your nest egg. Right. And that you're worried that that's going to be impacted. For other people, it's the fact that they don't have a nest egg, that they're working two and three jobs and their kids are trying to go to school and trying to have services and trying to make sure they have a clean, safe place to do their homework, which we know is a determining factor in how they succeed and if they are able to go on and have a nest egg. So we are doing the right thing tonight by making a decision and moving forward with this. I have to hope that we all get there. I want to address the question around having a business and really the idea that I respect and am thankful for those that owned businesses in my district. I've tried to be a very big supporter of small businesses and recognizing for small owners there might be some impacts that they might have. And so I wanted to ask staff question around. I know that the staff recommendations that are here say the based on four units, which is based on the business licenses. Is there something keeping the city from being able to say if you're a small business owner and you own, say, five units in L.A. County, that you would be exempt from relocation or have a reduced fee?
Speaker 12: So if you're not in Long Beach, if you have a building somewhere else, is that what the question is?
Speaker 8: Well, I think the reason I asked L.A. County is because I believe that there is a way to track with L.A. County taxes lesson to be able to see how many properties you own. Whereas in Long Beach, I don't know that we have that mechanism in place.
Speaker 12: So part of the reason that we had recommended four more is because that's when a business license is triggered. We have pretty good data and we have contact with those property owners on a yearly basis as we issue their their business license. They're also on our Web schedule. So we know who they are. We have staff going out to their buildings. We the council can certainly pick and extend this to down to duplexes, as we mentioned, or any other any other measurement. It does become much more of a challenge for us to identify who they are and and be able to establish connection with them so it can be done. We are recommending four more because that's something that we already have a known universe of the of the businesses.
Speaker 8: Okay. I'd like to you know, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on their thoughts on that. But I really I want us to be able to pass something that protects renters and protects small property owners. That's really thoughtful. So I look forward to hearing some of the comments on that. In relation to the recommendation to the scene, your first security deposit. Can you walk through for me a little bit more about home funds and why this is for seniors and maybe not for extreme low, extremely low income tenants as well?
Speaker 13: Councilwoman We currently fund a similar program with home funds that is administered by the Health Department, and it's for homeless households. And because of the Council's request, in the original request back in January 2018, with a focus on seniors, we thought that that was a way to help seniors. But there's not any reason why we couldn't help other households as well. But we do have limited funding.
Speaker 8: So recognizing that we have limited funding, I'm not sure if this is the right time tonight, but down the road I'd be interested to hear what the if the pot of money would be large enough for us to offer it to extremely low tenants, knowing that we are trying to do our best to protect from people becoming homeless and that that's the biggest vulnerable population.
Speaker 12: So Councilmember, I would add that we are constantly looking for dollars, especially at the state level, and we've had some success in the past of getting those dollars for prevention. And so if we were to get additional state dollars, we could look at that as well for prevention activities to keep people in their homes.
Speaker 8: I believe there's something in Measure H, so I've talked to Kelly, call it be a little bit. So whatever we can do to make sure that we are identifying that, I appreciate staff's work there. So two other two other things I want to bring up before I move on. It was brought up the idea of homeownership and this forward mobility. And I noticed and appreciate it in the staff report, the comments around homeownership, I will say that how many renters in the room know that you can have your credit score reflect your on time payments, rental payments? Exactly. So I found this out because I moved last year. And I will tell you, as a lifelong renter, it cost me 70 $500 to move, and that literally was 70 $500 to have them hold the place for me for the day. If you can bring me 70 $500 in the hour, I'll hold it for you. And I got that because he asked me where I worked and I said I worked for the city. My credit score was not great and I had to talk myself in for a good 3 hours to be able to get a great apartment in a great neighborhood. And I know that I had that privilege and that that's not there for everybody. But credit scores are one of the things that keeps renters renters. So one of the things that he does for me now is he reports my on time payments to the credit agency and within three months, my credit score went up 40 points. Within six months, it went up 62 points. So this is something that I know some landlords do that is a great help for their tenants. And if we're having the conversation, I would like I've had conversations with many of the landlords to incentivize them or just require them to inform tenants of their rights , to have their credit score, you know, to have this reported to their credit score, should they want that? Staff with me. Yeah. Okay. I can repeat it.
Speaker 12: Yes, please.
Speaker 8: I would love it if we could incentivize landlords or require landlords to inform their tenants. Of the ability to report their credit, their rental payment to the credit agency as a means for upward mobility. And also inform tenants of the option of renters insurance. Not required, but the option again gives some cover and releases the tension between landlords and tenants because now you have a third party that's responsible for some of those. Those are low, simple things that I think landlords and tenants have been that I've met with. And believe me, I've met with a lot. But the biggest issue for me, outside of making sure that we have a balanced approach, is really making sure that our seniors and those that are disabled are not that are not left out. I want to make sure that we provide additional support. And so I would like to make a substitute motion which builds on the original motion. While it's critical to provide additional assistance to our disabled and senior residents, I worry that putting this additional relocation cost on landlords could create a disincentive to renting to these vulnerable populations. Therefore, I make a substitute motion that $2,000 of relocation benefit for seniors and disabled residents be paid from a city fund to be established using state, county and other funding sources. I've had a talk with the mayor of how to talk with staff. I think we believe that a second round of cheap funds from the state is likely to be coming in for this purpose. And this is something that would incentivize or take away a disincentive for seniors, but allow us to continue to protect them. My grandmother raised me and when she had to move in her seventies, it changed her life and she ended up having a stroke shortly after. And all of us really believe that it was that move to a completely different community that was done in a very quick fashion. And so as much support as we can give our seniors and disabled. I'd like to see that, too. Thank you.
Speaker 12: And Councilmember, if I can ask a quick clarifying question. You had mentioned you wanted to do some outreach for informing tenants about rental credits. Is that and the insurance option, is that part of the motion as well?
Speaker 8: I was going to ask. Yes, that's a part of the motion, yeah. Okay. Make that a part of that.
Speaker 12: And just we wouldn't be prepared tonight to really talk about a city fund. So we would bring that back along with, you know, any staffing needed or any opportunities. That's what we're understanding, is you're giving us direction to look at that fund and come back with the ordinance.
Speaker 8: Yes, sir.
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. So so it's okay. Just to be clear, we have a substitute motion which which is Mostar, which is all of the main motion made, but also includes changing the nature of the the fund for for seniors and for people with disabilities so that that is administered in part by the city, as I heard it from Councilmember Pierce. And that's that's the substitute motion that's on the floor. Councilman Richardson.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank staff for that presentation. I know that this is a big issue. You've done a lot of work to bring us to this point. And I just want to acknowledge my staff member, Alana, who I've probably been inspired to hear about this and want to remark on this, remark on that all night . So she's like, help me tweet my comments and print them and bring them back to me all night. So I think you can relax. It's my time, Alina. So sorry about that. So over the end, I want to thank the residents and all the stakeholders who come down to speak. I understand how important this issue is, and that's why I think it's okay. I think we should take our time tonight and just listen to each other and ultimately come to an agreement, because I think it's important that we do pass a policy. And and over the past, you know, year two years, we've heard these gut wrenching stories in local press or these scenarios where people come down to city council and say, my entire building has been displaced and and due to commercial rehabilitation or whatever the reason was. And they tell us their stories of how they have had a difficult time finding a new place or they didn't have a lot of time to to prepare for this. And so I think it's important that we do have this conversation, acknowledge all of those hours and hours of testimony, all those lives that each one of those little three minute or tonight 90 seconds segments represent or so I acknowledge that. So it's important that we actually have that. You know, I grew up in a working family. We were not rich. We did move around a lot. My family didn't always have stable housing, and I don't talk about it very often. But, you know, I attended attended 13 public schools across five different states. And it was for different reasons. But I know what it's like. I understand what it's like to seek and yearn for this concept of stability. I understand that. I know what that's like very, very deeply. I also understand that the desire to set roots, to own a home, and to ultimately invest in the community, and to live that dream of buying property and pursuing that, I know what that's like. I'm living it. When I began the process of laying roots as an adult, I considered Long Beach for two reasons one. Well, it was affordable and to. I really appreciate it. I liked the quality of the neighborhoods there. I felt like I felt I fit into the Long Beach community. Those were the two main reasons. Affordability and the fact that I fit in with that community. So when I was 23, I got a one bedroom apartment on Banner Drive in Bixby. No, that a one year lease. I went through that process. I sold it was like 900 bucks. I had no extra hundred bucks for the garage and I loved my little place. And I got to tell you, at some point I wanted to become a homeowner. And, you know, I got married and, you know, I bought a home and, you know, all those things. And then a couple of years ago, my wife and I made the decision to transition into becoming into renting out our first home that we had where we had both our daughters. We brought them home from almost memorial. We made the decision to rent that place out and buy a new place for ourselves, for a larger family. And so we so I know what it's like, the rewarding nature of becoming a landlord, of providing someone a home in a place that I cared about. So I can say I grew up as a renter, but I am a landlord as well. And so I understand. I understand. And I'm considering both of those perspectives as we set policy tonight. So being housing insecure has a direct impact on families. Their ability to thrive in a community of ability as student has to perform well in school. And it is our responsibility as a government to talk about those policies. So I think that it is important that we acknowledge that we do have a duty to have this conversation. There was a lot of topics about, you know, get out of my business and this is the city's business. We have to have these conversations. I also understand. Thank you. I understand also the need this conversation of economic inclusion, the need to have upward mobility makes sense. Homeownership and real estate are still the most common pathways to building wealth in America. That is true, and we need to be aware and acknowledge the impact of this policy on mom and pop property owners who are pursuing that dream. I think that's important. And these considerations, they're core components to all the conversations we have in our city about our economic blueprint, economic inclusion, everyone home. We want to make sure that the people in our city are not just protected but included as we make decisions about the growth of our city. That's important. So we can't have this conversation in the vacuum of just tenant protections. We acknowledge that depression pressure on the housing stock is not simply a result of the natural market, but they're a result of they're also a result of decisions that we made as a city, policies we passed on the city, land use, documents like downtown plan and other things. They have a direct impact, the decisions we make. And so it's good that we're into attracting investment, we're attracting companies, but we have to keep the people first as we make these decisions. We hear the stories about people pulling up from the bootstraps, becoming property owners, living the American dream. I get it. But we don't want to also discredit the hard work of renters. There's a long history of restrictive policies in our city that have created a permanent rental class that we should understand, and that history within our city, with our country, includes redlining that prohibited masses of people from locating to certain neighborhoods, or policies that prevent people from having that first step of buying a home. Utilizing GI Bill. Utilizing these other assets. So that is a history that we should acknowledge that there is a rental class that has been systematically kept out of the ownership process. Now Long Beach is changing. The most recent data analysis of Long Beach indicates a few things. Who are we talking about? Who is our city? So we just passed a we just commissioned a report by Policy Link, an economic equity report that gives us a profile, a snapshot of our city. It tells us that one quarter of the jobs in our city are low wage. That's 25% of the jobs in our city. They're low wage. Yet one in ten. A 10th of the rental units in our city are affordable to low wage workers. That's data. That's the most recent data we have. Only eight census tracts in the whole city has a median market rate of less than 1560 per month. Only three census tracts in the city have that. We see positive economic activity in our city, which is impacting a major sector of people that we serve, people we call constituents . But is our responsibility to be intentional about creating policy that addresses shifts to this vast population? So this is one piece that everyone home task force called out, a comprehensive plan. And we just need to understand this is one piece. There are other pieces we have to do and look forward to the inclusionary housing policy. I look forward to continuing the conversation on identifying local sources of revenue to replace the redevelopment that we use to use for production affordable housing. I look forward to those things, but as I typically say, the angels are in the details, right? So I want to jump into this current proposal. So I have a few questions for staff. So in the presentation tonight, a few things stood out to me that I want to just want to just ask a few questions about . So on page seven, Mr. Modica or Linda or whoever wants to comment on this, and page seven, there's a chart says vacancy rate by zip code, and it shows a steady sort of decline in vacancy rate. But two spikes really stand out, and those spikes are. Q one 2015 in the zip code of 90813 and Q1 of 2016 and 90802. And I know that both of these are in the area that that is focused in the downtown plan area. But is there a story behind these two spikes? Because they really, really pronounced they happen and then they bounced right back. Is there a story behind those two spikes?
Speaker 14: Councilmember Richardson, we are back here looking at the timeline for a couple of major projects that came on board. And we think that the spike, the highest spike, we think that that was when the current came online. And as you know, the vacancy rate is is determined by the number of units that are in the housing stock available available for rent, but that are currently vacant. So we think that when the current came online with those 200 plus units, that it created a spike because once they came online, they were available units, but they have not yet been leased up. And the other one we're not sure about, but we think it's a another one of the new development projects that came online and that other one was earlier than the current. But we're not absolutely sure, but we think that that's the basis for those two spikes new projects coming online when they first hit the market. They're technically available, but they haven't yet been leased up, so they would be counted as vacant units.
Speaker 3: Understood. And and I think what's interesting is a few things that I get from that is that one, both of those were post the adoption of the downtown plan. It created the meetings immediate spike of vacancy, which was actually a good thing to bring in new units. So it proves to me that we do have the ability, you know, in the policies we passed to shift these trends in our city. And so if we're intentional about, hey, we know we can create additional vacancy, we know that, then we should be smart about inclusive inclusionary housing policies and supporting affordable housing production because they have a direct impact there. And could you confirm so you said the current was one of the current or could be one of them. That was a downtown planned project that utilized incentives from downtown plan.
Speaker 14: I'm going to say yes and no because the original current project was entitled Before the Downtown Plan. Yet after the project was approved, they came back a couple of years later to re entitled the project to take some of the benefit of the downtown plan, things like the reduced parking, etc..
Speaker 12: And the Edison was also a former redevelopment agency.
Speaker 3: And a former. So both of them were, you know, impacted by government in some way. Government played a role in both those projects. That makes sense. Okay. So another one on page eight, that's the local multifamily building data table. On that page, it looks like four units makes up. Tell me if I'm right. Tell me. It says four units makes up 37.8% of all the properties in the city. And that seems like a large number, 38%. Is that inclusive of one through four or is that just for unit buildings?
Speaker 14: That's for buildings up to four units.
Speaker 3: So that's up to four units.
Speaker 14: No, I'm sorry. Let me let me take that. It is building of at least four units for unit buildings.
Speaker 12: So this does not include single family, duplex or tripe.
Speaker 1: That because the.
Speaker 12: Category of four units or more. Okay. If it's four units, sorry.
Speaker 3: So it's not four and above is just four.
Speaker 1: Four. Correct. Okay.
Speaker 3: So that is a map. If 37.8, if almost there are 38 or 40% of the properties in the city are one are for units. I think it's important that that be a threshold to capture as many people as possible that for unit building. But you know I you know, I know four units are popular in to mom and pop. So I do want to have a conversation about that. So another question on this on this issue, so was it that we couldn't find data on single use, duplex or triplex? Is that why it's not? Is it more difficult to get to the data we collected here?
Speaker 14: We have data on just building permits generally for we have a very good idea of the number of those units. But what we don't have is a record of whether or not those units are being rented because they don't require a business license. There's no mechanism for us to track it or be aware of those duplex or even single family rentals.
Speaker 3: Okay. So that's that's an important number.
Speaker 12: And Councilmember, we tried to give that to you on the options list. So when we looked at option one, we're estimating that it covers about 95,000 units, which would include duplex triplex in four or more in up an option two, which is four more up includes 70,000 units, 70,300. So there's probably another 20,000 units in that duplex and triplex category.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So so I knew that I was asking so you know, everybody else would know that, you know, of okay, so question is there a way, you know, and this is pertaining to the mom and pop conversation. Linda, is there a way to know if, you know, someone owns one duplex or if someone owns ten properties in a city and one happens to be a duplex? Are there mom and pop and the fact that they own one or is, you know, of one for plex are part of a larger portfolio? Is there a mechanism to even know that or understand that?
Speaker 14: I'm going to say yes with some reservations, because we characterize you as a business and requiring a business license by owning four units if you owned multiples, as long as the name of the ownership was the very same, we would be able to run a report from our database and business license and identify that you may own multiple four unit complexes, but if you may be in partnership or a limited liability or an LLC or some other entity, there would be ways for you to own the building that we wouldn't necessarily be able to track it back to you as an individual because of the various ways in which you can own a property, the various names under which you can own it. So that would be challenging and difficult to ascertain very definitively that one person or one entity owned multiple four unit buildings.
Speaker 3: And no, that's common sometimes. You know, people put, you know, Barclay Street LLC or this LLC or that LLC for tax reasons or whatever it is, be difficult to track. We'd have some understanding, but the verification would need to be, you know, some other process that makes sense.
Speaker 14: That's correct. And that was, frankly, a part of the rationale for sticking with the data that we can easily track.
Speaker 3: Okay. So since 37.8% of the properties are for Plex, I think it makes sense that for Plex is the sort of lowest. For Plex is an up are the lowest for this policy. Whatever policy moves forward tonight, I think it makes sense. I also think we need to think about some way to, you know, provide a waiver or a modification or something to someone who owns a single a single four plex building, for example, if maybe you live on site, if your primary residence, then that is you are a mom and pop. It makes sense to me, you know. So another question. So on page 22, you have 10% as your trigger. How did you arrive at 10% as your trigger? What did that number come from?
Speaker 14: I think we just looked at a rate at which the the increase would be very impactful, particularly for the average renter and the unit. And that was the basis for the 10%, essentially.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. And then a few more questions on how this will work. And these are real narratives that have come up, and I want to talk them through. So if you have a fixed short term lease, mutually agreed upon by both parties to rent your place for six months, let's say that the person is in town for a construction project for six months and they move their family to town and they negotiate a lease for six months to come in, bring their family live here for six months, and they want to go home afterward, mutually agreed upon by two parties in that at the end of that lease, would that trigger relocation?
Speaker 1: Under the proposal.
Speaker 14: Not in and of itself unless unless one of the triggering events that we talked about earlier, one there, they voluntarily choose to leave. On their own without any notice from the landlord that they must leave.
Speaker 3: So if you have a six month lease and you've agreed, that is six months. A six month period. And at the end of that six months, you want your unit back. That triggered relocation if they change their mind.
Speaker 14: I think that would depend upon the terms of the lease. But if they have a six month lease and they're leaving at the end of that six month lease, I'm not there's not a triggering mechanism. There's not a rent increase to trigger it, nor is it a notice to vacate based upon one of the the factors that are identified in state law. This would be just a voluntary.
Speaker 3: Fixed term lease. It doesn't trigger a relocation, is what you're saying. The fixed term lease supersedes relocation.
Speaker 14: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the triggering mechanism you're saying that they are leaving after six months and they had a six month lease, is that correct?
Speaker 3: Let's say it's one year.
Speaker 14: If they have a one year lease and they're leaving at the end of six months, they they would have broken their.
Speaker 3: Legal they're leaving at the end. Let's say the term is a year. Right. In that scenario.
Speaker 6: Okay. I see.
Speaker 3: Agreed that this is a one year term. That is a fixed lease of your agreement. What happens at the end? Does it trigger you want your unit back? Does it trigger relocation?
Speaker 14: I'm sorry. I thought you said it would trigger if you asked them to leave before they were ready to leave. If they were voluntarily leaving, they would not be subject to that. It's only if you ask them to leave at the end of that six month period.
Speaker 3: So would you need to ask if you have a fixed term? This is why I need to drill down on this. If it is a fixed term lease, six months, nine months, a year at the end of that lease, do you need to submit notice to that person to leave? And does that trigger relocation? I need to understand that. A fixed term lease.
Speaker 14: That is not one of the provisions we've included here. Just leaving it the termination of a lease that you and the the landlord have a mutual agreement about the time of the lease. That would not be a triggering mechanism.
Speaker 3: So there's no guarantee that if you've stayed there for a full year because the standard lease in the city is one year. At the end of that one year. If you want your property back and your landlord, you do not have to pay relocation because you have a fixed term lease. Is that what you're telling me under this policy?
Speaker 14: That is correct. That would not be a triggering mechanism if you were voluntarily leaving at the end of your lease.
Speaker 12: So getting into specifics can be a little bit difficult, but ideally the way this would work is you would have a one year lease and at the end of that it normally converts to a month to month tenancy. So then you just keep going. And so in that case, that person would have to pay relocation benefits if they were told by their landlord, you are no longer, you know, I need to rent to somebody else. So under that, that would as long as it didn't meet one of the criteria in state law, then relocation benefits would go into effect. So the six month is a little bit different because yes, I think that's where we got thrown off is six months. I mean, you could potentially write a lease that says this is only for six months. It will not go beyond six months. You know, we both agree on leaving after six months. That would be in a different category. But again, as you often say, the angels in the details would have to write those things into the ordinance.
Speaker 3: That's why I'm asking this question, because we need to be crystal clear on that. If someone writes a fixed term lease of six months or year. And they want their unit back. Do you agree to that period of time, for whatever reason, you said, Hey, I have a vacancy for a fixed period of time. I'm not interested. I like you, but I'm not that into you. I don't want a long term relationship. Whatever. Right. I need my place back in a year. Right. Mom's moving in. Whatever. I need my place back in a year. Do you have. Does it. This is a real question we need to understand, because this could be 4000, 5000 that we need to clear. Clearly understand that if you just want your unit back, you have a fixed term lease and you want it back at the end. Do you have to pay relocation? Under under this.
Speaker 12: Scenario, our intent in that specific scenario is you would not if both parties agreed in writing upfront, this is for six months. This is only for six months. Most people don't do that. They get into a lease for a year or whatever it is.
Speaker 3: Let's say it's.
Speaker 12: One. Then the expectation is it goes to a month to month tenancy and then yes, relocation would be required.
Speaker 3: So if it kicks into month to month relocation or if it kicks into another lease beyond that year. The idea here is that you would be vested in to those those benefits of relocation. Correct. Okay. I'm going to make sure that that's called out very clearly so we understand that point. Okay. Another one. Let's say you have an instance where you have this this kind of falls in line. There was the instance of student housing. If you have a model every fall, you open up your applications. You accept a renter for one year. They come in in the fall, they leave in the summer. And it's a one year fixed rate. We understand from this conversation that one year at the end of that year, you start your process all all over again if that's your model and you rent it one year at a time. That under, you know, under as long as it's written in your lease and you're fine, that would not trigger relocation for every college student every year.
Speaker 12: We could certainly read that and. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: All right. I'll be clear on you. Just things we need to be clear on. Okay. I think. Okay. All right. So I think it makes sense that we apply these benefits broadly. I think we need provisions to be sensitive to small mom and pops. I think we need to make sure that we codify what we just discussed right now, that, you know, up to, you know, that you have that vesting period, you know, up to the year. And if that if if at the end of that, you convert in two months, month or another, another lease, right? You are vested into these benefits. But if you're in a short term agreement six months up to a year, and that's your business model, you should, you know, asking someone to factor in 5000 relocation is tricky. So. So I think we need to be very clear on that. So I think so. In summary, you know, I think this is in general, it's a tricky conversation. It is a conversation on values. You know, we look back on our history. We you know, you might say it's crazy to think we had to debate at one point where the children have to work in a factory. The children can work in a factory. It might have seemed like a crazy discussion, but that was a discussion at some point. The concept of Social Security was a radical idea. Right in the front seat of a bus was a matter of debate. And I think when we look back, when our grandchildren look back on the discussions that we have today, one of the issues will be, you know, you're telling me that somebody can take away you can live in a place and with very little notice you can be displaced and the government has no protection or provision for, you know, due process. And looking back on it, if we just put that lens on this, we need to be on the right side of this. I think in general, if we are a city that is actively pursuing development and major organizations locate in our city and we're doing that, I think we need to be a city that is open to ensuring that, you know, we have strong tenant protections. So I'm going to make a motion. I want to say to my colleagues right now that I am open to friendly amendments. I you know, if something can't get in tonight, I think we need to get get the policy done tonight. But if there are things that can't be worked in, you know, either we'll send it to Housing Neighborhoods Committee or we try to work it in tonight. But I want people to understand, I'm going to build on what I've heard from Molina, Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilwoman Pearce, and we're going to we're going to kind of try to land this plane. So I want to offer a substitute substitute motion. It builds on the relocation assistance proposed in the substitute motion. However, my substitute substitute proposes changes to the trigger language language in component one. Specifically, I want to propose that a new section be added that relocation is paid to any resident who receives a notice to vacate. Because property owners rehabilitate rehabilitating the apartment unit. So in every case, every single case of rehabilitation, displacement, it is paid. That is in addition to the 10% and the other trigger. So there are three triggers. Next, I want to propose a new section C that provides relocation assistance to tenants in good standing who received a notice to vacate a tenant in good standing is one who has lived in their unit for more than a year, who has not done the items one through nine is listed. So that establishes that it protects those short term situations. This is the one year vesting period. My my motion also includes the final two provisions. So this is the small mom and pop provision. So one. You know, waivers to the requirement to pay a little bit ray relocation benefits for owners who can provide who can prove that they own a single four unit building and the unit is vacated for an immediate family member or owner lives in the same property as a tenant. So if you live there, if this is your main residence and you live on that site. You are exempted from this policy. You are mom and pop or two. This is your only building. You got one of them and you need your unit back. Because Grandma's moving in or kids coming home from college. Your mom and pop. We're going to exempt you from that. So everybody in one unit, two, unit three unit, those are exempted and four units are included with the exception of these these two very narrow examples, the mom and pop provisions. Number two, that this entire renter relocation assistance policy. Well well, I think we'll stop at one. I'm open to other things. And I know there's some other other things that are here. So. So the draft proposal pros language to make it clear. Component one is trigger for relocation assistance. Relocation assistance triggered upon A, B or C. Right. Right. Now, just as Andy's going to say A, B or C, trigger one notice of rent, increase the 10% or more in any 12 month period. B Notice the vacate is issued because the property owners rehabbing the apartment building. So just make it very clear if it is a rehab and you were kicking people out, that triggers that. If you receive that notice to vacate, that is a trigger. And three, the notice to vacate is issued to a tenant in good standing. Good standing are the nine pieces that are referenced in addition to they've lived in their unit for one for for more than one year. So that those are triggers A, B and C, and that is my substitute substitute motion.
Speaker 9: Okay. That's the there's a substitute substitute on the on the floor. There's still a lot of speakers that are going to speak. I want to make some comments as well. And then we're going to go back to make sure we're very clear on what the sub sub is before we take the vote. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 11: Thank you. And I don't have several pages of notes to talk from today. I want to thank my colleagues and I want to thank all of the speakers who came out and spoke here today. There's a lot of good content, a lot of great information and and passion on on all sides of this issue. This is not going to be an easy issue for this council to to dissect and to move forward on. But I think it's important for us to do something and walk away with some sort of policy this evening that that that provides some sort of relief for for for tenants, but also fairness for for for some of our many of our property owners as well. I've heard loud and clear, I don't think there is a an area that that everybody's going to walk away from here satisfied and happy with this evening. But but I think I know from from this council members perspective and hearing from other colleagues, we're going to do our best to to find and landed at a place that that makes sense for for Long Beach this evening. You know, I think there's a lot of good data that has also been shared here. The staff report was very thorough and I think it was excellent for for the most part there. I think they they came back with what we asked them to do. They gave us the information we asked for. And me, myself, I've combed through the report at least two or three times, and I've met with me. And I can't even count how many meetings I've had with individuals and organizations represented on all sides of this issue. It has been and a very, very, very impactful conversation, to say the least. I think here in Long Beach, we we also would have at one point that hasn't been been raised. I think it was only raised by one one commenter earlier. I mean, we really need to focus on, of course, building new housing here in the city. It's something that I'm committed to and will work toward as long as I'm in public office. I think it's important for us to do that here in the city and to focus on that. But we also need to to put our focus on creating good jobs in the city, because that is the the mark of what really will be affordable housing if people people have good jobs and can can afford the housing stock that we have. And an understanding that that the decision we make here today is and can may impact our housing market here in the city. I want to be very careful that we we we make the right decision here. I think I can support the substitute substitute motion. I think it moves us in the right direction. I think it could have been a friendly be quite, quite honest with you. It seems like it it's kind of built on built up on the original motion. And I'm sure those amendments would have been accepted as friendlies. But I think there's certainly has been a lot of thought into all of their motions. And I appreciate Councilmember Richardson for for bringing that forward. There was a question a little earlier that that I did make a note of, and I wanted to just check with the city of. Tony, regarding the question about the cost of Hockey's act and does or is what being what is being proposed, does it, does it comply with the Cost Hawkins Act?
Speaker 13: My tentative opinion is that yes, it does. I'm not a rent control expert. So this is, you know, somewhat new to me as it is a lot of people in the room and behind the dais. But the way I read Costa Hawkins and based on my limited familiarity with similar provisions statewide in other municipalities. What you're proposing to do tonight, if well, if quite frankly, if any of the motions are adopted, those, in my opinion, would comply with Costa Hawkins. But that is certainly something I'll be willing to look into further before we bring back an ordinance.
Speaker 11: Okay. And just just getting to get it, I want to get a sense of what that timeline would look like. Obviously. Thank you for looking into that and definitely appreciate that. But how long do you do you foresee this this policy possibly coming back if this council takes action this evening?
Speaker 13: I'm not certain at this point I'll be drafting the ordinance from from scratch. That's not entirely true, because plenty of other municipalities have tested ordinances that I can draw from. I'd have to huddle with city management to to see what they think is a reasonable return. I'm standing by to do it as quickly as possible, if that's what you're interested in.
Speaker 11: Okay. Well, I'll say this, that I've only been on the council for almost seven years and I've seen it seems like our housing market go 180 degrees during this period of time. And so, that said, any policy that we. Put in place today, I think should should have to go under review. Right. I don't know if it's two years, but three years, I think it would be very important for for us to come back and and kind of look at where we are with our market and with our policies, including this one after a certain period of time. Councilmember Richardson, since you have the sub said, would you be amenable to that?
Speaker 3: Sure. Walk me through it one more time.
Speaker 11: Provision. Well, I'd like to just just just at least have an opportunity to for the council to to come back maybe after 24 months, if something is implemented, if this policy is accepted this evening after implementation, 24 months to to review and reconsider or.
Speaker 3: Reauthorize.
Speaker 11: Reauthorize.
Speaker 3: So are you open to making it 36 months so I can accept it now?
Speaker 11: Sure I can do three, six months. Okay. I think 36 months is three years. That gives us some good opportunity to evaluate data in value.
Speaker 13: So I just want to make clear that so what you're talking about is a sense of impact. So without further assuming because because I think everyone understands we're not adopting any policies. The city is not adopting a policy formally tonight. You're directing me to bring back an ordinance which would adopt that policy. That ordinance. Then, if this is accepted by Councilman Richardson as a friendly amendment, the ordinance would state that it is of no further force in effect, three years after it is adopted, unless the city council takes at that time or prior to then takes some other further action. I understand that correctly.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. So I would accept that with a provision that it is brought forward to council for reauthorization, that it is just simply disappears or sunset that is brought forward in three years for reauthorization. I think the argument that he makes that markets change and we need to you know, we need to take a look at it. I think that's smart. That was consistent with, you know, other things I've done like the play and other. So I'm okay with accepting that as a friendly.
Speaker 13: Got it.
Speaker 12: And just so I'm clear, too, I think Rich asked the question normally in some of these, you've asked us to come back and revisit within data. We're reading this as it actually would go out of effect in three years, but we needed.
Speaker 1: That.
Speaker 12: Back to you at the same time with data for you to make a positive decision to continue it or to let it lapse. Correct. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 11: And I would just add that the market, you know, where we should have a full understanding of what the where the market is, perhaps we we meet our arena numbers and our housing goals and all of a sudden we have a surplus of properties in the city in three years. I mean, I know that's ambitious, but hey, we we're we're an ambitious city. We're working hard.
Speaker 9: Q Thank you, Councilman. Let me keep going down. I still have a long speaker's list. Oh, I'm sorry about that. I'm sorry about that, Councilman.
Speaker 1: I'm not done yet. No, no.
Speaker 11: Page two notes. Well.
Speaker 9: Trust me, you get all the time you want because I think it once.
Speaker 11: But I just again, I want to just also say that to the many property owners who came here and spoke, I saw I saw a lot of diversity. And I understand, you know, I was I was contacted by folks I used to work with at Boeing. Right. People who had their their careers cut short. And, you know, during the course of their their their time working in the aerospace industry, they were able to acquire a property or two in the city. And many of those individuals today are supplementing their retirements or using their rental properties to supplement their retirements. And so I do understand that the mom and pop concept here that that that small property owners are not necessarily the fat cats that are driving this. There was also a a local multifamily, the slide number ten staff that I thought was pretty compelling regarding the increase in rehabilitation in multifamily rental housing. I appreciate Councilmember Richardson adding that as a trigger, because it shows to me that it seems to me that that many of the issues that we're talking about in terms of displacement and drastic rent increases were consistent with with rehabilitation and new purchases of properties in certain zip codes. And so with that said, I'm not I'm not necessarily stuck on a on a four on the four plex number because I'm not sure that those those those properties are the ones that are that are the ones that are that are problem properties for us. I'm going to be just straightforward. I mean that. And for this, if there's anything lacking in the staff report, it would be the data showing that where where the where the impact has been for displacement and rising rents, what type of units? Is there any way for us to look at that or start to look at that, or have you considered that?
Speaker 12: And that's a good question, sir. There's a reason that it's lacking in that we don't have the data. So part of what we're asking to do in this audience, if you were to move forward, is to require that we start getting that data, because right now we know who, you know, which properties are being turned over, we know which ones are being invested in. We don't have any way besides anecdotal data to know whether there's been displacement, and we've certainly heard stories about it. We've seen it in the papers. So what you're adopting in the ordinance and what we're recommending, if it would come back, is that we would get regular reports from people who were from the property owners who were paying that tenant relocation. So we can start seeing where is it happening, who's getting it, what are the amounts, those types of things. So we would have that data for you at the end of that three year period for you to really look at that.
Speaker 11: Okay. I'm going to we're going to yield to my colleagues for now. If I have any more comments, I will give later. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Price, thank you.
Speaker 4: And I appreciate all the comments tonight. I appreciate everyone who came out and talked and those who requested a meeting with me. Thank you for for the mutual respect in allowing us to have that dialog. That means a lot to me. I do believe that this is an inclusive process and respect the efforts to outreach, even when people don't think they'll agree 100% of the time. I will say to so from a council office, we received 155 emails on this item. All of them were to vote no on the item. I did hear from some residents tonight who wanted us to vote yes on the item, but that's part of the background information. In terms of what Council District three residents have shared, a lot of the residents who were here tonight are property owners and they live in my district and a lot of the tenants do as well. I think for me and I know the the landlords and the property owners are probably not going to like hearing this, and that's okay. And as you can hear council colleagues talking, I'm sure you can appreciate that a cap on rent increases is something that is probably going to be supported by this council in one form or another. And I think it should be. The problem that I have, however. What that looks like. Exactly. I want to hear from my colleagues tonight. But the problem that I have that to me is really a nonstarter in the discussion is the trigger that I think. I don't know. I'm a lawyer. Maybe I'm analyzing it different than staff when they keep saying it's not just cause of action. But I really don't understand the trigger that allows for relocation when there's a no notice to vacate. For a resident who hasn't a tenant who hasn't violated these nine enumerated offenses, how is that not just cause eviction?
Speaker 12: So just because the eviction, as we understand it in the cities that have adopted it, essentially do not provide the option for you to ask somebody to leave unless they meet one of those nine triggers. Where this option is different is you as a property owner would retain the ability to ask somebody to leave. You can bring in whoever you want as a tenant, but if you do not, if you reach one of the triggers in the ordinance, you then would be required to pay relocation benefits. So for that, there is a distinction there where just causes never allow somebody to be removed in unless you hit the nine criteria.
Speaker 4: Okay. So we're basically saying they're exactly the same thing, except in one scenario, you can't do it in another scenario. If you do the exact same thing that's prohibited under just cause eviction, you have to pay somewhere around $4,000. That's the difference that we're saying.
Speaker 12: That there would be relocation benefits.
Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. So we're saying you can absolutely do it. It's just going to cost you $4,000. Or whatever up to fourth of.
Speaker 12: Whatever those that amount is that the council decides. Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. So I think that's it's disingenuous to say honestly that that's not just cause eviction. I mean, I'd rather we come out and say we have a just cause eviction model, that if someone is going to get asked to leave with 30 to 60 days notice, they're going to have to pay upwards of $4,000. The problem that I have with that and I shared this with the tenants rights organizations and you guys know that I'm always going to be honest with you, is that if you look at these nine principal or the nine enumerated offenses here. Several of them require cooperation, evidence and corroboration by actual tenants. So if you're a landowner and you're trying to create a living space that's peaceful, a living space that's respectful of everyone. And I shared with the tenants rights organization that that I have a friend who lives in a building, and every day his neighbor says to him , Go back to your country and says that to his children, too. So that individual, the landlord, should be able to get rid of if they want to. With 30 to 60 days notice. And what this does is it enumerates certain offenses that if the landlord wanted to tell that person, you're not fitting with the culture that we're trying to create in this environment. We want you to leave. We're going to give you 60 days notice. We want you to leave. They have to now pay them. They have to pay someone who's a jerk to leave their property. And in order to prove that and and and in order to prove that the person is a jerk, they're going to need tenant cooperation for interfered with other tenants to assaulted or stalked other tenants. Three Use the premises for unlawful purpose, for engaging in unlawful use or dealing of illegal drugs.
Speaker 6: Eight Use the.
Speaker 4: Property for animal fighting. The fact that we've taken things that are not even related to issues that we have in Long Beach and just put them in. How often have we had a situation where a tenant has been evicted because of animal fighting? I mean, like, how often does that actually happen? But we've included in here because I understand it's in the state ordinance or a law engaged in unlawful conduct involving weapons or ammunition. All of those items, four through nine require tenant cooperation in order to corroborate whatever it is that the tenant is using or the landlord is using for the basis of creating a living space that's peaceful for everyone. So I have a problem with that. I'm wondering these what are the what's the standard of proof for these nine enumerated offenses? Is it probable cause? Is it preponderance? What is it? And who's the arbitrator?
Speaker 13: Well, it's unclear because it depends on who the arbiter is. And my understanding is, is that the city from my from what I can remember of the of the presentation, the city is not interested in being the arbiter. So that means one way or another. Determining whether or not someone was exempt or otherwise entitled or on the other hand, entitled to tenant. Relocation assistance would probably fall to a judge in either a civil court of action or an unlawful detainer court. If somebody were told they needed they were given, you know, the eviction notice or that you need to leave now notice and there was a dispute over whether or not that tenant was entitled to tenant relocation. The tenant might simply refuse to leave until they were paid tenant relocation, in which case I suppose the landlord would have to begin an unlawful detainer action. The unlawful detainer judge. I'm not an expert in that area. The law either could determine as part of what he or she determines whether, you know, an eviction should go through, whether tenant relocation is payable or not in the event that the tenant simply leaves without being paid, but claims that they ought to be paid, the tenant could bring a civil action against that landlord after they had already left. And then certainly the judge then would have to decide.
Speaker 4: Okay, so is it up to the city? Could the city establish a burden of proof as part of our ordinance?
Speaker 13: I'm not sure I'd have to look into that. Yes. You know, on things that are strictly a municipal concern, we could do that. But I'm not sure that state law wouldn't wouldn't trump that and say no in the you know, the civil code, there already is a burden of proof which applies. And we can't change that. I don't have an answer for you right now.
Speaker 4: Okay. That would be I mean, I want to talk to Councilman Richardson, who has the sub sub and Councilwoman Mango and see what your thoughts are on that. Because if it's possible, since we're drafting these nine enumerated provisions anyway, what I would be more comfortable with is if item four reds, by the way, the language is different than the state ordinance of our nine enumerated offenses. Is it staff's goal that they mimic the state regulations? Because if they do, this language is different.
Speaker 14: Just like to clarify that the intent, even though it's paraphrased in the PowerPoint presentation. The intent here is that these nine items are specifically intended to capture state law. So we weren't trying to do something different from what state law currently requires.
Speaker 4: And do we believe that animal fighting is an issue that's in Long Beach, or did we just include it.
Speaker 14: To your earlier point about. We don't. When's the last time we evicted someone for that? That's a part of the issue that we're dealing with here. We don't necessarily know the purposes or kind of the cause of some of the evictions, but generally it's not been a problem in the city in terms of code enforcement or animal control, and that's just based on my recollection. We could certainly find out. But it is in state.
Speaker 4: Law written out that. No, it is. And I imagine I haven't looked at when it was passed by the legislature, but I imagine it was in response to some specific things that were happening at the time that garnered legislative attention.
Speaker 14: That's our understanding as well.
Speaker 4: So what I would like to to propose.
Speaker 9: Is just sorry, I just want to make sure that please, everyone's deliberating, so please not have those comments. Thank you.
Speaker 4: So what I would like to propose to Councilman Richardson and Councilwoman Mango in terms of a friendly is if there's any way that we can incorporate into these nine. Like for example item number four interfered with other tenants. I would like it to say interfered with other tenants use and enjoyment of the property as determined by the landlord or some language like that. I'm open to it, but what I don't want to do is have once a tenant has to go and testify against another tenant. Anonymity is completely blown and although there may not be legal retaliation against them, if for whatever reason the individual decides to stay or moves a few blocks away, this is a person that's in their world. Their kids may be going to the same school. They may be neighbors with one another. It's just a very difficult position to put people in. And what they're going to say is, you know what, I don't want to lose this apartment. Forget it. Forget I said anything and I want to be able to protect people. I'll give you another example of someone who I know has a next door neighbor. It's a building, a lot of units in there, but they have a next door neighbor who works evening hours and she makes a lot of noise. It's not enough that it would rise to a disturbing the peace or violate our noise ordinance. But it's enough that her children cannot sleep in the apartment next door. They share a common wall with the person who's using the studio next door to do their work late at night. And the kids the two kids go to law, they sleep in the apartment. And she had reached out to me a long time ago and said, our landlord won't get rid of this person because they're afraid they're going to get sued. And so I just what I don't want to do is take away property owners rights to be able to decide who they want to partner with in.
Speaker 6: Terms of a long term.
Speaker 4: Partnership. And so that's that's an issue for me. And so, Councilman Richardson, do you have any thoughts on that?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I do have thoughts on that. So so in terms of the the nine being different, then the spirit was state law, but they lifted out certain things and made it not consistent with state law. I personally think it's a slippery slope. If they're state law, we can simply lift and make those criteria what state law is. I think that makes sense. So Ms.. Tatum was the intention to go with state law?
Speaker 14: That was exactly the intention. And we just the wording here is slightly different. Again, we were just trying to paraphrase it for purposes of making it more simplified. But yes, it was state law.
Speaker 3: I think if it's state law. Ms.. Tatum Would it be simple to just refer to the specific language in state law as the policy?
Speaker 14: Yes, we could certainly do that. And again, I think the idea in spelling them out here was to be clear that everyone understood kind of the nature of the types of things that were currently covered in state. Well, we can.
Speaker 3: Do that maybe in another way. Yes. Additional documents explain to me.
Speaker 6: Well, either I get to.
Speaker 4: Yes, either additional documents or you added it in good standing. That was an additional thing that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I'm talking about the nine not good state. So in the nine, I think that should be consistent with state law. So there's no slippery slope there so that I will accept that.
Speaker 6: To keep.
Speaker 4: The name.
Speaker 3: No, we're going to put it into. We're going to put it into state law. Consistent with state law. That is whatever state. She made a change from state law to highlight certain pieces. I think we should just be very clear with what state law is. There was no slippery slope. We're not getting into that.
Speaker 13: I think Councilman Richardson is accepting the clarification of Linda Tatum. That's what I'm not your friend.
Speaker 1: My friend. Well, you're.
Speaker 3: Friendly. Was to go with state law, correct?
Speaker 4: No, no, no, no.
Speaker 3: In addition to your friend, you should be clear on that. Be clear what it was.
Speaker 4: My, my my clarification was whether it is state law. That wasn't my friendly. My clarification was, is this modeled after state law? Because I have a concern with some of the elements in the state law as a.
Speaker 7: As.
Speaker 4: Requiring the tenant to provide whatever the state law would be preponderance of the evidence. So. So that's my issue. So I would like to add in their discretion for the landowner to be able to create the living spaces that they believe are healthy for all of their tenants.
Speaker 3: Okay. And so what I'm saying is you're, you're friendly. I'd like to divide because I want to talk about it. Shepard So if you're comfortable with doing the state law piece, I think there's a way to talk about the other. Oh, you're comfortable with that? I want to accept that now. Now I'm going to divide that and handle the other part. The additions, you're saying to add language that that essentially gives. You know, that flexibility to the landlord. So my thoughts on that are like a big part of the tenant protections is ensuring that a benefit is provided that adds a little level of security. If you are if you have some right to that property, you're invested in that property if. By adding the vesting period. And this conversation has come over the last few weeks. By having a vesting period of one year, you're essentially saying you still have that, Mr. Landlord? You still have that full right. But if you are. Continuing with this. You know, if you are continuing with this tenant, it's sort of unfair. After they vested a certain period of time to be able to circumvent the process or that benefit. So it says you are guaranteed a benefit once you vested in that property. And so you've got you know, you have time. Like, you know, I had a very candid conversation with a landlord last week, and they raised this issue that a part, a big part of being a landlord is curating your tenants, curating that experience. I understand that as a landlord, I get it. You want to get a person. I understand that. How long does it even take you to know whether, you know, whether this is a terrible person or whether all of everybody else's in the building is going to submit a notice? How long does it even take to know? You know, immediately? Oh, you know, within three months.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: Let me just I mean, time out.
Speaker 9: Time out here, guys, please. Let's let the council deliberate as a deliberation.
Speaker 3: So my point is, there needs to be a limit on that power. That power you are a right is a right. At what point? The question for me is, at what point does that right. Come in. So I understand you want to preserve the ability, someone's ability to curate curate their property. This is a question of simply, you know, simply does this benefit of relocation apply to you? Yes or no? And by adding a provision, it becomes a giant loophole where it's not a clear yes or no. So by saying, you know, you have that full power as it is today up until a certain point. But at some point, if someone's there, if they have when your lease and you walked away from it, I understand. But on that next day when you triggered a, you know, month to month or you renew their lease, that is a commitment to that family that they can start thinking long term there. That's that's the idea behind vesting. So I understand where you're going. I just wanted to write that from the state law. So, so so that's that. And then and then secondly, the other part of it is if there are, you know, state law does say if they have broken a rule or there's a you know, and I know, you know, if they've broken a rule, if you know, these are the rules you break in order to evict someone or you can go through your eviction, you can fix you know, you don't need just cause to go through the traditional eviction process. You can go through the process as outlined by state law. That is not changed. This is simply relocation. You can still evict someone. You can still have your three day notice. You can still go through your traditional eviction process. All this is is relocation. So not that you can't curate, but the relocation will just go in effect within a year. So that's the point. I would say that I think some of the need to for the ability for the landlord to exercise that right, it's already captured in the current motion.
Speaker 4: Okay. So so just for clarification, and I wasn't asking for friendly for the state law, I was just confirming that that's what they meant. So I appreciate you saying you accepted that part of my friendly but what I'm hearing is my friend and I and the city attorney's later my friendly was to modify some of those words if it wasn't state law, but if it's state law, obviously we can't change it. But here's the thing. I think the problem that I have with this discussion and I've shared it with the tenant advocacy folks, there is an assumption that people who own property have $4,000 or so to give for relocation. That is not true. That assumption is not fair. It's not fair. So if you and I, it may be true for some. It may be true for some, but it's not true for everyone. Okay. There is assumptions that are made all the time. Sometimes when I'm at the status, people say, Oh, you're from the third district. How would you know? I worked two jobs and my husband works two jobs so that we can pay our mortgage. And if one of us lost our job, we wouldn't be able to pay our mortgage. So please don't make assumptions about people on the other side. The problem I have here is, look, I'm saying I think it is unfair for rents to be increased above 10%. I absolutely do. I agree with you with that. I know the property owners probably don't agree with me on that. And I'm saying that I agree with that. And I and I told the tenant relocation folks, I've told them very honestly about this. The problem that I have, which is a nonstarter for me, which is why, you know, you can give the conclusion of tonight whatever fancy, you know, title you want to give it and say, you know, so-and-so doesn't support tenants, but I'm telling you, the 10% cap I'm okay with I could live with the thing that I have a problem and I think it's fair. The thing I have a problem with is this deterrent for landlords to be able to create living spaces that work for them and their tenants. And when you own a property, when you own a property, you want to talk about losing sleep. You lose sleep. If you're a ten, if you're a landlord and you've got tenants in there who don't want to go home, they don't feel safe and you're going to tell them you don't feel safe. Great. You need to go to court and outline for the court everything you're jerk neighbor is saying to you that's racist, sexist , whatever the case may be that you.
Speaker 0: And your children have to be exposed to every day.
Speaker 4: Because if I want to get rid of that person and create a safer environment for you, I have to come up with $4,000. That's not fair. And property ownership should not be curtailed. And we should not be in a position where we are limiting the rights of property owners to create the living spaces that they have earned the right to create. So I have a problem with that. So my my friendly, just to be clear and Councilman Richardson's friendly said a tenant in good standing who determines the term good standing? Who determines that the landlord. Because if that's the case, then I would say a tenant in good standing as determined by the landlord.
Speaker 3: It's two provisions. It's a tenant in good standing is one whose number one lived in their unit more than a year. And to a person who has not triggered any of these nine who are listed and I'm okay with going with state law. So it's consistent, you know, so that state law provision, that's what good standing is, what it's about. It's not you don't have free range beyond that that you don't have free range beyond that year to just deem someone out, you know, you're not in good standing. I can skirt the law that we all worked hard to do. You can't do that. You can do that within a year, which is.
Speaker 1: Fair.
Speaker 3: But beyond that, then you're essentially opening a giant loophole that is difficult to defend.
Speaker 4: Okay, I understand what you're trying to say. So good standing is determined by who then.
Speaker 7: The two.
Speaker 3: Criteria. You've been there for 12 months, so you're vested in that property. If a short term or if you didn't make your lease or the end of the lease, you have the right to say you were not a good fit. We're not renewing your lease or going a month to month. But if if you are there. Beyond that period, there is an acknowledgment that they have been in good standing.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
Speaker 3: You don't automatically, at the end of that lease, you get hit with relocation. You have a right to create your space. The question is the limits of that curation. The limits that create curation shouldn't be forever. Mm hmm. Right. It should be. It should be something reasonable to a family, like. Like living someplace at a year. You're still getting to know the neighborhood, your kids, your own, their first year school. Maybe you're getting to know the neighborhood, but at some point, you need that assurance that you can invest it, get your kid in the school and start investing in the neighborhood and so on. So it's a guarantee to those residents that at least if we displace you, you can still displace someone. At least we're going to help you out. There's a policy in place to help you out.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 1: May we not.
Speaker 3: Circumvent?
Speaker 12: Can we ask a quick question just for the vesting to make sure we understand? So under the substitute substitute motion, you would have a yearlong tenancy, a year long lease, and at the end of that lease, then the property owner would be able to say, you know, I'm giving you your 30 day notice because that would be state law, because you've lived there less than a year and we're not renewing and relocation benefits would not apply. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: So that one year for the one.
Speaker 3: Year, they would need to actually give that notice before the lease ended. Correct.
Speaker 12: So when they when the year when it was coming out, they would have made a determination that you were not a fit for the building and I'm just not going to extend your lease. But if it moves to a month to month tenancy, then you have accepted that person. They're there for longer of the year than relocation benefits would have.
Speaker 3: They they're entitled. They're vested in those benefits. So a landlord can still curate someone who's not a good fit. You still have that ability. There's just a limit on that. Some would say a year's too long, but a year is the average is the average lease in a city. I think that is a fair standard.
Speaker 12: So you have one year without any relocation benefits to be able to make that determination. And then after that, you could still ask the person to leave, but then relocation.
Speaker 3: But actually the provision. So the one place where relocation would happen is be what we said is if notice to vacate is issued, if it's a 60 unit building, everybody's, you know, if you're being relocated for rehab, somebody who's been there five years, you've been there two months. It's indiscriminate. In that case, it's a rehab you factor into your performance. And that's a different one I'm just talking about is you are not you don't have a reason. You're not is not one of these nine reasons you didn't raise them more than 10%. You were just exercising your right to say, I don't want to renew this initial fixed term, whatever a year. I don't want to move for beyond that year. You still have that power as a landlord.
Speaker 12: Understood.
Speaker 14: So, Councilman, I just had one clarification on that in terms of that that 12 month period you talked about that 12 month period being a time period where they weren't subject to it. And yet you said that the rehabilitation could occur at any time. Is that the exception?
Speaker 3: Is 12 months the only exception? That is a that.
Speaker 14: Is across the board. So three months you can say I'm rehabbing the building.
Speaker 3: If it's a rehab, if someone's buying the whole building or whatever. In that case, it's unfair. If the whole if the whole building or 50% of whatever it is, you know, displaced, why would we say someone? I mean, they didn't get a chance to even figure out their own initial first year lease.
Speaker 13: But that's not the only exception that the other exception would be a 10% increase in a year period.
Speaker 3: Those two those do the rent. So those are other triggers. So with respect to the trigger, we're talking about triggers. See, trigger C is what I'm talking about is that you need you're vested in a year, right. Trigger a is simple. It's rent it's 10% trigger to rehab. That's trigger to each of these triggers are standalone. You don't need two triggers. You just need the trigger one in order the trigger reload. So if a landlord just to be clear on the narrative, if a landlord offers someone a one year lease, if the landlord displaces them within that first year because they're rehabbing the property it triggers reload. If the landlord raises the rent more than 10% within that first year, it triggers reload. Otherwise, there's no scenario where reload is triggered within that first year. If you're not a good fit, you can still go through all the processes you already have 60 day notice all of that . But beyond that year is when that third trigger kicks in.
Speaker 4: Beyond the year, whether it's a lease or month to month.
Speaker 3: Just beyond that one year is when that third trigger kicks in.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: So what I'd like to do is, is offer a friendly that we bifurcate and remove that trigger for now the just cause trigger.
Speaker 3: Okay. I can't accept that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So we'd still have.
Speaker 3: I'm happy to refer it to housing neighborhoods the vetted a bit more. Sure, but I'm happy to do that if that moves this for tonight. But but we need to keep it included in this motion.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 4: But I would like the rent cap, the increase.
Speaker 3: What I'm saying is I want to keep the motion that hear your issue of evaluating that. There are additional questions there. That issue of evaluating that can go to housing neighborhoods. But what I'm talking about A, B and C, the integrity of this. I want to I want to keep that here tonight.
Speaker 4: Okay. So what would we send it to housing and neighborhoods for then if we referred.
Speaker 3: To additional discussion? I mean, any ordinance can be changed. Any point if you want to further evaluate, it's a new thing. And I'm not I mean, cutting it.
Speaker 4: I understand painting a difficult issue. Let's just let's just.
Speaker 3: No, I support is not punting. I support.
Speaker 7: It.
Speaker 3: I think that issue you put on the table, the justification for taking it off the table is what I think should be very obvious.
Speaker 4: Okay, well well, I have a problem with that. And I want to continue hearing from my colleagues. But I think, you know, at the end of the day, I think homeowners should have the property owners should have the ability and the flexibility to be able to give people sufficient notice to move without a relocation. So the other thing that I wanted to talk about is the number of units that would trigger relocation, because I do want to address the mom and pop. I know you said four and under. I would like to increase that to seven, the number of units being seven as triggering this. Would you be open to that friendly?
Speaker 3: So. So if. So what I'm looking at is the table on page eight. And I'm just calculating here, 37.8% of the units are for units building. So that's almost 40%. The population five units include 7.7. So that jumps up to what does that 44, 45%, then another 9.9, that's 55%. And then and then 4.8, you know, so that's 60. So that would exclude 60% of the housing in the city. I can't support that.
Speaker 4: The other friendly that I would like to make is on how the relocation is calculated. Yeah. And by the way, I don't know that I've interpreted the numbers exactly as you have, but I don't want to get into a table interpretation with. Disagreement with you. I read the numbers differently, but. But that's fine. I understand that. Well.
Speaker 3: We can ask for clarity from staff. I'm looking at the table.
Speaker 12: So there are two columns there. I think you're there's a case where you both write. One is properties versus unit. So if you look at the number of properties, that was the calculation that Rex was making. I think you're looking at the number of total units.
Speaker 6: Yes. So we're.
Speaker 3: Both right. It's still a lot both.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: Right. But I think if we're trying to address.
Speaker 3: The you know, what the column on the right side actually added up cumulatively units and properties, the columns of the right. So seven will be 60% of the units in the city would be excluded, which meant 30% of the properties. If you look at seven.
Speaker 12: The other way, 6% of the properties and 30% of the units.
Speaker 3: Would no would be excluded, not included. Excluded. That number goes up.
Speaker 4: I'm not reading it the same way as you, but I don't want to have a debate about that. I'm not reading the numbers the same as you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Simple question. The last column here says units in the property size and below that says and below. Meaning everything under that unit amount is excluded from the policy. Is that correct? Hold on. Let me just get clarity.
Speaker 13: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. So this column, this number where where's the seven units is 30.8%. Does that mean 30.8% of the units in the city would be excluded from the policy under the proposal.
Speaker 13: Of all old buildings with four units or more.
Speaker 3: It's a yes or no answer. 30.8. All this is the number cumulative of everything. Seven units and below about that.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. I understand. And then the next number next next to it is 60.3, which is the properties this size and below the percentage of properties in the city below. So that's below. So if we were to say if you were saying seven was the beginning of the of the. Mm hmm. Then you would go up a level and we'll say 55.4% of the properties will be excluded. And 27% of the of the units of that site would be excluded. I think that's that probably excludes a greater number than I'm comfortable with so that I can't accept that.
Speaker 4: Okay. I understand that. But I just want to make sure that our intent for this item is about housing capacity, which means the number of units and the people living in those units would be the intent. Why we're here tonight, right? The not the number of properties, but the number of units. Isn't that why we're here? To talk about housing availability.
Speaker 6: The unit?
Speaker 3: No, we're talking about relocation assistance in the case of rents increasing, in the case of displacement due to rehabilitation. And thirdly, someone's rights to the property beyond a year. Those are the three triggers.
Speaker 4: For people living in the units.
Speaker 3: Yes. Those people in those units would be excluded from those rights.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 3: So and that's in addition that that would be just so we know, that's in addition to single family duplex and tri place, we're not reflected here. So this is not including that we've already exempted all the mom and pops. Right. As defined as three and below as well as four units. If you live on a site or feature, only one, which it's hard to quantify what that number is, but that waiver is there. So there's also this 30% of the exclusion is probably on top of I mean, I don't know what the housing stock of one , two and three units, but I imagine it's probably 30%. So this will exclude likely 60% of the units in the city.
Speaker 4: Hmm. Okay, well, that's not exactly what this chart says, but it doesn't matter. We don't have to. We can agree to disagree on that. But can I ask city staff what is the relevance legally of ownership of five units or more in terms of property versus investment, personal property versus investment? Because there is a legal significance to that.
Speaker 12: So I don't know about the legal significance, but what we've found in our research is when you're lending and when you're actually buying a home or buying one of these properties, there's a distinction between four units and below. It tends to be more of a private homeowner loan and and six or a mortgage or five or more goes into the commercial lending. So there's different interest rates, there's different proforma, there's different types of of standards that you would that you would apply to a bank to purchase those.
Speaker 4: So the five or more is the triggering.
Speaker 12: Correct? So HUD still considers a multifamily to be four or more, as does the city's local ordinance for commercial land lending. It's five or more. That gets you into a different category of lending.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right. Well, like I said, I would vote immediately tonight for the rental cap increase. But I cannot support the what I what I believe to be just cause eviction at this time. So unless unless we're able to buy for Kate, then we're going to find ourselves in the position again where as a council, we could take very strong action, probably unanimous action, to move the needle on an item that's very important to the city. And we can bifurcated and we can continue to study the other aspects of it and maybe have a meeting of the minds on that. But absent trying to work to reach common ground for me, I cannot compromise my own beliefs for the purpose of reaching a common goal. That's just sausage making that I'm not comfortable with. So thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilmember Gringa.
Speaker 1: And after that, hello. Good morning. I stated before I began, I want to continue to thank the people in the audience. You're still here. It's been a long discussion. Long night. We're still. Negotiating here again, to a certain extent, what's going on with this issue. Beryl, Kiran, agreed that those days because those in the southern market gathered in the spring. Yes. Historic is in them. I'm with the PC but these criteria Larry e la plastic exulting in the irritates me of the PC bit of almost as required or allocation. We are going to allow the propose not always on the side of releases but aluminum as well as to their real goal. I would almost certainly die L.A. Basically what I said is I'm thinking of those people who came here with Spanish speakers and saying, Thank you for being here, and that not everybody's going to be happy with what we come out with today. But I'm hoping that we're going to come up with something that's going to be acceptable to everybody. But based on a currency we just had right now, we know that there's not going to be a whole lot of I mean, there's still some issues that we need to work out. My issue that I have here is that this whole policy deals with people. We're talking about tenants, we're talking about owners. We're talking about what's going to make this policy acceptable to everybody. And we're not quite there yet, but I think that we're heading in the right direction in terms of trying to address all of the concerns of everybody involved. And it's very complex and it's very difficult. My my issue is that, you know, I don't want to tonight if we don't agree with something tonight that we're going to throw out the baby with the bathwater, because there are so many important points in this in this audience building that we're doing, which we have to do it. Ordinance building right here is, you know, when we look at the set of sites that that we that are being recommended, we haven't discussed that much. But the set of site that we're going to have for display, seniors, I think we need to keep that there. We need to find those those moneys so that we could make sure that this place, seniors or displaced people with disabilities, are taken care of. And we need to make sure that because we know that the reason we're here is because there have been some bad players out there. I mean, if not for the bad players, we would not be having this discussion tonight because we would have already taken care of this long ago. So this is an effort by tenant rights, individuals, apartment owners and the council to come to a meaningful place so that we can make sure that all our residents have a place to stay and and or if they are being displaced or dislocated to another location, that they are being done respectfully and done with, at least with the assistance that they deserve, because they're no fault of their own, maybe. Or even if there is a fault of their own, they're they're being moved because they need to look like I'm in favor of the motion that's on the floor right now. I think that we're looking at the fact that the the nine triggers that we're looking at are state law or federal law. That's what it is, what it is, and that's what we have to live with. Now, there are some main minutia issues that we could deal with to adjust those triggers. Then I'm all for it as well. But I think right now, for purposes of moving this forward and moving it along, I think that the motion on the floor is is acceptable to me and I'm going to go and support it. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember. Super now.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I have kind of a general question for staff and that is a lot of the speakers tonight. And thank you all for showing up tonight and speaking out. Talk about this term unintended consequences. And I don't know if staff has addressed that, but I'll ask them right now. I realize that speculative when you're putting this program together, but can you kind of explain how you looked at those factors and what you did in the report to compensate or address the what a lot of folks talked about is inherent issues that might lead to unintended consequences.
Speaker 12: Well, that's a pretty broad question, sir. But to do our best to sum up, we did look a lot at unintended consequences. We realize there is no perfect policy that you can't plan for everything. But part of our thought approach was, you know, as we showed those data showing that there was investment in buildings and that there's turnover and rehabilitation, that's a good thing, actually. You know, it does relate to some displacement. So we need to make sure we're taking care of displacement. But we want to encourage investment in buildings. We want to encourage that people are rehabilitating. So we wanted to create a policy that was not rent control, that allowed people to raise rents if they needed to, to make up that financial investment that they're putting into the building. So that would be one. You know, we also wanted to look at how in our recommendations how many people would be either included or excluded , and how do we make this easy and and especially for tenants. So they're going to have to look in their lease and say, do I qualify or do I not qualify? So we looked at as unintended consequences of we could try to hone it and make it very specific. But then how does a tenant know what they're entitled to? We also looked at some of the seniors and, you know, it'd be nice to give extra benefits to seniors, but maybe there's some downside where somebody might make an action and not consistent with federal law, but they might make that action anyway. So we did our best to look at all of those, but know that there's no perfect solution to any of those issues. We can just try to put sensible solutions forward.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. I realize that was broad, but that that concept is very broad. And that is, I believe well, it would be my greatest fear. And I assume the fear of my colleagues is that we don't want to set something in motion that backfires, that because I think we're all on the same page in terms of protections and whatnot, I think we just disagree maybe on how we get there are, as I said, the unintended consequences of a policy set forth sometime after 11 p.m., after a long debate. And and I think just just the polarization here says to me that maybe this wasn't ready for prime time, that it needed more vetting at at the committee level. So. The other question I have and and as long as Tom Modica is answering, I'll address this directly to you again. I think, you know, I'm all about efficiency and streamlining. And I really do appreciate the fact that the four unit threshold was four, that it fits into the existing parameters of the way we do business. But I think what it did not address is this investment piece that at five units you're in a different category. And if we set forth a policy that discourages the small investor, the mom and pop, and I just think of that as that four plex as an entry level investment. Do you see a way around that? Or maybe that is like a friendly amendment that I should should suggest that we go to five units or above?
Speaker 12: Yeah, I again, I think it's up to the Council to determine the level at which it applies again for would be would be pretty easy because it lines up with prep and you know Councilmember Price mentioned seven you know in the report we mentioned ten five would be another number as well. It's just how many people do you want it to apply to and what are those tradeoffs?
Speaker 1: I guess that's my point, is that it might be the most efficient at this snapshot of today. What we don't know, what we're not gaining by not encouraging that level of investor. As I said, it's it's very complex, probably more than what this report wanted to include or had the capacity included 220 pages. I guess a lot was in there, but maybe not everything. Okay, a different topic on the vesting piece, just as it's been a long time since I've been a renter. But I remember relationships going bad after after a year, after two years, when someone gets a brand new car and parks it in in the parking lot and they get dawdling, suddenly there's a fight among the folks in one building. So I think I'm not sure what other municipalities do. I think San Diego's two years. So that's something that I would want to take a look at, too. So if that could be a friendly also, I think that's it. I think that's all I have for now. Thank you.
Speaker 13: So can I just clarify? There's two requests and you're friendly to Councilmember Richardson. It's to increase. I'm sorry. Applied to tenant relocation to five units or more instead of four units or more. And also to make the was intended in good standing would then be two years instead of one year. Correct.
Speaker 3: So okay, so let's handle the two years instead of one year because the other one I want to I want to I want to talk about the other one, the four versus five years. But a two years puts one year. That one I feel a bit more uncomfortable with. But. But I feel like we need some time to think about that. Here's why. A one year lease is almost the standard instrument when renting, and that's a decision point. It's an already established decision point. Two year lease or a two year period is not an already established decision point in your chain. You're adding a big change the system. I think I'm uncomfortable with that. Like a one year. Okay. I'll give you I'll give an example. I'll give an example. I want to share this example tonight, but I think it's relevant. When I got my first apartment in Barnard Circle in Bixby. No. I had rented from some mom and pops. And, you know, me and some roommates had some places, some houses in Los Angeles, you know, in college and stuff. But when I got my first place on my own, I went to a property management company and, you know, and they said, hey, you never ran it before. You kind of a risk. We're taking a risk on you, but you have a good job. Your credit's okay. You know what? We're going to take a risk on you apply. You know, you apply for this one. This one. Okay, I got that one. And when I went in that you got it, I felt great. I got it. I went in, upturn in my deposit. And, you know, that person looked at me and said, We're taking a risk on you. Somebody owns this building, we're managing that for you. So make sure you're paying your rent on time. Make sure you're being neighborly, make sure you're not having crazy parties. They coached me to how to be a good tenant in that, and I was held to that. And I knew that there was a decision point on whether I was a good fit in that first year and I extended it. I understood that because they did not have to extend, at least to me. I understood that. I think that is a that is a conversation that happens every day is that decision point. I think if we get into one year to year, 18 months, all that it requires a bit more thought because you're changing an already established system. So Councilman Super and I would say that is something that I'm comfortable with one but if you want to take take that consideration to a committee housing neighborhoods to think through, have more conversation, maybe meet with property owners, landlord, whatever and do more. That would be something I would say if you want to add the motion in that part to committee, I think that makes sense. So so that would unfortunately, that would be a no or send it to committee on that particular piece at this point. Happy to continue discussing at some other point. But tonight, I think it's fair given this is a big policy and we're trying to land this plane and get it, get a productive conversation going one decision point in the city and then so on the other piece. It was the was year of the peace. It was a.
Speaker 2: Five.
Speaker 3: Four, four versus five units. You know, I want to hear from one of my colleagues, and I don't want to make that decision alone. So I want to hear from other colleagues if that's something that they want to do. I think the staff made a strong point for. We spent some time thinking about the mom and pop stuff. But if that brings more council members on board. Well, actually, no, no. You know, I think about it is that let me be clear, it's 37% of these properties and 16% just for you. And it's not for and below is just for unit buildings.
Speaker 12: That's correct. The four unit buildings are 11,552 units total.
Speaker 3: 11,000 units would be the exception to the exemption.
Speaker 12: And and if I can add, as we understand the substitute substitute motion, the original motion from staff was include everything from four units and above. The substitute substitute motion creates an exemption for a property where it's your first building and your only building. So that would likely still allow somebody to get that commercial loan and get that loan. It's not a commercial loan because they would not be affected by relocation. They couldn't do that for their second building. That is for.
Speaker 1: Their own property.
Speaker 3: Very good point. Very good point. Completely lost in all of this. If you are a monitor in terms of this is your first building, if you're going for FHA, you actually have to live on that site for FHA. So those are the first time homeowners this qualifies for units and under you're already exempted from this. So what? So I would ask, was that quite the intent of that question? Was it to protect mom and pops?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, it is to protect the small investor, but all the other things that kick in like GI Bill loans and whatnot. And if so, we want to I don't want to create a disincentive for folks maybe buying another four plex. So that's all I'm doing.
Speaker 3: Okay. So let me just ask quickly to staff. Staff, is there a disincentive to the VA process? Is there a disincentive if there is relocation, a local policy on relocation? Two of the loan.
Speaker 12: I don't know if we know the answer to that question. We don't we haven't research that to that.
Speaker 3: Councilman super. Now, this decision, because it's 11,000 units, it needs a little bit more discussion. I want to hear from staff what the specific impact is on from the standpoint of VA loans and all those special loans. Right now, FHA would be exempt because your first time that's your first time home homeowner. If you're is your primary residence, it's exempt. It already exempted or if is your only property. So if you are that investor who is getting into it, it is already exempt it with the current motion in front of us. So most of the scenarios you have are exempt in the very narrow area. You're talking about the VA loan. We want to find out a bit more from staff. So I don't think that we should include it tonight. I think we should ask that question. A partner with you on that. We should figure that out. I don't know that we should exclude 11,000 additional units based on a very narrow question. That's probably 100 of those or 200 of those. There may be a way to exempt that scenario.
Speaker 1: Okay. So. You know.
Speaker 3: Because if we figure it out, let me just ask that. Is there a way to craft something that says if you are a violent villain, you know, if you're a villain? And is there a way to craft that? You know, I.
Speaker 12: Think this would be some would have to come back to you. Okay. Audience returns for us to really specifically look at the VA loan as we understand the substitute substitute. Most of those properties if if you're an entry level and you haven't gotten into the four unit complex before, you would be exempted because you you wouldn't have to pay the tenant relocation. You would fit one of the exemptions. So we we can certainly look at that if that was a.
Speaker 1: Form that I don't think is really my point. My point is, is is that looking at raw numbers here on a chart or we want to fit into our current inspection program, I think that's overly simplistic and it doesn't look at the overall investment picture. And I just I'm trying to say that if we have small investors who can invest in four plex, I think that's a good thing and I wouldn't want to take away the incentive for that. So that's my.
Speaker 3: Point. I understand. I understand.
Speaker 12: So so has that been added to the friendly for us to research the VA loan and and the effect that I would.
Speaker 3: I would accept that friendly to research that if we find a soft landing I'm happy to include it.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 9: Okay, Councilmember. Next up is Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 5: So let me help with that. My husband's a veteran, and sometimes when he he owned his first home, he actually didn't even use the VA loan because a little worse deal for him. I'm not joking. It actually cost him more to have used the VA loan. His second home, he did use the VA loan and it cost him $8,000 in closing costs because the VA loan wasn't set up properly. And so the VA loan thing isn't always the best marketer to support what Councilmember Supernova said. 58,765 units would be covered, and I think that's something to still celebrate. If we went with the five unit, it would take out the complexities of if you live there, if you don't live there. I think what we're trying to do is just create a clean, easy policy and the five unit is just a cleaner, easier than trying to game the system and a landlord moving on site and all these other things. But so I hope you'll reconsider the five unit. Let me go back to where I wanted to start. I want to start by thanking everyone for being here and thanking the staff. The staff have really, really taken a lot of questions, at least for me, over the last six months. I've had meeting after meeting after meeting because understanding the details, especially before the report came out, was very challenging and what the possibilities were, because I was trying to do my research in advance, because doing research in ten days is very difficult. So I really appreciate all the help that they gave. I really appreciate all of my colleagues who've either come to my house because I have a newborn at home. I want to talk about the item or met with me with me and my newborn to I'm really go into the details and I can see that that's coming out, especially in my talks with Councilmember Richardson. A couple of things that I think are important. We want to talk about tenants having the security of knowing where they're going to live. And so what I would ask is kind of a hybrid between San Diego and Redwood, where if at the end of that first year, you as a landlord offer them a lease again that that vesting period would extend. And the reason I ask that is because situations change all the time. Boyfriends and girlfriends get in fights. An ex-wife, a current wife or a current husband becomes an ex-wife or an ex-husband that causes problems at the property consistently. And these situations cause havoc to the lives of the people that are living there. And they're not always the fault of the tenant and they're not always the fault of the other people in the building. And I know 12 months sounds like a good amount of time, but it really isn't. And so if you're offering them a second 12 month lease, which is what Redwood does, Redwood says, okay, you're in a 12 month lease. If you want them to leave, you can have that option or you can offer them another 12 month lease to make your vesting period 24 months. So then you give that tenant security of not being on a month to month because that security is really what they're asking for. There are multiple buildings in the city that have been vacated with no complaints from the tenants. But in those circumstances the landlords gave six months notice. If you're giving tenants six months notice about either a rent increase or a vacate, they have time to plan. They're not legally required to give that vacate notice, but they're doing it because they love their tenants and they know their kids coming home from college and needs a place to live, or they know that they want to rehab the unit in a in six months and they're saving the money to do that, or they're changing out some major component of the building that would be difficult to do with tenants living there. There's been so many of these buildings that talks about Class C are the ones that are turning over. A lot of those are currently receiving notice. There are many of them currently in the sixth District that have received notice from USAA that they're no longer going to insure them because of the knob and tube electrical. So you have all these landlords who are on the hook for 14 to $24000 of electrical rewiring for these buildings, or they can't get insurance to protect the tenants. And that's a tough place to be in because now on top of that, you're going to have to give tenant reload to those individuals. And so I think that that's a tricky place to be because some of these individuals may have been in the apartment for three years already, but this policy is going into place today, and USAA and these other insurance companies are only just doing that now. And because of the age of the housing stock in Long Beach, we're kind of in this tough position where we don't want to leave those tenants in a position where they're in these buildings that are now considered to be a fire hazard. But the landlords may not have saved the money. And so I'm going to give an example. There was an article on the press telegram a few months ago, and the individual who owned that building many, many years ago is actually someone my family knew. I didn't realize it was him, but he passed away and when he passed away his wife inherited the property and it was multiple units. And the tenants would call and say. So and so. I just want you to know the ceiling fan is out, and we need it repaired. And she'd never gotten into the landlord game. She inherited these properties, and she would say, How much does the ceiling fan cost? I can get one at Lowe's for $75. And how much does the cost to have an electrician install it? $75. Great. Just take 150 off your rent next month and please take care of it for me. Well, that went on for five or six years. And recently she sold the building. And when she sold the building, the new landlord. Came upon thousands and thousands of dollars of rehab, not rehab that would prevent the loan, but rehab that made it. Quality of life issues, terrible showerheads and toilets that were very old and antiquated, that didn't flush well. And you couldn't flush disposable napkins and other things. And so this landlord just wanted to recoup their cost. So you take the mortgage, plus the new baseline insurance, which is significantly higher on the new landlord because they weren't because of the property transfer, the Prop 13 starts new. And then on top of that, they had $40,000 in rehab that they amortized into a five year plan to recoup that cost, knowing that in five years, they're still going to need another roof and all these other things. And all they did was set the rents below market. To cover those costs, and it was a significant rent increase to the tenants. And so the challenge there became. That. Now, this landlord who's just a dentist in our community, just a regular guy trying to to create. Some security for his own retirement because he doesn't have a retirement. He's an independent business owner. Now he looks like this horrible, bad person when in actuality, he was just trying to make a small investment. And he purchased a property from someone who had not maintained it. And so in those cases, we're really looking to turn over that housing stock and give people a break. And so I would I would talk about a couple of things. To be in good standing. I like it to include that you pay rent on time every month. If you don't pay rent on time every month, that you would not be in good standing. Because just because a tenant doesn't pay on time every month doesn't mean that landlords don't give them an exception.
Speaker 3: What does that a friendly.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Time out. Now, come on, guys. Hey. So I'm going to kick that. That part. I want to hear from the city attorney there. So I'm from Linn County. I'm sorry. Linda, let me just late. Linda, please. Okay. So when you said that the you know, all those criteria on state law, that was state law. That's nine causes from.
Speaker 1: Correct?
Speaker 6: That's correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. In that state law, I believe. So failure to pay rent is a part is one of those. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: That's correct.
Speaker 3: So this is already reflected. So what would be the difference between what's there and what you're proposing?
Speaker 5: So let's say I have a tenant who is on a one year lease and they fail to pay rent in the six month.
Speaker 2: Period over.
Speaker 5: In the sixth month.
Speaker 3: So say again.
Speaker 5: I have a I have a property where I have a tenant and in the sixth month they don't pay rent on time.
Speaker 6: That's okay. So rents do.
Speaker 5: Comes and goes. Call the tenant. Hey, I didn't receive rent today and they say I'm good for the money. Can you give me seven days? Now, as the landlord, you want to give them a break?
Speaker 2: You have to give them.
Speaker 5: But then you're on the hook for below.
Speaker 6: If they. So you're saying.
Speaker 3: Six months in that scenario, you don't have to pay below.
Speaker 6: You?
Speaker 3: You would not because.
Speaker 5: I'm not admitting the tenant. I'm not evicting the tenant. I'm going to give them a break.
Speaker 3: No, what I'm telling you is already under that 12 month vesting established. You don't have to have the good standing. You don't have the content. You don't have to continue your lease with that person.
Speaker 5: I know, but I want to continue the lease because I want to give the tenant a break. I want to give you a tenant the opportunity. I want.
Speaker 3: To want them to get the rights of relocation.
Speaker 14: Subtlety.
Speaker 5: They have a lease for 12 months.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 5: In the sixth month, they don't pay rent on time. They're going to be a week or two weeks late or they're going to pay me in payments over the month to get back because they lost their job or whatever. So now I'm being a heartfelt landlord to give them that break. My options right now are evict them and they get no tenant relief and I put them out on the street. We don't want landlords to do that. We want the landlords to give them a break. And then at the end of the 12 months, be able to say. I don't owe you, Rilo. Ah. I want to give you another leaf or I want to give you a chance. But if you choose not to take another leaf, I have the ability to get rid of you without reloading.
Speaker 3: So you're leveraging that tenet.
Speaker 5: No, I'm giving them a break instead of evicting them.
Speaker 3: Okay. So in that scenario, in that scenario, if it is already captured within those things in state law, your ability to to move forward and let that person go without reloading, that that ability, those nine things does not have it's not it's not subject to I mean, that those nine is captured within the nine reasons that does that is not captured within 12 months. You have that forever. Those nine reasons, if you what you're saying is they're not in good standing because they were late on their rent.
Speaker 1: Four.
Speaker 5: Months ago. They were late on their rent. So do I owe reload now?
Speaker 3: So the whole point of this was that we're not actually doing enforcement internally. Right? So if you were going to claim that you need to be able to defend that in case you were taking the court because you have private action in the retainer piece, that's a question of the landlord. So I think the land they have that will that will take that will happen in civil court. That will not happen here at council.
Speaker 5: I understand that.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's that's the point. I don't think that the more we deviate from state law on that, the more we insert ourselves into that civil process.
Speaker 6: No. Okay.
Speaker 3: So you're from the city. Let's hear from.
Speaker 5: Let me try it again. Because I may have made a mistake. Let me just ask a very simple yes.
Speaker 3: Or they breached the lease or they breached the nine things are there.
Speaker 5: But but they remedied they remedied it. And in state law, there's a lot of preclusion.
Speaker 3: You want to hold them accountable to that?
Speaker 5: No, I'm not trying to.
Speaker 2: Hold accountable here.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, I want to start again on their 12 month vesting.
Speaker 3: So, I don't know, 12 months.
Speaker 5: That's what I would offer.
Speaker 3: How how how would that be? I want to ask this, Miss Tatum or Rich, how would that be handled? And that's a very technical you know, I think it's.
Speaker 13: I think it's a really good question.
Speaker 3: It's a great.
Speaker 13: Question. And I'm not sure how it would be handled. That's why we're conferring over here. You know, these nine these nine items from the civil code, correct me if I'm wrong, I think are intended to to establish why landlords can evict the tenant. We're not really talking about that. We're talking about payment of tenant reload.
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 13: There's also a provision in option two, I think, which says that landlords need to give tenants the ability to cure any of these nine violations in order to be entitled to tenant relief.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 13: I don't. I don't exactly know how that square. So. So that would lead me to believe. Well, you have to give them the opportunity to cure a failure to pay rent. Presumably, they already would have otherwise. They likely would have been evicted and they would have been late on some earlier month. They've since brought rent back up to two hole, made the landlord whole and I would say that doesn't apply however. However, that doesn't really square with the other two through nine. If someone has committed violence or assault and are convicted of the same and they're no longer doing it, I don't know that that really cures the fact that they committed violence or.
Speaker 3: Committed a crime six months ago. That's right. They got convicted of it six months later. It's still legitimate.
Speaker 13: I would say that it would be a legitimate to to deny that person reload whenever if they were convicted of a crime while they were living at at your in your unit. Right.
Speaker 3: So so I it's actually a really good question, Councilwoman.
Speaker 5: I don't want to get people out on the street. And this is this would cause that I'm trying to prevent unintended consequences.
Speaker 3: Adding additional language won't make it. I don't think adding additional language at this stage helps clarify that. What I do want to understand is what is the implication for the civil process between a landlord and tenant if it's clearly already defined that if you failed to pay rent and you breached your contract? I want to know. I want to understand. I want to fully understand what that means.
Speaker 13: I don't think changing the specifics of these nine circumstances is necessarily fatal because, like I say, the nine circumstances under the civil code or eviction and we're not talking about eviction here, we thought that it made good sense to just follow those nine items out of the civil code. But Councilmember Mungo raises a point where maybe it would. Add more detail.
Speaker 5: So here's the detail I'd like to add to my friendly. I'd like number one to state failed to pay rent timely within the prior 12 months that's it that gives landlords the ability to keep the tenant and give them another chance.
Speaker 3: If they break rent within the past 12 months. Yep. So, okay, let's talk about this. So if you break rent within 12 months of that incident, that specific incident, you already have your 12 year vesting. Let's say you break rent and your 12 month vesting. You're vested. You break your rent in that situation. Someone could evict you. Someone could. They could displace you at that, but they could give you a 60 day notice already. Yeah. This says you can get your status back.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm.
Speaker 3: After. After you've been in good standing for 12 months. Mm hmm. That makes sense to me.
Speaker 5: Awesome.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That makes sense to me. That's accepted.
Speaker 5: Wonderful. Next. Right now, tell me what the income qualification is to get re low.
Speaker 13: No, I'm not sure that I.
Speaker 3: Hang on. Let me hold on. I want to get from staff that they're okay before I say so. I'm okay. I think that's a good question.
Speaker 13: I'm not sure I'm aware that you two are agreeing with one another, but.
Speaker 2: You were up in the.
Speaker 8: Light.
Speaker 13: When my understanding of Councilwoman Mongo if a tenant fails to pay rent, is issued a three day notice to pay or quit. And then they do pay. But they were late and they pay the late fee. But now they're in good standing. I think what you're saying is they can still be denied reload in the next 12 months because they did fail to pay rent at some point.
Speaker 5: You're stating it as the glass half empty. I think Rex and I are stating it as the glass.
Speaker 3: Ceiling as you stated, which is I accept until I get.
Speaker 5: Which is if they within the next 12 months maintain timely rent, they would then return.
Speaker 1: It resets after.
Speaker 5: Their reload.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess the next question is the next question at the way it is today. But Rich the way it is today. What what's in front of us? The steps up. If someone breaks their rent breaks, you know, they're they don't pay rent. And you don't choose to issue a three day pay or quit. They just you just have it documented today and you want to relocate that person six months from now, three months from now, and evoke that as the as the reason. Is there a sunset on that existing? Is there a sunset or is there some statute of limitations or some period of time a landlord has in order to trigger that under what what we have proposed?
Speaker 13: That is unclear. I mean.
Speaker 3: It would have to get sorted out in the in the ordinance. It would have to get sorted out in the ordinance or in the in the court. That's right. Okay. So here's what I want to do. I would like to give directions to staff that put some very clear definition or come back. Come back, because this has to come back. Researched this piece in addition to I heard a few other things that came up that we weren't ready to put in, but we might want to research it. This may need to come back along with the piece that Daryl, that Councilman Super and I was talking about with the lending stuff. We want those to come, but we want to get some clarity before we stick this in. I think it's a fair question, but let's get give them some time to research that piece and let's set it up to a way when it comes back to council, because it's going to you know, you guys are in draft , it's up it comes back to council that we can very easily say, okay, put this and take that out. You understand?
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 12: So we'll come back with some research on that and then we will. We need to put something in the ordinance for you to consider on first reading. So we'll give you the what we've come up with. We'll put it in the ordinance and then you can tell us if we got.
Speaker 1: It or not.
Speaker 3: And we want to get I think the idea here is you want clear rules of the road for both sides.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 13: Yeah. And to the extent that significant changes are made after the first reading, I think everyone understands we'll have to do another first reading. That's just the process.
Speaker 12: And this is to realign your status for only the item that has to do with pain.
Speaker 3: The healing process.
Speaker 12: Is it for all of the items in in your notice to vacate or just for paying it?
Speaker 3: I think what what she's saying is under that scenario, are we telling landlords, if you break one of these, you have to kick this person out and they're saying, we don't want to have to kick this person out. We want to keep this person. And under that scenario, do they still have full rights and privileges? I want to understand, do they have full rights and privileges? You know, if that's the case, they have it. How long is that last? Can someone invoke evoke this a year later? And the really, you know, if, you know, kicking them out for a different reason, how long is that? Like we need to understand that and do some research.
Speaker 12: That would be more than just rent. It would be any of these items.
Speaker 9: And what I'd like to do also, I know this is part of a back and forth between Councilman Mongo and Councilman Richardson. Councilman Mongo has the floor. So I just so I know that you guys have both been okay with each other clarifying things, so that's fine. But, Councilman, I know we can we can cue back up, but I want to make sure that we have your motion locked in. You okay? You clearly accepted to look at some of our research that comes on Mango's. Asking us to do that will come back at the same time or before the first reading obviously is coming forward. But I want to I have people that have queued up again. I still want to speak and and go from there, so. Okay, great. No, no, that's fine.
Speaker 5: So what is the current income qualifier for tenant relief? In your sub some.
Speaker 3: In I picked up the same foundation that was established in the in the main motion and the sub and that motion did not have an income qualification. It simply said, no, it did not. So she so she did not say, I want category A or category B. She said, these are the components that I would like and income was not a factor in that. So that is not a part of this motion.
Speaker 5: So. I have a challenge giving. Reload to people who make $180,000 a year. Let's say I have a problem. That's not the intent of why we're here. The reason we're here is because landlords were coming in, vacating entire buildings. And kicking people out. And those individuals were unable to find alternatives because they were low income individuals who needed help. So I'd like to ask that we look at either 60% of am I or the same standard that the housing authority uses, which is that more than 40% of their income is spent on rent.
Speaker 3: So I'm not supportive of that in principle. And here's why. Simply simply, if we get to if relocations would be a very simple trigger and it's the same justification that Councilwoman Pierce said when she said, I don't want people factor in whether you're single or disabled because they get additional pay that that would make us more susceptible to discrimination. All this would do was, you know, if your eligibility criteria as a renter, it was two times the rent. Right. And that is really I'm going to make it three times the rent or I'm going to make four times that completely understand. So that that part that part is I don't support that part.
Speaker 5: So there's currently a nonprofit organization called Brilliant Corners that works with our housing authority and Brilliant Corners. Did I say the right one? Yes. Okay. Brilliant corners. And what they do is they execute our funds to make sure that when you have a person who's homeless, they work with the landlord to hold the unit open and supplement that income. I would love to find a way to see if they would be a good agency to potentially disperse the senior additional 2000 and the disabled additional 2000. But then I'd also like to say that if you don't income qualify for the reload, that the reload goes to that agency instead. So that that would fund the future reloads that we need or add ons for seniors and disabled. Because what I worry about is we're creating this need with as seniors and. Disabled. That is coming from a fund that's currently helping our homeless. And I don't want to take any funding away from the homeless. I'd actually like to add into it. I know that a lot of people here were supportive of a fund and without creating a new tax. This would be a way where you wouldn't create a second class citizen out of a low income runner, and it would go to an agency that's already got experience providing these types of funding gaps. And then it also ensures that people who make gobs of money aren't necessarily going to get another $4,000, which is a lot of money for individuals. Who may not need it.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: So that would be putting it to a fund for the individuals who really do need it.
Speaker 3: Okay. So one of the principles that was put forward in the presentation tonight was the direction here was not to create an apparatus that has you hire additional staff or whatever.
Speaker 5: This would not be.
Speaker 3: The new contract. If you're you're proposing pay the reload to a different agency.
Speaker 5: That already exists and already does, that.
Speaker 3: There would have to be some kind of additional fee for that. So you're saying add a fee on top of reload on the property owners to manage that?
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 3: So how would it be managed? How would they pay their how would they get paid to do it?
Speaker 5: They would take a percentage out of that fund. So let's say you have a ten unit building of the ten unit building, five of them are low income, five of them are non low income. Let's say that everybody rents for market rent of 1000 a month. That would mean $2,000 would go to these five tenants and this $10,000 would go to the fund. A percentage would be taken off the top for admin. The rest would be there for seniors and disabled.
Speaker 3: No. I'm comfortable with the proposal to have a separate fund for seniors and disabled that we're going to go and identify funding sources because the benefit to that is the property owners are going to have to pay at this point. Like what? Like they don't have to pay for that additional bonus. We're going to go find state, county, local dollars for that fund. It will be completely independent, but that service will be offered to them unless we can figure out a same model for this for low income individuals. I think that I'm not supportive of that at this time.
Speaker 5: So you are supportive of individuals who currently make over $100,000 a year getting below.
Speaker 3: So that's a political question. It's just one to go there. So you want to go there? If someone gets is relocate relocated because of some condition. If you're making $100,000 and let's say you have a family of four or let's say that, you know, whatever, $100,000 for a family of four. If you're living condition changes, are you entitled to a benefit? The answer is yes. You're you're in your position is changed and it isn't to your fault.
Speaker 5: So you're a single person living in Beaumont? Sure.
Speaker 3: The answer is if it's political, if it's making cover to vote.
Speaker 5: A certain way, it's not making whatever I really believe.
Speaker 3: Very reasonable and fair. And the questions you're asking tonight. The questions you're asking tonight are there. I think we're going down a different rabbit hole. I don't want to go that direction.
Speaker 5: I'm just trying to say that if there's money that's going to be given, I would hope that we would put it in a fund to protect those that are the most vulnerable and not be paying it out to individuals who aren't an example of that. It doesn't need an example. Okay. So just just go down my list of quick. So you're currently at four units, but we're exploring a five units as an option, which would still protect 58,000 residential or residential units in the city. And then number two was. I was hoping to increase the vesting period. I think San Diego has a three year vesting period and two year period. And so I would like to consider a two year vesting period.
Speaker 3: I have that conversation with Councilman Silver now. We landed on something on that.
Speaker 5: No, you just rejected the friendly, right?
Speaker 3: No, I asked them to take a little. We already have, like, a decision point. Okay. In order to go further, let's do some research. Okay.
Speaker 1: That's good.
Speaker 5: And then we're going to do the research on the rolling 12 months if they don't pay rent so that you don't have to evict people immediately.
Speaker 3: Staff will clarify that the rules of the road are.
Speaker 1: Clear, and.
Speaker 5: Then there would be no income qualifier at this time for Reno.
Speaker 3: No, it's a bigger conversation we have to figure out.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 5: One last thing. Potentially. I think that there are individuals who would.
Speaker 8: Prefer.
Speaker 5: Security of time over money. And I think that's why in the case of the many units that were vacated in the third district, we didn't receive a lot of complaints. They received six months notice. So I'd be interested in finding a way where if you gave the six months notice of a rental increase or the six months notice of declining tenancy, if that could replace three low.
Speaker 3: So we actually posed this quite I think that the response from staff was that that requires state legislation in order to have something in lieu of reload. So council I mean, excuse me, Councilwoman. Ms.. Tatum, would you would you elaborate on that part about the state legislation?
Speaker 14: That is one of the things that is one of the recommendations that we include in the city's legislative agenda to support a a a minimum 90 day notice period for evictions. Right now, the eviction, the period of your notice is based upon the amount of the rental increase, if that's the trigger. So we'd like to see that that time frame be 90 days minimum.
Speaker 5: And I'm not asking for that. I actually am not asking for what we're going to do at the state level. I'm saying as a differentiator at the local level, we are creating a policy that is not a state policy related to relocation. And so. As a tenant. I would have rather known six months in advance that I needed to find a new place because with six months notice, I can do better research on opportunities. I can wait for a better unit. I can find other things. So I was just saying I'm not and I'm not asking for there to be an increase in the the noticing. What I'm stating is if the landlord would prefer to get give six months notice of a rental increase in excess of 10%, or if the landlord would prefer to notify their tenant. With six months notice that they would not be renewing the lease. That that could be in lieu of rilo. Which is not required under state law.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know if that's legal.
Speaker 5: It's completely legal.
Speaker 3: I want to hear from a city attorney.
Speaker 5: It's a discretion.
Speaker 13: Yeah, that's right. So it would be a way to get out of relocation. You could opt out of relocation effectively by giving six months notice. Absolutely. And I think that might work. But it's something that I can't give you a firm answer on.
Speaker 6: But you can bring.
Speaker 5: It back in when we come back with all these options.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: I would I would love research. So so we explored this conversation of if you had more notice, could it be in lieu of reload another process and we got back was that is an attempt to go outside of state law. And so we need well, that's why I want to hear I want this to be vetted out by the attorneys before we add this in. Right now, we have I think we're at a good foundation and we have some great questions that were raised tonight. And this needs to be looped into that set of questions because it's conflicting. As soon as that was left and some people start nodding their heads and say, this is it's a conflict state law. People in the audience I don't I don't I don't know. We need to let the attorneys have some time to vet that.
Speaker 5: So. Our city attorney just commented that it is possible. But what I'm open to.
Speaker 13: It might be possible.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 13: I'm sorry. I don't want to be pinned down. Rex may well be right. That step. Well, I'm sure he's right. That staff told him that such a buyout, so to speak, would violate state law. And that may be correct. It's a pretty specific question that I think I can get an answer to. I just don't have it right now.
Speaker 3: And it's a form for that can come back. Great. And if at this point it's not clear whether that's.
Speaker 5: Illegal, but if it is not illegal, is that something you'd be willing to include?
Speaker 3: I think I'm willing to have the conversation if that if that is something that's that legal. I think the premise of what you're saying, six months notice that I need my place back is a lot of time. I get the sentiment there. There's this the angel. The angel is in the details. So we need to find out first if that's legal. And you said that was your last.
Speaker 5: That was my last one.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 12: So for clarification, we need we need to know when we're writing this ordinance, do we research that and put it in if it's possible or if we just do two from four? It leaves a lot of ambiguity. So what what do you want us to do?
Speaker 3: I want you to write the motion that's on in front of us. I have not added that to the motion.
Speaker 12: That's what we needed to know. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: Okay. So. A couple of things. I wanted to be supportive tonight, and I've put a lot of things out there that could help get us there. I, too, like my colleagues, have stated that we wanted to find a solution. I don't think we've landed a nice plane yet, but I know there's still people queued up, so it's all possible.
Speaker 9: Okay. Well, thank you very much. I know we do have people that have queued up to speak for a second time, and there'll be others, I'm sure, and that's okay. But I want to make sure I'm able to make some comments before we go through a second round. So I want to just begin. I've had a chance to meet and talk to a lot of folks, both on the tenants side as well as the property owners side, from the associations to individual property owners, many of whom I've known for as long as I've run to my first apartment coming out of Cal State, Long Beach . And so I know this is a difficult issue. It's also a very important one. And it's also one that I think takes a lot of deliberation, which I think you're seeing tonight. And I think that is that is a good thing. I have also been pretty open and supportive that I believe that Long Beach should and needs to pass a tenant relocation ordinance. And I want to explain why. And I also want to clarify some things about why I think this is important. First, I think when you think about where Long Beach is at today, the Long Beach economy, by any measure, most would say is is doing well. Whether you're looking at port growth, which is the highest it's been in the history of the city, whether you're looking at the unemployment rate, which is the lowest we've had on record in the history of the city of Long Beach. We are looking at the increase of those at the lowest wage and the minimum wage that's that's being increased. Those measures are signs of a robust economy. The same time you have things like overall crime being at some of the lowest levels in its history. You have more businesses that are being created and built, and you certainly have a significant amount of both public and private investment that's moving into the city. So those things are happening. Those things have happened because of a lot of hard work, of a lot of people, including our our working class folks in the city of Long Beach. And it's thanks to a lot of folks that are here tonight that have also invested in properties and that have taken care of their units. And I've heard from a lot of people that rent to low income folks or techs or take Section eight. And we thank you for for doing that. And we thank everyone for being a part of that process. While all these great things are happening. Our success is a shared success. And I have the good fortune. I'm the first person of my family to have bought a home. My whole family we've rented my entire life. We've lived in affordable housing. I grew up poor. I had a chance to buy a home and not because I was able to just do it on my own, because I had the good fortune of getting some good advice and the support of of my family. But as a as a property owner, I know that the value of my property is not just about the increase that I've seen my property go through as the city has. Improved in some ways, maybe changed in some ways, but I know that the increase in my property value is also been shared. It's because maybe the streets in the neighborhood are better because trees were planted, because it's safer. And so I'm a big believer that the the the growth and the investments that we have and we all benefit from the shared responsibility that society puts in for all of us being taxpaying citizens. So we're all responsible for each other's success. And when our properties do well in a neighborhood, it's because the city which all taxpayers put in are all working together to make investments across the city. And so I think that there's there's both shared prosperity and shared responsibility when it comes to these issues. I also think that we're all very aware that homelessness is real. It's the single biggest crisis right now in the state of California and the city of Long Beach. And the housing affordability crisis is also real. And there's a lot of ways of of trying to solve this issue, many of which, by the way, the city of Long Beach has gotten wrong. There's no question that when you look at our the way we have tried to build affordable housing, there's no question that we could have done better and we should have done better. We also know that I believe that we have been and tried our best over the last few years to try to remedy some of these issues. And I want to start with the Everyone home lobby report. Within that report, I want to congratulate the members of the Council for taking up this issue of housing affordability and the issues of homelessness. We are finally building breaking ground and developing affordable homes for seniors, veterans, working families and low income folks across the city. We are finally building a city municipal shelter that will be open to everybody that's going to be in North Long Beach. You've seen, for example, Councilman Austin be incredibly supportive and and stand up in a difficult situation to put a winter shelter temporarily in a neighborhood that many who were opposed and now are supportive of that work. You've seen Councilmember Supernanny and others and those of us work to ensure that when community hospital opens, it's able to include some of the recuperative care and detox support that should be included to support the mentally, the mentally ill. And you have seen a focus on mental health care as well. If you continue to go through that report, there is a key provision in everyone at home, Long Beach and everyone online, which was chaired by the president of Cal State Long Beach. Included in that task force was the superintendent of school district, the president of Long Beach City College, business leaders and nonprofits and experts in the field. We are meeting all of our targets within that everyone home Lambert report and are working towards towards those goals. One of the goals in everyone on Long Beach is also very clear and it's recommendation three and it says to support and implement tenant assistance policies as developing in coordination with community and landlords. And these includes and includes a little variety of bullet points, most of which have been included in the staff recommendation. And it includes just this bullet point which we're talking about tonight, which is a tenant relocation assistance policy that provides relocation assistance to households impacted by rising rents and displacement. And so I point that out because I just want to remind us that what we're discussing tonight is not was not developed in a vacuum. It was all it was developed through action of the council, but also why it was debated and discussed in a incredibly large task force made up of leaders from across the city of both the private and public sector. And so for me, when I have and this happened as early as today, but when I had the president of Cal State, Long Beach and the president of Long Beach City College being very clear about the thousands of homeless students that we have at our university and at our college and the housing security that they face. It goes beyond just students that are that might be low income. There are we have thousands and thousands of students that can literally not even afford to live in the city of Long Beach. And they believe that this that this crisis has that this issue has reached a crisis level on both campuses. And I agree with them. And I support them. And I thank them for reaching out both, I think, in a letter and as well in conversations that I have had with with those with members of that task force on this issue for them and other task force members. Tenant relocation policy not only is important, but they actually support the staff recommendation as presented. So I just want to make also that clear. And I and I do support that as well. Let me also say some things that I think are are really are important. I know that we have a motion is being built in progress. So we have the main motion as presented by Council Councilwoman Gonzales and Vice Mayor Andrews, which I support. We have a motion, in addition to that, that Councilman Jeanine Pearce made, but I believe Councilman Durango may have been the second. No, I think maybe it was. I'm not sure who was the second. But we have noted here, which I obviously support and of course, the motion that Councilman Richardson has made as a sub sub. And I will continue to support us passing a policy tonight. I also I know Councilman Austin has made a friendly to that motion and I will support the whole motion as as as presented. But I want to point out some key things. The first thing I want to say is I don't think we can ever separate that that our neighbors and especially our low income neighbors that are cooks in our kitchens and our hotel workers and our clerks are really suffering right now. And like Councilwoman Gonzales said, there is no issue that I lose more sleep over than this issue. And it is also an issue that I believe personally that as a city. And I'll take personal responsibility myself. We have one fail to lead appropriately in the past, and we have not done enough to rectify the planning mistakes that have been made, not just in our own city, but but across the state of California. And so I think mayors and and governments are trying to, as fast as possible, try to fix and address the systemic issues that are happening. A lot of folks said we should be building more housing. I agree. I have supported every single unit brought forward before this body to get built. I have supported whether it's been a market rate prop building, whether it's been an affordable unit. I support every single unit. I wish that there was as much enthusiasm to build housing. As far as there is on this policy, because almost every time that we try to propose a project to build more affordable housing, we get a lot of folks come out and oppose it. We want to build a shelter. It gets opposed. We want to build more affordable housing for low income seniors. It's too high or too dense. We want to. We want to. We want to densify our transit system and build more housing along even just a moderate amount of density across the community. And we fill the chambers again because nobody wants to build additional housing. So if if we're not going to allow the creation of more affordable housing, which which many neighborhoods don't want any, then then that leads us to try a multifaceted approach. So I would first encourage us all to continue to support building every unit of housing possible that and to continue to support smart, responsible density in the city. I also believe that we should we should redouble our efforts on building more affordable housing, which we are doing. We just broke ground on two big projects just in the last month and will continue. We have another one coming up in the next few weeks. We're going to continue to do so. And I would I would encourage us to realize that a tenant relocation policy is not the the the magic solution that's going to fix all of our issues. It is one piece of a building, more housing, tenant, relocation assistance, state support action by the governor and the legislature to begin to try to fix that. The the crisis that we have going happening across state of California right now and and in Long Beach. And I will note that because I have to say this, because I think I've known I've known her for since I was in college. I was very moved by Mary's and Degas's testimony. I was moved by her op ed she wrote in the Long Beach Post. I've known her for 25 years since we were both students at Cal State Long Beach. And I also know that she has spent her entire life being housing insecure. And I know that for me, there's a lot of great stuff in in this motion tonight. But there there is nothing that brings me more happiness that than the additional support for people with disabilities and for seniors. And I know and I want to be very clear, I know that that part of the sub sub is for it to be a city created fund which which, which I'm which I'm fine with. And I support that. But I also want to be clear, you know, Councilman, and to the makers of the motion, that that is also I think not in no way should that be. If we can't put the funds together, we're not doing it. And I just want to make sure that as part of that substitute motion, Councilmember Richardson. I just want to make sure that it's part of your motion, which I think is correct, that we are being very clear that we are we are doing that fund and we will be providing additional support. And that's I know that's going to come clear and I just wanna make sure that's not if we can't, if we can find the funding.
Speaker 3: I know we're establishing that.
Speaker 9: We're going to get those additional $2,000 are I think are incredibly important and so. And so for me, I know we're all talking about I think we all have our shared values and we all believe in doing and doing the right thing. And we're all listening to our constituents. But I think that supporting in this case, those additional dollars for people in wheelchairs that are disabled and that are seniors is the right thing to do. And so I'm going to support I know there still might be some tweaks here, but I am going to support and I do support the motion that's on the floor. And I hope that this can move us forward and we can begin to get back to work on building more housing for everybody. So thank you. Councilmember Pearce.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I want to say how much I appreciate your leadership tonight. Mayor, as we talked about, it's been a long time that we've been talking about this. And so it's great to be at a place where we can kind of redirect. I just have a couple of clarifying things. I'm not going to, you know, go deep on anything. But I wanted to make sure with the city attorney that when we say 10% over 12 months, that that could be two increases of 5% in 12 months.
Speaker 13: Yeah, that that's the way I interpret it. Okay.
Speaker 8: And when staff gave the report and we talked about affirmative defense, it said that it could possibly be included in there. I think that that's something that's really critical. So I.
Speaker 13: I intend to include that based on the staff's recommendation and your motion.
Speaker 8: Great. Thank you. And then. So I have a question about the the. The reauthorization. I would. I want to make sure that we're clear that it doesn't. Sunset without council action.
Speaker 12: So so we understand that that it would sunset on a date certain but that staff would bring an item to you before that date so that you could make a positive decision well in advance before it would sunset.
Speaker 8: I'm extremely uncomfortable with that, and I didn't really hear about it till it was on the dias floor. So I, I would hate to be in a situation where it would sunset, something would happen where, oh, gosh, we don't have, you know, enough council members to actually hear the item and then, you know, it sunsets and then we like protection. And then there's a flood of something that happens in between. So I just I would I wouldn't want to have a date certain. I would want to say that we have it beforehand and then evaluate it.
Speaker 13: I'm afraid that if we interpret it your way, Councilmember Pearce, that's really not. I'm not sure. I mean, it goes to what Councilmember Austin intended and what Councilmember Richardson accepted. But I heard sunset. A sunset means it terminates on a date. Certain.
Speaker 8: I heard the.
Speaker 13: Council.
Speaker 8: Could we. Could I ask the maker of the motion to just clarify?
Speaker 11: I said reauthorization. I want to be clear. I guess if you wanted to to, you know, kind of split hairs, it it would could mean a sunset. But my intent was that it would come back to the council after three years and the council would have the opportunity to then reauthorize or modify or based on the data provided by staff.
Speaker 13: So that means if for whatever reason it did not come back before council, then the the ordinance would remain in effect.
Speaker 11: No. I think I like to have the the council have an opportunity to to make well.
Speaker 13: I think staff is going to undertake staff will undertake the obligation to bring something before you. But three years from now, if for whatever reason that doesn't happen, that won't be written into the ordinance. It's just direction that you're given to staff. If that doesn't happen, then the ordinance is going to continue.
Speaker 11: And I also want to be clear. This this I want to give staff the opportunity to to to to write an ordinance. And I know that we'll be having another another very long conversation when it comes back. And we can have that opportunity to tweak the things that we're uncomfortable with at that point as well.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 12: So that sorry we need I just one more clarification. We normally we have two ways to do it. One, which is what we normally do, which is it remains in effect. But we'll come back to you in three years with data and then you make any decision you want to or it or it sunsets. And we would come back to you for you to make a decision on whether to continue it. So which one?
Speaker 11: Well, I don't want to leave it open ended for for staff to put it in a black hole either. I want to make sure that it comes back to to the council after three years in the council has some sort of motivation to to to actually take.
Speaker 12: I said that would be the sunset then.
Speaker 11: Yes, that that's my intent.
Speaker 12: And we would we commit we will absolutely not miss any deadlines. We will be back to you with data with time before its onset.
Speaker 8: Could we ask, is six months too much time?
Speaker 7: I a problem in Vegas.
Speaker 3: Let me jump in here. You jump in because I'm controlling the motion. So it sounds like Councilman Austin wants the opportunity to reauthorize. He never used the word sunset. Yeah, I used the word sunset.
Speaker 8: That's why I wanted to clarify.
Speaker 3: And what you're saying is, if for whatever happens, for whatever reason, staff doesn't bring it, whatever. It doesn't get in front of council, not enough council members here. Here. You know how the game goes. People don't automatically lose their benefits because we didn't get to it. Whoever the council makes up. Is there a way that we can say, you know, that a condition of, you know, nothing changes until that happens that we have to meet? Is there a way to make that happen? Because I think that's consistent with the language of both the council members. That's both their intent that we get a chance to review.
Speaker 1: It, you know.
Speaker 13: An ordinance. In my experience and never direct city staff to do a certain thing, I mean, in ordinances of general applicability.
Speaker 3: So we will direct city staff that prior to any and I don't want to use the word sunset like the staff will have to. We will get a chance to review this and reauthorize this before anybody loses their benefits. That's what we want to do. So if you can't write in the ordinance, put it as direction from this council to to staff.
Speaker 12: So the ordinance remains in effect. But we will come back. And you are directing us to come back in three years?
Speaker 1: I think I think.
Speaker 9: I think what's being said is that there's going to be a reauthorization vote that we'll be taking at the council in three years. But then for the information, of course, what this council will get before that, and that if for some you know, if there's some unforeseen issue that the council can't meet or count or staff is can't get the information, I think what the members are saying is that no one should lose your benefit in those in those situations.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 12: So reviewed after three years, no impact to anyone's benefits and it stays on the books until you make a decision to take it off.
Speaker 9: All right. So understood. There's Councilman Austin who has the floor actually now. But anything else?
Speaker 11: Yes. Well, I do appreciate that. And and I'll just say that this has been a much smoother discussion than I expected. It's after midnight, so we're into tomorrow. I will say that there are elements of this this policy that that I feel like most most of us on the council have have compromised on. And again, I don't think this conversation is over with. It was my intent and expectation when we brought this this item forward that we would be prioritizing and protecting our most vulnerable in our city. Speaker after speaker after speaker. Example after example were those who were were being displaced and losing their housing, who were senior citizens, who were low income. And I certainly have a have a heart for those who are who are who are disabled. And so I would and Councilmember Mungo brought up a few excellent points. You know, I think we all have been renters at one point. I had a had a decent job. And, you know, I was able to afford, you know, decent places to live. I don't know that that as a as a young person with with a great job, you know, making six figures that I would necessarily need and a relocation benefit. Right. And so I think we need to think more about that, talk more about that, research that a little bit more and understand what our true intent was as a council. I feel more comfortable having income qualifiers and looking at, again, protecting those who who need to who need it most in our city, those who are most vulnerable. Also, there are no less than a couple dozen pieces of legislation right now currently going through the legislature in Sacramento that could impact some of the conversation that we've had tonight, some of the ordinance that we're looking at and moving forward. And so I would ask the city staff, obviously pay close attention to that, to to the bills that are there. And, you know, there are there are bills that could render some of what we're talking about move, you know, should they pass similarly to the minimum wage legislation that was passed a few years ago? And so I would just cautious on that. And then I want to thank Councilmember Pearce for bringing forth, I think, a very creative idea on the heap funds the use of that. I support that 100%. I think it's fair to the property owners and it and it shows a shared burden with the city so that, hey, listen , if we're going to protect those who are less vulnerable or most vulnerable, meaning senior citizens, those who are disabled, we are we're willing to step up and use those funds. And I know that's also work that will continue in Sacramento, because you were recently, Mr. Mayor, up in Sacramento looking to extend the extra half billion dollars for for for homeless prevention as well. So. So I'm happy with moving forward. I'm not 100% comfortable with everything. And again, I don't have to be. I think I think the intent here tonight is to move move a policy. I hope we can we can do that. But again, the details are going to be worked out over the next course of the next several weeks and months as a staff presents an ordinance. And then on the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee, I certainly hope that we can continue this conversation with some of the detail issues that have come up here to this evening to get get a little deeper into. So with that.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And as we go to the vote, I'm just going to do one clarification point the staff has asked, and that is just to be clear, the what the ordinance when the ordinance comes back, the audience is coming back as written per the subsub. The other information that has been asked is essentially coming back as information to from four that should come prior to or at latest. You know, the meeting when this comes back and and obviously housing neighborhoods could could certainly discuss some of these other issues in between. But at the end of the day, the what's being asked to come back in the actual ordinance is the sub sub as made by Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 12: And we'd like to ask Mr. Mayor if there are things that we find that make the subsub work issues that are raised by the council that make the ordinance work. We'd like to add those in as well.
Speaker 9: Great. I think we got a motion on the floor. Members, please, please go out and cast your votes. Well, the motion I think we've restated the motion. I mean, Councilmember, I think we have your we have your motion. I think it's clear. I think we've got it. All right. We have the tapes as well. So please go ahead and cast your vote.
Speaker 0: Motion carries six three.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you very much. And we still have some more some more meeting. And so what we're going to do is we have public comment as well. So for general public comment, and we have one item we're going to take up. So let me first ask if I can get a motion to move all items 17 through item 24 minus item 23 to the next meeting. I've checked in with staff and they believe it's an easy move. Can I get a motion in a second on that? Any any public comment on that move? Seeing nonmembers, please go and cast votes on moving those items.
Speaker 2: We?
Speaker 0: Motion carries.
Recommendation to receive and file the 2018 Report on Tenant Assistance Policies;

Direct City Attorney to prepare a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance implementing Recommendation One, utilizing the Baseline Relocation Assistance Components and Applicability Requirement Option Two; and 

Direct City Manager to take the necessary steps to implement Recommendations Two through Five, as presented.  (Citywide)