Speaker 0: Item 36 Report from Development Services. Recommendation to Request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code just cause for termination of tenancies to include the modifications included an option to an adopt an ordinance to extend the prohibition on termination of certain lawful residential tenancies through February 28, 2022. Declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that the ordinance shall take effect immediately citywide. There are two votes required for this item.
Speaker 6: Thank you. City staff.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Members of the council, we do have a fairly detailed staff report. This is a complex topic. We've done a lot of outreach and there's been a lot of discussions over the past year or so. But to turn it over to our team, to help walk you through the work that's been done, some of the background on the issues as well as three various options and a staff recommendation for your consideration. So I would turn to Oscar Dorsey, our Director Development Services.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mayor, and members of the City Council in in 2018. Give me 1/2. In 2018, tenants and owners representing representatives join the city staff for a series of meetings to discuss potential tenant protection policies and to address the rising rents and tenant displacements. In March of 20 in the city and staff prepared a presentation that addressed several items related to this ongoing issue in the city. In March ten. On March 10th, 2020, the City Council adopted a just cause for termination tenancy ordinance to take further action regarding these protections. Our staff is available here and we'll be providing a brief presentation with additional information.
Speaker 6: Okay, Counsel, I'm going to walk you through some slides. Thank you for the background, Oscar.
Speaker 9: So what we're talking about today.
Speaker 6: Is not all of expense, but a specific sub category of evictions related to what's called substantial remodel. And this is not an area unique to the city. This flows out of state law. But the city has the ability to take further action on these categories of landlord tenant relations. So back in.
Speaker 9: July of this year.
Speaker 6: A council directed us to draft a moratorium, which we are.
Speaker 9: Under at this time, and it prohibits just cause.
Speaker 6: Evictions related to substantial remodel. And there's other provisions of state law and for a period of time, county provisions that also restricted such evictions. The city council, our staff, during the time of that moratorium to evaluate the feasibility and cost of different programs, one being known as the renovation administration program, which you see in cities that have rent control, such as Santa monica and Los Angeles, and other programs which are described as options two and three. And her staff report that we're going to talk about in just a moment. But first, we're going to start with what is a renovation administration program.
Speaker 2: And Patrick is going to walk you through that.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Christopher. So what is a renovation administration program? The city of Los Angeles has implemented such a program and it's referred to as a tenant habitability program or THP. This program requires extensive city staff involvement and oversight of rental residential remodel projects, including mitigation of construction impacts to tenants noticing requirements on the submission of an extensive plan. I'm sorry. I'm noticing again. Noticing the tenants. US property inspections. I'm sorry. I can't read this. Wrong glasses. I'm sorry, everyone. So this is a cumbersome and lengthy process that may deter landlords from making needed repairs. We found that only cities with rent control programs administer thp. And a THP is linked to those rent control programs and it helps to rent vacancy control at those rent controlled events. We had three stakeholder engagement meetings in August and September. These are some of the stakeholder comments from the tenant stakeholder meeting held on August 25th. These are some from August 26. This is the property owners stakeholder comments. Property owners were concerned about a lack of data. And they wanted to see substantial more and more clearly defined. The third meeting included both groups and comments were similar. We did have 26 attendees comment on their experience with displacement. We also had a survey and there were 87 responses to that survey. And this slide provides some of the key ideas and comments from the survey. As with the stakeholder meetings, there were 13 points of view expressed in the survey results. So there's not a lot of data on this subject. The city is not involved in the eviction process, and so we have no real data on evictions. Calmatters reports that 221 evictions were held since they were completed since May 2020. But there are no details available on the circumstances of those evictions. We do show that there's 879 permits that appear eligible for substantial remodels between March 2020 March 2021. And that number is similar to 2018 and 19. But that data does not clearly show that there's a tie to evictions and substantial remodels. When considering changes to the ordinance, it's important to know that renovation work is still necessary and important. 82% of our housing units were built before 1980 and major housing renovations are necessary. Your 30 and more so you're 50 and beyond. A THP is estimated to cost approximately $2 million to address these 879 potential applicants on an annual basis. And although there might be an opportunity to pass those costs along to property owners, which eventually will trickle down to tenants as rent increases, we feel that there's probably going to be a two year period and a cost of about $4 million for the project to get started. So we've we've got three options for the city council to consider tonight. The first option is to create a tenant habitability program. And option two is kind of a menu of potential modifications to the Jessica's ordinance. And that includes revise the definition to require time to vacate 60 days instead of 30 days. Revise the definition and more clearly define what work is qualified as substantial remodel. Establish a civil fine of up to $15,000, payable by landlords to tenants. When a court has found a manner to have violated just the just cause ordinance. And the final two are revised. The ordinance to require owners to notify the city when people are being evicted due to this provision of the ordinance. And finally revised the ordinance to require a 30 day notice to vacate. I'm sorry, a 90 day notice to vacate instead of the current 30 and 60. And then finally, option three would be to increase the permanent relocation benefits to 40 $500 per household instead of the current one month's rent that's in the ordinance. And this option could be considered by itself or it could be combined with the menu of items. An option to. So again, we're here with the recommendation to modify the ordinance to include the provisions contained in option two. And then we're also asking that you adopt an ordinance amending the Chapter 8.1 or two to extend the prohibition on termination of tenancies due to this provision. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, we'll go to public comment. We have 35 speakers in queue. So the rules say we go to 90 seconds and so I'll call up the first. I'm going to list the first ten. We have Reverend Sandy Richards, Paul Evans, Corliss Lee, John, alias Elaine Hutcherson, George Bustamante, Alexandra Connor Raya, John Edmund, Matthew Buck and Mike Murchison. So if you could come up, if you heard your name, call for the line up so we can process, you know, go through this process expeditiously. So first up is Reverend Sandy Richards.
Speaker 0: I guess we leave our mask on, right? Yes. Good evening, Vice Mayor and city council members. I'm Reverend Sandy Richards, and I'm the lead pastor of the Southwest United Methodist Church in Long Beach, located in District five and a part of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. I'm here tonight to speak in support of option one. As a pastor, I have seen testimonies of community members impacted by the substantial remodel evictions. Most of them are people of color and the elderly who are already very vulnerable and often do not have the resources to hire lawyers and fight for their rights. Option one is also important because of the oversight needed. Options two and three placed this burden on our current staffers, increasing their workload and potentially making oversight delayed or ineffective. As the text of the staff report reads, there is currently no existing staff infrastructure for intervention between landlords and tenants, as currently exists in the cities with rent stabilization in place. Long Beach has been making efforts to address structural racism and ensure equity in our community. We need a fair process that can hold landlords accountable for their repairs and protect tenants from unjust evictions and homelessness. The policy we vote for tonight has implications for today and generations to come. Leviticus 1918 tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, which means to look after their wellbeing. I urge you to take bold leadership and vote option one and create a fair process. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Paul Evans and Corliss Lee and then John Elise. Paul.
Speaker 0: I didn't come down here.
Speaker 6: Just a moment, Paul. Okay. Paul's not here. Next call this lead, then John Elise and then Elaine Hutchison. Oh, you are here where you're up. Go ahead. You can you can swap in sign. Whoever wants to go next is great.
Speaker 2: All right. Thanks. Okay? Yeah. The prohibition on evictions should not be extended. Let's let it sunset. It harms all involved. A major expression, a major problem expressed by both tenants and landlords is a lack of housing. The best way to solve this is to let the free market work. Government intervention has contributed to the problem. Do nothing. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Lee then John and then John. Alias, then Elaine Hutchison. Callers.
Speaker 2: I think it was John Eilers, wasn't it?
Speaker 6: It's Corliss Lee is up now. Well, Corliss Lee, your next John. You're right. You're after Corliss.
Speaker 0: After me.
Speaker 6: After you.
Speaker 2: Yes. Excuse me.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Corliss High carelessly here. I'm not a landlord, but I've watched repeated agenda items that treat landlords unfairly. There seems to be an assumption that landlords have deep pockets and confirmed council decisions that favor tenants. Funding a new department designed to evaluate and control actions that would improve properties and require a tenant to vacate during the process. Seems to me to be city business and the city should pay for it. I was told today that in the year 2000, we had about 2000 personnel in the city and that today we have 6000. I think we.
Speaker 5: Have the people to deal with this.
Speaker 0: The city has deep pockets, a port, a convention center, an airport, property taxes, and the city should be funding their own bright ideas. Time and again, I hear council decisions that are a hardship for the small landlord. Is your goal to turn rental properties into a corporate business? Because if we lose the small business landlords, that's where we're going.
Speaker 6: Thank you, John.
Speaker 2: You are up. Thank you. My name is John Ayers. I feel like a gadfly sucking time up. However. I'm speaking against establishing a new department or court to implement the requirements that are spelled out in item 36. The creation of this department or funds is a problem. Looking for a solution. Or it's. Look, it's a non-problem. Looking for a solution and a waste of money. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Elaine Hutchison, then George Bustamante, then Alexandra Honoria. Elaine.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Yes, Honorable Mayor Garcia and Vice Honorable Vice Mayor Richardson and members of the city council. My name is Elaine Hutchison, and I'm here this evening as president of the Apartment Association of California Southern Cities. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on item 36 of this evening's agenda. We appreciate all the research and work done by the Development Services staff, which was made possible by Councilwoman Cindy Helen and.
Speaker 7: Councilwoman Sui Sara, who brought the item forward. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. George Bustamante, Alexandra Raya and John Hammond. George.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Can I go to 49?
Speaker 6: Oh, I'm sorry. Continue. Forgive you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And pause. I'm ready to roll.
Speaker 0: Governor, going to say we support option three.
Speaker 2: Let's back up the clock. Go for it. Thank you.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. George Bustamante, Alexandra Correa and John Hammond. All right. Good evening, vice mayor and council members.
Speaker 2: My name is George Bustamante. I live in Long Beach. I work in Long Beach. I work at the brokerage real estate brokerage business. I own a business here. And I just want to speak out against and oppose this. I'm 36 and all phases of it. It doesn't matter which one of these.
Speaker 6: It mainly impacts small.
Speaker 2: Small owners. They have, you know, two, three, four units, six units, ten units. Most of it is in their life savings. The numbers were interesting to see from staff. If we were only remodeling about a thousand units a year, that's not very many units that really need work to help. Provide better housing. Clean housing and safe housing. And most of the owners I know, they don't like people that they try to maintain their buildings and they try to improve them. In some cases, they need to move people out to make improvements. But putting further hindrances on landlords doesn't improve the housing stock, doesn't make more affordable housing, and just keeps the city in sort of a static state and probably deteriorating housing inventory. That's it. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Alexandra and then John Edmund and then Matthew book. Alexandra.
Speaker 4: Honorable mayor, City.
Speaker 0: Council, City Manager and city staff. My name is Alex Catterall. I'm representing the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce and its membership in my comments. Both property owners and tenants who are represented by our coalition, which is made up of the Apartment Association of Southern California Cities Small Property Owners Alliance, California Apartment Association, the Civic West Association of Realtors and Chamber and the Chamber care about Long Beach and its future. As you may have seen in our petition, which has over 650 signatures from our membership, what we hear tenants say that they care about is homelessness, crime and quality of life. Property owners, provide rental housing to Long Beach residents and play a crucial role in Long Beach economy and city budget. Property owners also care about homelessness, crime, quality of life and the environment their tenants are living in because happy tenants mean happy property owners. Each of these property owners are small businesses that are trying to survive through a pandemic and all have chosen Long Beach as a worthy investment. Despite the housing stock needing more renovations and love than most in California due to the age of our housing, property owners, small businesses and tenants all want a safe and affordable environment. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next to John Edman there, Matthew Buck and Mike Murchison. I'm going to call out just a moment, John. I'm going to call out the next ten so they can begin a line up. You have Zach, you have Gratia Lopez Reyes, Maggie Valenzuela, just Seth Randall, Magdalena Pereda.
Speaker 2: Alyssa Tong.
Speaker 6: Andrew Mandu, Luciano, Lakisha Johnson, Paul working, and Maria Lopez. All right, John, you have the floor.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Vice Mayor, Councilmember, city manager and city staff. My name is John Edman. I'm the executive director of the Apartment Association of California Southern Cities. Well, my my members represent the free market, affordable housing providers. And I'm a resident in the city of Long Beach. I have participated in every step of this process since early 2021. Tonight, we are discussing remedies for a problem that has yet to be supported by data. The common theme throughout this process is lack of data. This vote will have an effect for years to come on housing investments in Long Beach. Currently, we pay relocation fee, which we are open to discussing in future based on inflation and other other matters. Substantial years. Why don't we have a box to check when we're doing a permit application? We can track tenant relocations with the staff report. There is a distinct distinction with a difference between an eviction and canceling Alys. The state clearly defines nobody has any ambiguity of what a substantial remodel is, and we know it when we see it. It's ripping out plumbing, redoing electrical, and keeping up with our aging housing stock. Throughout this process, we have not heard one example of a tenant displaced under something that is not covered under current state law. And if it was done outside of state law, there are remedies available to them today and they should be held accountable. Additionally, we are observing a chill effect in Long Beach for investment in Long Beach properties through this moratorium and unnecessary environment. Thank you.
Speaker 6: But thank you, John. And Mr. Clark, when we get to 90 seconds, you should intervene in managing this piece. We next have Matthew Buck, then Mike Murchison and then Zach Matthew.
Speaker 2: I thank you. Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Matthew Buck. I'm with the California Apartment Association. The staff report indicates no complaints have been received by the department on this issue zero. It's not because the city can't collect the data. It's easy to field complaints in the existing response base system. It's purely because there are no complaints regarding illegal upgrades. The Tenant Protection Act outlines specific criteria regarding substantial remodels to address an aging housing stock. The provisions in the law are not a loophole, but designed to encourage the maintenance and upkeep of the state's apartment homes. Over 70% of the housing in Long Beach was built before 1970. Your buildings need rehabilitation. Unnecessary regulations will deter needed upgrades and increase the cost to obtain housing. There's no evidence to support additional regulations are needed. We ask that the item be received and filed. Ensure your complaint based systems collecting data properly and increase education efforts to your residents. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Mike Murchison, the exacting grazier.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Vice Mayor, council members, city staff. I want to thank development services for taking the time over the past year and listening to everybody on both sides of this. Hopefully in 2022 we want to deal with tenant landlord issues. We've had enough in 2021, to be honest. You've also heard from everybody from the landlord side of things. The staff is basically figured out. There's been no there's been no data to substantiate what we've been discussing. None. So we have nothing factually to really fall back on. Number two, as said earlier, the state already has law about what a substantial remodel is. If you want to codify that for local here in the city, an ordinance by all means. But the state already has a law on it. As mentioned also, we have a very old housing stock here in Long Beach. What are we going to do to incentivize small property owners to basically come forward and improve their property? How are we going to do that if we're going to continue to hit them with exorbitant cost to make this all happen? Finally, the thing that bothers me probably the most is the cost of a RFP program. You heard earlier it's roughly two I think I heard 4 million. Eventually, development services, if they found the ability to pay for that, is going to pass that on to property owners. We can't pass that on to tenants. That's not a pass through costs. With 1482, you have a 5% raise increase annually plus CPI. You won't be able to pass through those additional costs. Keep that in mind. Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next to Zach, then. Greasier than Maggie.
Speaker 9: You've had a lot of. You've got your glasses. Yes. Hi. My name is Zack and I'm a landlord. And I just want to tell you my story, which is this pandemic has basically run me into the ground. I'm having to work, too. I had to go back to school there and work two jobs to keep hold on to what I have. So when you guys add additional cost on us, it's not something that we can just afford. And just as a side note, my tenant is so I'm the government owes me $44,000 in unpaid rent and my tenant wants $10,000 bribe cash to cooperate with it because you guys put that stipulation that you have to cooperate. So I'm fighting like hell to hang on to what I have and adding more cost to us, more burdens is hard enough. Fall. I mean, I feel for these guys out here with the no eviction signs, but you guys have let 10,000 low cost units go away. You guys have let a bunch of Section eight go away. You guys, this is not a fault from the landlords. And this, for the most part, impacts only small landlords. And, you know, all you're going to get is a takeover from BlackRock, who's not gonna listen to you guys, all of them. They're gonna come in with their fancy lawyers and there's no chance for anybody then. So I'm asking you guys to reject this altogether. And lastly, when I can't afford when somebody can't afford to pay somebody to live somewhere else, they're just gonna start ripping out asbestos walls with that with the people still living there.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Grecia, then Maggi, then Hyacinth.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Members of the council. My name is Graciela with RES. I'm the director of Leon's Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs in a Healthy Community and a member of the Housing Justice Coalition. First, I want to acknowledge the leadership of council members Cindy Allen and Julie Sano for taking proactive steps to address substantial remodel evictions. I also want to thank Council woman Mary Sunday House Vice Mayor Richard Richardson and Councilman Al Austin for taking the time to meet with members of the community to listen to our concerns around substantial remodeling. As you know, landlords are using substantial remodel as a reason to evict tenants from what are turning out to be minor repairs . Many tenants have asked for repairs for months or years in advance with no action. But with the hot housing market and the COVID 19 pandemic, landlords are using this loophole to take long term tenants out, make minor changes, and hike up the rent. For these reasons, we are in strong support of Option one as the only option that protects and unburdened Long Beach renters and prevents worsening homelessness in the city. We also support critical changes to option two, including an increase in permanent relocation assistance, adding temporary relocation assistance and adding affirmative defenses to evictions if landlords fail to notify the city or pay relocation. Finally, we ask the council to extend the eviction moratorium up to until the new ordinance goes into effect. Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Maggie, then Hyacinth, and then Magnolia. Maggie.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Catherine.
Speaker 4: Sorry.
Speaker 0: Good evening, council members.
Speaker 4: My name is Maggie Venezuela, and I'm the organizer with Lane.
Speaker 0: I'm here to uplift across the whole story. She couldn't be here today. Rosa is a resident at Signal Hill.
Speaker 4: But she lived in Long Beach for three years. She was told to leave her unit where she was paying.
Speaker 0: 1500 dollars a month because the building was bought by a new owner and they were going to renovate the unit. She could not stay. She moved to single here, where now she pays 30 $200 a rent. She's a 76 year old woman who.
Speaker 4: Barely make ends meet as a care worker. Most of her family and friends are not here anymore. When she was evicted, she didn't know what to do.
Speaker 0: Or who to talk to. She didn't have any help. Her family and her children don't live here. She did everything by herself. She doesn't wish this on anyone.
Speaker 4: Currently she's behind two months and is having to worry about possibly being evicted and move again.
Speaker 0: When she thinks about the stress and frustration she went through to find a place in less than a month. It brings her heartache because she never imagined that for these reasons. We ask for your strong support for option one.
Speaker 4: To address the loophole.
Speaker 0: Around substantial remodel and ensure safe and affordable housing in our community. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next, we have Husain, then Dalia and then Elsa tung.
Speaker 0: Actually.
Speaker 6: Jasim Jasim.
Speaker 4: I. Good evening. Mayor and.
Speaker 2: The council.
Speaker 7: Members.
Speaker 0: It appears to me that Long Beach, the city of Long Beach, is no longer the affordable residential haven for middle to lower class. Income residents want to make a comfortable and safe, long term home with the never ending pandemic. It appears, though, that all.
Speaker 5: Predatory landlord landlords are on the.
Speaker 0: Alert to make themselves unjustly enriched. My very first apartment in Long Beach was in 2012.
Speaker 4: And even.
Speaker 0: Before I signed the contract, which by the way, I was not allowed to read, even though I asked for. I have experienced. Continuous forms of inhumane inhumanity. Violations of tenants rights and dehumanizing acts which go unchecked. And. That even includes false advertising. After surviving these various forms of degradation. I prevailed in court, but not with any help. Even though the city had come in and found.
Speaker 2: The errors.
Speaker 0: And necessary repairs were.
Speaker 2: Not. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next we have Magnolia, then Elsa and Andrew. There's double the times. There's an interpreter.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm not sure if we have another concert coming over to your third anniversary. If I keep working for the government, they'll say, Look at the unnecessary part. I can be a foreman because they're not political, though even then, it's roughly that level of socialism problem out there in a society that is astoundingly some government enterprise , along with this blossoming stuff, especially mental illness, profit areas playing on mental illness are killers. It's not fact. I like this. Are you and others like you? Listen, I thought you left. We went to an apartment. I said, you like it? I'm going to stay. In fact, I got it right out of L.A.. Maria Soccer one guy. Sebastian Palermo. Right long on a player for me. God, you're so physical. Mental capacity. There's a lot more than supporting me, going to persuade me that the Camorra to deliver, but they'll see the start of them and they're not. Enter. You go. I'm not going to do a lot of sport. Not for me. Going to look cheering. Yes, sir. Stackhouse on the stairs. Get on there and meet Elizabeth Racine. No, but I must say, you've been with the provisional. You know, the longest time was political. Mazzoli law's kind of protecting a lot of the local Adobe and other secular Israelis. Unless you left the remainder of the system either, even if monolithically not in the role of a citizen. So I must tell you that to start considering this option is going to respect one another. Last year's extension of which are luxury, are non-nuclear, but clearly not eliminate Ludmila substantial but more naturalistically step out of the Salahis. Say, what are the key thing I'm supposed to pilot a policy on? And so you can ask for attention.
Speaker 4: Good evening, council members.
Speaker 0: My name is Maccabi Tel Aviv and I'm a resident of District nine. I'm here because I am committed to doing whatever it takes to change the district, to change the way housing policies are made in our city. Substantial remodeling is a real problem in our city, and this loophole is being used as a tool for unjust eviction and displacement, specifically so that landlords can significantly raise rents. This impacts access to affordable housing in our city. I live in an unaffordable apartment that is infested with roaches. My landlord gave me one day's notice to move all my staff from the unit so they could fumigate. I was physically incapable of doing the move on my own and my husband and son work late. The landlord tried to increase my rent as a result and this has caused an enormous amount of stress. We cannot continue allowing landlords to take advantage of Long Beach renters. We need stronger policies in place that protect us from eviction and the lack of affordable housing in the city. Substantial remodel is another loophole in our housing system that puts renters at risk of evictions. We ask that you support option one, which will protect renters, eliminate substantial remodel as a just cause for eviction, and ensure that we have a fair process for repairs. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Ailsa Chang, then Andrew and then Lucretia.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Council Members Ailsa Chang, Long Beach, Forward District seven resident and actually, yes, a landlord in a different jurisdiction. Thank you Councilmember sorrow and Allen for your leadership in the age of COVID Delta and now all Macron evictions equals death. Council members, if you don't want that on your conscience, then adopt critical improvements tonight. First, extend the substantial remodel eviction moratorium all the way until the new ordinance goes into effect. Second, adopt option one, which is what the renter majority ultimately needs. Look, if that's not in the cards tonight, then combine and amend options two and three with the following six specific changes. Number one, revise the definition of substantial remodel to a 90 day threshold. Number two, increase permanent relocation assistance aligned with L.A. County's reload program, which, for instance, provides $16,000 to a lower income household displaced from a two bedroom unit. Three Add temporary relocation assistance, also aligned with the county. Four Strike the word intentionally regarding the civil fine. Five At a private right to action for a tenant to sue with for civil penalty and attorney's fees. This is simply a deterrent. And six, an affirmative defenses.
Speaker 5: To unlawful detainers.
Speaker 0: If the landlord fails to notify the city of a substantial removal eviction or fails to pay permanent relocation assistance. Stop evictions now. Up. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Andrew and then Lucretia Johnson and then Paul working.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Andrew with the Long Beach Tenants Union, which is comprised of the 64 Street Daisy and Orange Resistances. Over the past two years, you've have gotten to know their faces, their families and their struggles. Most importantly, you've gotten to know their fearlessness, their unwavering commitment to do what is needed to move you all to act. We saw this before the pandemic when adopting the home for the holidays eviction moratorium during the pandemic, when advocating for a tenant anti-harassment policy and key budget acts such as housing, navigators and right to counsel. And for the past few months, asking to remove substantial remodel as a just cause reason for eviction. While the tactics these tenants have organized and led, such as visits to your homes, are unorthodox, they were effective in passing an unprecedented amount of tenant protections and building the strongest renter power this city has ever seen. This brings us here today where we are asking you all, especially those of you who call yourselves our allies, to stand with us and adopt option one to remove substantial remodel as a just cause for eviction and establish a renovation administration program. Furthermore, we ask you to combine options two and three and allow the right for tenants to choose either temporary relocation, including maintaining the rights to tenancy at current rent or permanent relocation. The profits of a few shouldn't be prioritized over the lives of many. We hope you all stand on the side of history and believe yourselves that housing is a human right.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Lucretia Johnson. Is Lucretia here? Okay, then Paul working, then Maria Lopez. Paul, just a moment. I'm going to call the next ten speakers to line up. You have Antonia, then Katie, Deonna, Marlene Alvarado, Paul Abad, Paula Abad, Liana Noble, Jordan. When Karen Reside, Karen was Ric and Harvey Holt and Christine Schachter. So, Paul, you're up. Hi. My name is Paul working. I like to think that city council members give me a chance to speak. Right. I am currently a resident of District one. I am speaking for everyone who has gone through what I'm going through right now. This is just a few of the many issues that are experiencing the current time and our residents. We have no fire alarms. We have no keys to get in and out and black mold on the ceilings and walls, including mushrooms growing from the ceilings.
Speaker 2: Zero security.
Speaker 6: Very, very strange. Super dangerous at night. Not hardly any lighting. So when we asked for repairs, we responded to the terror level and responded by giving us our eviction notice. What brings me here today is to ask you to adopt option one to remove substantial. Remodel just for just cause of eviction and establish and renovation administration program. And that's. Doesn't go through. I'm not sure what my friends and myself are going to have, what options it will have left. So that's it. Thank you. Next is Maria Lopez, then Antonia and Katie. Marie, are you here?
Speaker 0: I think. Yeah, I'm here.
Speaker 6: Okay. Go for it.
Speaker 4: Why not, Chef? Good evening. My name is Maria Lopez. I'm a proud tenant and District one and a daughter of a small landlord in District eight. In my family, we agree that evictions are not solutions. So we ask you to decide on option one all rights that a rent sorry, a rental administration program would alleviate so much stress and alleviate so much stress off of you all two. But first and foremost, we ask that if that is not an option, that you combine option two and three along the lines of also extending the eviction moratorium until the end of February 2022. In addition to supporting my colleagues that have already included that in the definition of substantial remodel, to include the work that would require tenants of at least 90 days. To be more specific on what I would as a person who has been evicted and displaced through the legal system, relocation assistance was not offered to me at the time, and so I would highly encourage you all to look at L.A. County's model and adopt that as well. In that same note, I would it would be for permanent and temporary relocation assistance. And the most important, as someone who has gone through the unlawful detainer process, is that you all add an affirmative defense to unlawful detainers if and when the landlord fails to pay low or fails to notify the city of subsequent. Francisco, thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next we have Antonia, then Katie, then Marlene.
Speaker 0: What I noticed at the last minute.
Speaker 4: Antonia, that an assistant to the center like.
Speaker 9: Good evening, everyone. My name is Antonia from Residential 64.
Speaker 0: I presented Bogota Hoy example, and it was our episode that I found the most by my family.
Speaker 9: Even though we had a lack of work and we had to use our savings and even though we faced the pandemic, we were able to pay rent month after month.
Speaker 0: Gear up the Alaska patrol that CNN and don't let on what I thought the contrary is a local sport of the modern nation.
Speaker 9: I want you to please once more close the loophole on the moratorium on evictions once and for all.
Speaker 0: And we knew then that if you show them a keen interest in a center, cuatro durante la Pandemia Mendoza Ramone, L.A. Apartamento is.
Speaker 9: The owner of the building on 540 64th Street, essentially remodel the building's apartments and without the permits from the city.
Speaker 0: Cinematography. Is that almost an acquired antenna? You know up I have autism that I haven't seen less protection in the society.
Speaker 9: Without taking into account that we were in the quarantine and the workers were coming in without protections.
Speaker 0: And I know that only percent of myself rent.
Speaker 9: And then rent went up 8%.
Speaker 0: Durante la pandemia.
Speaker 9: During the pandemic.
Speaker 0: That was Corberan and I was in that red already though. Today I was up. What about if I'm into.
Speaker 9: What I also charge for water when there is no and a device to measure the water consumption per apartment unit.
Speaker 0: That is in parking.
Speaker 9: Lot. We pay $100 for parking.
Speaker 0: And other than most here in Colorado, Colorado, those million dollars for a camera.
Speaker 9: So in total, we're paying $2,000 for a one bedroom.
Speaker 0: And I was doing your suicide moratoria that I'm one of the lucky owners of our water.
Speaker 9: So the owners are using the moratorium, the remodeling as a on their own favor.
Speaker 0: Let's be look at bong and poquito that the end zone some Angelinos camels that oh but I love going to see thermals get them in Athens you know.
Speaker 9: So we ask you please pay attention to us the tenants that are being able to pay month after month. Please pay attention to us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. One analogies.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next we have Katie, then Marlene, then Paula.
Speaker 0: Hi, I'm Katie. Emma. And although I won't be helped by the measures tonight, many of my neighbors will. 17 specifically units that would be saved by the difference between a 30 day threshold and.
Speaker 7: A 60 or 90 day.
Speaker 0: Threshold. And some of them are here, including Pat in a wheelchair, Daryn, with a walker.
Speaker 2: These are people.
Speaker 0: Who will be immediately impacted by the difference between a 30 day and a 60 day threshold of how long the work is going to take. That's an important thing. And 90 days.
Speaker 7: Would be even better.
Speaker 0: Rental relocation assistance will be great to have that in there. But. For 40 $500. If you're moving, if you're kicked out of a 440 $500 house.
Speaker 2: You're not going to get.
Speaker 0: Into another one without three month's rent on hand.
Speaker 7: So. It's just a random number that doesn't.
Speaker 5: Look at the reality of the situation.
Speaker 2: And there's no.
Speaker 0: Support at all for temporary.
Speaker 2: Relocation. So those are some.
Speaker 7: Things that would need to be addressed to make now the option to stronger. Option one is still the goal and hopefully you will continue working on that.
Speaker 0: Until you come up with the money. But in the meantime, option to could make a.
Speaker 7: Really big difference in incorporated with option three.
Speaker 0: There are important things in there that can really help save tenants, keep.
Speaker 5: Them in their homes, and still.
Speaker 0: Allow landlords the option of providing that temporary relocation.
Speaker 5: And bringing people back. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Marlene and then Paula and Liana.
Speaker 4: Hello, my name is Marlene Alvarado. I actually am a landlord.
Speaker 0: Not in this year, but another. And I always think it's just and fair and.
Speaker 4: Humane.
Speaker 0: To extend the.
Speaker 4: Substantial remodeling.
Speaker 0: Eviction moratorium until the new ordinance goes into effect, which may be after February 28, 2022, as proposed by the item number two, adopt up option one to remove substantial remodeling as a just cause for eviction and establish renovate of administrative program administered by the Department of Services. The Development Service Department Combine and amend Option two and three, which is currently written. Fall to protect fail to protect the renter majority.
Speaker 4: We urge the City.
Speaker 0: Council to make the following critical fixes to option two.
Speaker 4: And three.
Speaker 0: Revise the definition of substantial remodeling to.
Speaker 4: Include work that would require a tenant to vacate for at least 90 days and increase permanent relocation.
Speaker 0: Assistance at temporary relocation assistance.
Speaker 4: Eliminate intentional requirement for civil fine. Increase Civil five $15,000.
Speaker 0: Should be the minimum fine, not the maximum add private rights of action, but time has expired. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next we have Paula, then Liana, then Jordan. Paula here.
Speaker 9: I'm not. I'm party.
Speaker 6: Is Paula here? Now, Lianna, is Lianna here? I'm on Leona. And then Jordan. And then Karen.
Speaker 4: My name's Lana.
Speaker 0: Noble.
Speaker 4: I'm here tonight as the interim volunteer director of Leave. Right. You've said tonight, Virgin, right from the city, that one.
Speaker 0: Of your concerns as elected.
Speaker 4: Officials is data. You know, my question is, why isn't the city collecting the data that is related to the majority of our residents who happen to be renters? 60% of the residents of this city are renters. In neighborhoods where I live and close to where I live. Renters are 90% of the renters. So there are entire huge areas of our city where the residents are renters. And they are here telling you again and again. That there is suffering. There are loopholes in this ordinance. We're glad that we made the progress we have, but we have shared with you specific changes.
Speaker 0: Modifications.
Speaker 4: That are doable. So if you're going to put it on our shoulders as renters to fight for fair housing, then you need to make these changes. So when we go to court, we have a chance to win. That's what we're asking for. You make changes so we can get past expired. Have to go to court.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next, Jordan. When Karen resigned, Karen was Rick Jordan. Good evening.
Speaker 3: My name is Jordan Wynn, resident of District two and member of the Housing Justice Coalition. I am here in support, strong support of adopting option one, removing removing substantial role models, a just cause for eviction, establishing a renovation administrative program administered by the Development Services Department. This is what our tenants really need, and it's a common sense policy that other municipalities have already adopted. Liana put it best We need to start collecting the data, but truly, do you want the data? Here we are. Living, breathing data. Here in the audience we are complaining. We are the tenants who have been fighting and continuing the hard work of attending the past sessions, of telling you these stories again and again. Again. How many times you have to hear that tenants need help in the city and it's not without insistence from advocates to collect data in our city. As the report said, 879 multi-unit developments filed for substantial rehabilitation, meaning that thousands potentially of individuals and families affected. Let's be honest, this data issue goes beyond tonight's decision. Long Beach needs to act proactively to aid tenants who've been coming here and telling you they need help for years. Does the city want to remain blind to the issues of the majority of its population without the support of its city and the law behind them? Tenants are scared to report, often feeling powerless and don't know their rights. And of course, landlords won't be reporting something that they're doing under the table. Who shows up? Tenants show up because housing is a human right. The cost of this program pales in comparison to the need that we have in our city. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Next is Karen reside in Karen was Rick then Harvey Holt.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name.
Speaker 4: Is Karen Reside and I'm the.
Speaker 5: President of the Long Beach Gray.
Speaker 0: Panthers.
Speaker 4: And every day.
Speaker 0: I get 2 to 3 seniors that come into the senior center. With letters from their landlords.
Speaker 5: They're increasing their.
Speaker 4: Lats.
Speaker 0: Or they're giving them 30 day.
Speaker 4: Eviction notices illegally.
Speaker 0: Sent them immediately to legal aid to help them fight this. So we know the landlords. We do have some data.
Speaker 4: We know that there.
Speaker 5: Are buildings that are.
Speaker 4: Evicting all of their tenants to do remodeling. So we have data there. And a lot of those.
Speaker 0: Buildings housed seniors. The landlords pick on the seniors because they think the seniors.
Speaker 4: Won't complain and won't.
Speaker 0: Fight it. We participated in the process and we support the Housing Justice Coalition recommendations.
Speaker 4: But we wanted.
Speaker 0: Added extra provision for seniors. Seniors, I can't tell.
Speaker 5: You the number of seniors.
Speaker 4: That have had to move out of state.
Speaker 0: That used to come to the senior center and they're now all gone. So I know at least 40 the people that I ate lunch with had to move out of state because they had.
Speaker 4: Unreasonable increases in their rent.
Speaker 0: We have to collect the data. We know that landlords, not all landlords are bad, but there's a lot that aren't good. So and this causes undue stress on seniors and probably have cost lives.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So Harvey's next. And then. And then. Excuse me, Karen was Rick and then Harvey. But before you go, Karen, why you went to make your way? I want to call it the last five speakers Michael Lapointe, Daniel Sherwood, Mary Duong, Winston de Laurier and Vilma. Okay, so, Karen, you're up.
Speaker 4: Thank you for having me here. I love you. Nice. I was here a couple months ago, and I wanted to, first of all, say a thank you with these ordinance amendments. And I hope most of them get taken. Four voted for. I have a little difficulty sometimes with my words. And so please excuse excuse me. One of the things I wanted to talk about was, you know, it's what's talked about if major. You know, increasing, they're making them better and so forth and so on. And that's what our owner wants to do. But they're not doing it to make it nice for us. They're making it more expensive so that other people come in after us. And as much as $1,000 more for the same place I've been living where I live for 20 years. And my very nice landlord. Except that she did. She got older and she sold it. So now a company holds it and they do not have the same heart. And they as she did. And she now.
Speaker 0: More times expire. What? Oh, is that all?
Speaker 6: I'll finish your sentence.
Speaker 4: She occasionally would increase the rent, but not every year. Our new deck per people are there two years and I've had to over $100 each. Thank you. Increase.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Next is Harvey Hope and Christine Schachter.
Speaker 9: Hello. My name's Harvey Holt. I work 56 hours a week. I'm 37. Excuse me. You have to put on an hour. I thought I'd take it off right here. I live with my parents until this march. And I lived them in a one bedroom. In a bedroom with my wife and my son also that I could save money to buy a property. And I bought a four unit property here in Long Beach. I went to Centennial High in Compton. And what I learned from being a property owner is not always about all you. You increasing things to make money, you're increasing things to improve it, to keep it, to keep up with inflation. So like, for example, the place up by I did a one bedroom for me and my wife and kids are moving into contractors wanting a $40,000 to remodel a one bedroom, 600 square foot apartment like f the F . I had to redo the lady door unit next to mine. Like I would have to recoup that cost. And even over what, seven, eight years, I still wouldn't recoup it. And she only she only pays 900. But I'll replace the windows, I replaced the plumbing, and I didn't have to displace anyone to replace the windows and plumbing . But if I had to redo that unit, which eventually I will like, I have to recoup that cost. So I think. Don't you think, oh, we want to put people out. No, it's like, yo, I work 56 hours a week. I think you have to let me at least recoup my money.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Christine Schachter, then Michael Lapointe, then Daniel Sharwood.
Speaker 9: And 30 $200.
Speaker 6: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 9: For 30 $200. Thank you.
Speaker 6: All right, Christine, Christina, respectfully, we need to just respect the process. Thank you. All right. Christina.
Speaker 0: Christine Schecter with Christine. Season of Realtors. Yeah, thank you. Representing about 13,000 members here locally in August, our coalition submitted a written request to the. For further information on the scope and impact of the eviction problem related to renovations, which people have discussed here tonight attempting to review this since July all bids. His response was the Housing Neighborhood Services Bureau has not received any complaints from any individuals regarding substantial remodels. Beginning in August of last year, almost a year and a half ago, state laws, AB 30, 88, SB 91 and AB 32 extended just cause of perfection evictions to all properties under AB 1482, including single family homes and condos , and prevented termination of tenancy based on the intent to demolish or substantially remodel the residential real property unless to comply with Stevie Code. Sorry, I'm having a hard time breathing through spring 2022 and next year property owners are required to take steps in compliance with state law to demonstrate their mean good faith efforts to seek rental assistance for a tenant they've worked with. Additionally, this work is currently suspended in L.A. County due to emergency procedures through spring of next year. We urge you to consider the ramifications of new bureaucracy and unwieldy programs and urge you to look to current tenant assistance, Iraq funding and how to implement current policy. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Michael Lapointe, then Daniel Sherwood, the married one. I don't know. Okay. We don't see Michael. Next is Daniel.
Speaker 2: Good evening, City Council. My name is Daniel Sherwood. I've been a resident of Long Beach for 35 years. So what I know about Long Beach is I love the city, and I know that the city has prided itself on diversity and quality of life. But I also know that as we have an awful homeless situation, mental illness and violence on our streets. And we have a lack of affordable rents. We too, went through the same thing. A company came in and bought our 27 unit and a 24 unit. We share a pool. The first year, they evicted 90% of the residents in Obispo for substantial remodel. So the rest of us that hung tight. We were on pins and needles. We never knew whether we were going to get to stay or whether we're going to get to go. And that's that's not a great way to live. And so I concur with everybody here tonight. It's an awful place to be in. So what did we get when they revamped these buildings and made them high end apartment buildings? We went from 1000 to 20 to 50 for a one bedroom. We went from 1250 to 20 to 50 for a two bedroom or 2450 for a two bedroom. Our pool we had the heater was taken out, the security system was removed. And the elevators, they're not painted. The maintenance is awful and your time is up. It is deplorable. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Our final three speakers, Mary Duong, Winston and Vilma. Mary.
Speaker 4: Good evening, senior counsel. My name is Mary Yoon. I am a pastor and a faith rooted organizer with Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. I want to say thank you to CASA member Alan and CASA member Sarah for your leadership in bringing this item up. I myself was impacted by substantial remodel or eviction when I was in graduate school. I remember that my landlord never had a conversation with me regarding compensation for relocation expenses. It was stressful to be in graduate school and to work at the same time, and it was more stressful and more overwhelming, like when you lost your affordable housing. And I can imagine families with children going through that right now during this pandemic. I think we need to address that. There is an unequal power relationship between landlords and tenants. Substantial remodel as a just cost makes tenants more vulnerable to eviction at any moment and be at the mercy of their landlords. And this power imbalance creates the conditions for power abuse, as we have heard in many testimonies tonight. So to shift this power imbalance, I believe that option one is the best solution because it will remove substantial remodel as a just cause and also it will provide oversight to landlords so that responsible repairs can be made and also affordable housing is ensure for tenants. In my Christian tradition, the prophets teach that God identifies yourself with the vulnerable in society. So I ask that the CD Council we vote on option one to support our tenants as well.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Winston then Vilma.
Speaker 2: Hello, folks. My name is Winston Deloria. I'm live in the six councilwoman Sara's district. Just have a few things to say. First of all, I strongly urge the council to adopt option one in the event that option two is selected. I would very strongly urge even any any decision is made. I believe the moratorium should remain in place until it can be implemented. I think to do otherwise just is inviting landlords to evict tenants preemptively. Secondly, I believe the 60 day notice well, I actually believe that was increased from 90 day notice. I believe that's a good move. Relocation assistance, I believe, should be increased to match the L.A. County guidelines. And then the the other point I want to make here is just very briefly, we're not just talking about individuals, right. And you're talking about individual families. You know, we hear a lot about the free market solution here. The free market solution to this is poor people. Well, the kids get roommates with, you know, four people to a studio apartment and working families moved to Victorville. I think our communities have a right to exist and we're going to fight for that right to exist. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Our final speakers, Velma.
Speaker 0: Why not have this mean armrest, Wilma.
Speaker 9: Wouldn't he? My name is Wilma.
Speaker 0: De la Assistenza and I sent a Quattro this reconnoiter.
Speaker 9: From District nine residency of the 64th Green.
Speaker 0: It must a and moratorium control of this handover.
Speaker 9: We want the eviction moratorium to be extended.
Speaker 0: As a serious lawyer, the suspension.
Speaker 9: And the look on the substantial remodeling is closed.
Speaker 0: I mean. Yes, almost.
Speaker 9: Canceled the dance.
Speaker 0: Performances.
Speaker 9: Well, so tired of so many friends.
Speaker 5: Apathy that prevent.
Speaker 0: Other of the pregnant men that don't have to get the the most get back. I've seen a lot of the fucking.
Speaker 9: Scenes of this were the first they told us they gave us a notice that we had to pay $100 parking. I mean, I've seen parking.
Speaker 0: Almost, but do not say well enough.
Speaker 9: Or do not no check.
Speaker 0: You know, by.
Speaker 9: Threatening us that if we park the car for a few minutes or even overnight, they will take the car away from us. And then what has to happen? Know you can help out another guy. We beg you. Please pay attention to us and do something for us. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. That concludes public comment. We'll go to Councilwoman Allen and the maker of the motion.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to first start by thanking Oscar, Christopher Patrick and everyone at DVS for their hard work and insights on this issue. This item today is exactly what we asked for back in July, and I really appreciate all the time and the outreach that was spent on putting this together. I also want to recognize my co-sponsor on the original, original item, Councilwoman Sorrow and the Cosigners Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilwoman Zendejas for their partnership and support. And we definitely wouldn't be here today without all of you. I also want to take a moment to recognize all the tenant and property groups and individuals who reached out to my office and participated in the process. With the city and voice their questions and concerns. So thank you for your opinions. Thank you for your experiences. All of this really matters to me. So. Diving into this item. I appreciate the policy options presented today. My staff recommendation, I would like to pursue option one and I do support creation of a rap. But due to the city's fiscal situation, it doesn't seem possible at this time. Creating a way to manage projects was the purpose of the initial policy directive, and we still need to find a way that allows for units to be upgraded without displacing residents. But current budget projections will not make this immediately feasible. We need more time and planning to identify and allocate the kind of funding for Iraq. This option also takes a very long time to implement, and it would take at least one year or longer to develop the program and hire staff. I think there are actions that we can take here now that will make a difference similar to the SAS recommendation. I support moving forward with a hybrid solution that contains option three and elements of option two with modifications. These are things that we can do today at lower costs to the city and landlords increasing their relocation assistance to 4500, it would be very beneficial. This would provide a lot of relief for residents. And this figure is significantly less than the L.A. County relocation amounts. So I do support this option, and I'd like this to be 4500 or two months for rent, whichever is greater. Is that something that we can do?
Speaker 6: Yes. That's a change we could make.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then from option two, I support, including numbers three, four and five and removing numbers one and two. So establishing a fine for landlords who violate our city's just cause ordinance, I think, is a strong deterrent against bad actors. Additionally, providing a 90 day notice to vacate also helps tenants better manage and remodel a better manager remodel process. I'm very excited about point number four, particularly the data collection aspect of it. I think that it's just what we need to better understand the extent of substantial remodel related displacement in our city. So I would like to make the motion and move forward with a hybrid solution that contains a modified option. Three. And points three, four and five from option two.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next thing I saw, a cup of jersey.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: There are also a few things that I'd like to request in addition to that. Could we include language and option three that clarifies the relocation benefit disbursement information? Is it a lump sum or will payments be divided and when will the payments be issued?
Speaker 6: So we can include all of those items. But if you have specific direction as to what your preferences are, you would need to let us know because I don't think we have a specific staff recommendation on.
Speaker 2: On exactly how the disbursement works.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I definitely would like to hear from my colleagues. And then I do have a call. I do have one last question. I know what's going to be lost. But we heard that there's been no data on substantial remodel evictions. And I know in your report you say while the claims are valid, it is possible that the displacements are concentrated in certain buildings. So you're saying they're likely valid, but but why is there no data on this effort on this?
Speaker 6: So we believe one of the most important things in front of council is to create a mandatory reporting requirement for a substantial remodel. Today, there is no reporting requirement. So what happens is a landlord within their rights issues a non-judicial, you know, notice to vacate a 60 day notice. And if the tenant complies with the notice that's not forwarded to the city, it's not forwarded to the courts. It's it's not shared with any third party. So it's not that there is no data. It's that there is not sufficient data that the city is party to. Because we don't currently have any right to that data or a way to access that data. So what we did was look at indirect evidence. We looked at building permits. There was some information about, you know, sheriffs enforced evictions, but that does not those are indirect indicators. That's not the direct information which we don't have today.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next is Councilwoman Ciro.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Vice Mayor. I also want to reiterate my thanks to staff for their hard work in bringing this item back and as well as to all of our advocates and tenants and property owners and advocates on their comment and feedback on this item. And I will second councilmember and I want to thank Councilmember Allen for her leadership on this item. And we'll second it. But I have some friendly amendments, some friendly to make on the motion. I like to make a friendly to adding option 2.1. I think revising the definition of the statute remodeled include work that would require a tenant to vacant for at least 60 days as opposed to the 30. Is a strong policy that allows good faith landlord to renovate their property at their discretion and provide some protection for tenants as well. So I'd like to hear from my colleagues on this. And the other is I would like to amend option 2.32 rather saying fine up to 15,000 is to start at 15,000 and to strike out intentionally. And lastly, while I understand that option one at the moment is physically, physically not possible, but I like to ask that we get a report back with a year's worth of data, a substantial remodel related eviction. I think that this will give us a better sense on what the situation is in Long Beach, and that the report also include possible additional resources for funding the wrap in updated cost figures as well. And that concludes my comment.
Speaker 6: Thank you. That was a request for three friendlies. Did you want to respond now? Do you want to wait?
Speaker 0: You know, if I could, I wait and just hear from my colleagues.
Speaker 6: All right, Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I want to thank everyone who came out tonight on both sides of the issue. I did listen to and really took some notes on some of the things that were said. But when Karen and I don't I don't want to say her last name incorrectly, but caring who came to the dais and really talked about how her small landlord sold and a big company bought the building. I think that more and more of that is happening because when I talk to people who have the opportunity to invest and potentially keep an original property and move and buy a property and then rent out their old property or invest and buy a multi-unit, they're very discouraged because of the complexities of being a landlord. And with each and every day, it gets more and more complex and there's more and more struggles for them to know and understand. And more things that could put them under and make their investment a just a money pit of frustration. You already have the risks of a tenant not being able to pay rent and or a tenant or a natural disaster like we've had where you would be put in a position to not receive rent for long periods of time where you may still be required to pay that mortgage and go through the processes and paperwork to get those requirements. So and while I'm very supportive of a solution that makes sense for all. I think that one of the things that we do need to talk about as a community is that if we want. Individuals who live locally to own the properties that our neighbors are renting. Instead of these big companies and corporations. We need to talk about what we can do to make it easy on them. Because the types of people who don't raise rent are your neighbors. When your neighbors own the property you live in, they're the ones who are the best landlords because they're the ones who live in Long Beach and they care about you. These big companies aren't aren't the way of the way we want to go. And so I think with each policy, I don't know if there's a way to differentiate who the policies apply to. But I think that the best case scenario for us as a city is that the larger percentage of the housing stock that's owned locally by neighbors, the better position all our renters would be in. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilwoman Price.
Speaker 4: So thank you for the discussion and thanks for everyone who came out especially. I want to thank staff for undergoing this huge process. And Patrick, you've done amazing work on it, so I appreciate that. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues and I support I'm going to support this item. And Councilwoman Allen's motion, I'm not sure about the friendlies that the one that I personally don't want to see in there is 2.1. But again, I want to hear my colleagues thoughts on that. But that wasn't part of the initial motion by Councilwoman Allen. And I just I don't believe it's necessary based on the staff presentation that we have received and some of the areas of of. Input that staff has highlighted from the community meetings. But other than that, I'm supportive of the motion and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilmember Surana. Thank you. I have a follow up on Councilwoman Sorrells friendly, and I'm not sure if that's been accepted yet, but I'm all for getting the data as was referenced by everyone here tonight. But my concern is the cost. And if staff knows how we would pay for that, I see. I think there's potentially a large concern that either be borne by the city.
Speaker 2: Or the landlords through fees.
Speaker 6: Do you have any immediate reaction to that? So that's not our intention. Council Member So we have to work through some security issues, but theoretically this would be a Google form that landlords would have a log in to. They would log in, note the location, address the unit number, the landlord's contact information and upload a copy of the notice and that would fulfill their reporting requirement. So if their cost is not zero, but we would anticipate it not to be a substantial cost. Okay. I think I understand that answer, that we could lessen the cost due to technology, but we would still have cost in notifying landlords or through any program like this. There are some costs. But I think I'm hearing you say that is not substantial to what you're looking at. That's that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Arango.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Rates there in you know, for purposes of transparency, I have met with people regarding the the issue regarding the this item here. And I looked at it and asked, well, isn't there like a fourth option that could be together? And I guess the fourth option is sort of their presenta right now, as Councilmember Allard has put together in terms of putting items two and three together. Obviously, we had a budget presentation earlier today. Option one would not be feasible at all. I mean, it's just impossible for us to be able to finance any kind of new program through the city if it's, you know, worth $2 million or even more. I do support the friendly that were brought forward recently with the council member. So I think that getting data is very important and I think staff would be able to work it out. And so I am very supportive of the friendlies as well to have, you know, the make of the motion would accept the friendly. Perfectly good with that as well. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilman Austin.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I know I was a little torn on this particular item from the very beginning because I didn't feel like the data was there to actually support the need for a policy. But after hearing from public comment, there's obviously a great deal of concern in the community about this this issue, which obviously we all hear behind this day. I think our city staff, we have an interest in keeping people housed. Is the morals, the ethical thing to do? One point that came out earlier from staff's report is 80% of our housing stock in the city was is over 30 years old. And that's something that that's a fact that we can't be lost on. We know that there as a result, there will be investments. We should be encouraging property owners to invest in their properties because we don't want to be a city that encourages blight or subpar living conditions for our residents. That said, I do think that this this item or this information that's on the floor is is a balanced motion. It makes a lot of sense. I do have questions about the friendly in terms of 2.3. And the question is more for the city attorney in terms of does it start at 15,000 or does it max at 15,000 or. Is it is it incumbent upon this body right now to set set that that that that that ceiling or floor for record it is councilmember out and you'd be giving. Future Superior Court judges guidance on what they can and can't do. And I think, as everyone knows currently as written, the fines for intentional violation could be anywhere between zero and 15,000. The friendly would force a judge to levy a fine of 15,000 and up. And as the friendly, at least I heard there was no maximum limit on on a fine that a judge might impose. And it's purely within your discretion to do it either way. And can can staff give us some some direction as to how we arrived at that at number two. As a as a floor or as a max. Was that an arbitrary number or. It's not a legally required number to that. To that extent, it may be somewhat arbitrary, but I'm guessing, and I don't think any of us can quite recall where it came from, we probably lifted it from another ordinance somewhere in the state that imposes a similar penalty for similar conduct, but I can't say for sure. Okay. Well, I'm supportive of the motion and I'm I'm a little a little ambivalent on on 2.3 the friendly but I. We'll be open to hear from the maker of the motion and my colleagues on that.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilwoman Zendaya's.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Councilwoman Allen and Councilwoman Sorrell, for bringing this very, very important item forward and for your leadership on this. I know it's been a long road to getting here, and I just want to make sure that I let everyone know how important you are to this process from both sides of the coin. I just want to tell you how much we appreciate you coming out here and voicing your opinions and speaking for your community. So especially on this very, very important item. Myself as a renter, I'm always looking out for for renters to be able to live in a safe and and clean and updated environment. So that's always going to be important to me as a renter. I absolutely support the item that Councilwoman Allen has brought forward. I think that Councilmember Warren said it right. This is option number four, kind of like. So I think that a combination of that is really good. Another thing that I have heard from a lot of my residents is that the need for maybe asking for friendly in extending the moratorium that we have right now until this ordinance is is complete. And I'm hoping that you might be able to consider that and hoping that this ordinance can come back in 60 days. Thank you.
Speaker 6: I have to go to you because you're cute, Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 5: I guess my question is for Steph. I understand the idea of like a Google form, but one of the things that I think is really important is how are we going to notify landlords of the requirement to use the Google form? If no one knows, they need to do it.
Speaker 6: Sure. So we do have a productive relationship with the various apartment owners associations, whether that's the California Apartment Owners Association, Small Property Owners Association and others. So that would be the starting point, not the ending point, but that would be the starting point for communicating with landlords. And then those that have email addresses associated with their business license. We would also be providing them a notification in that way. So that would be the starting point. But we would find whatever additional ways we could communicate with them, barring substantial cost.
Speaker 5: What percentage of those that have business licenses have email addresses associated?
Speaker 6: I don't have that information.
Speaker 5: And then furthermore, to be a landlord in the city, you don't need to have a business license, if only if it's of a certain number of units or more. Is that accurate? So just so we're clear, a large percentage of landlords might not be notified. That's a concern if we want really good data. So I guess I would request that there's an option for a tenant to put in information that then we would be able to reach the landlord and get additional information so that if a landlord is unaware that a tenant could at least bring it to our attention, just give more complete data. But I recognize that that creates another set of challenges. Just some just some food for thought. I'm supportive of the item on the floor as it stands. I don't know that I could be open to the friendlies that have come before. I would love to pass something tonight with the support of the full council. I think Councilman Allen has done a considerable amount of work on this, and I think that the motion that she brought is very thoughtful and I would be supportive of that, and I hope that we get to see that on the floor as a final vote. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'll add my comment before going back to Councilwoman Allen. We've come a long, long way. And I know that folks have come here advocating predominantly to positions position one or no action at all. And I just want to remind folks that, you know, it was a couple of years ago, you know, and I've been participating in council meetings since 2010, and I remember the downtown planning fight and all of those things. Long Beach is in a significantly different place where there was no relocation assistance. And I think Andrew mentioned going back to home for the holidays made significant progress. There won't be, based on the comments of the council, what you hear an option one is not feasible from a financial standpoint. The council is not ready to go there. And and I think it's important to note that there are what's been presented in front of us does offer significant advancement in terms of, you know, relocation assistance increased in terms of, you know, the the fine you know, we've talked about slumlords in the city. We've talked about it. There's a big distinct difference between big companies or small companies or slumlords or people who are just trying to be good landlords. And having that fine, I think, is a clear distinction. If you break the law, there is a penalty. And there are you know, there are good things that are here. So while it is not heading toward option number one, I think what Councilwoman Allen is presenting, I think it's balance and will continue the conversation. And those are my thoughts. I see the city attorney is keyed up.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you. Vice Mayor, just before it goes back to Councilmember Allen, there's a couple of questions that.
Speaker 6: She had asked a long time ago now that I want to close the loop on.
Speaker 2: The first is actually first is something that councilmembers and day has just said. I think it was a friendly to extend the prohibition on evictions until we get some final action on these changes.
Speaker 6: That's always been my intention. And in fact, that I.
Speaker 2: Brought back this extension on the prohibition, you know, without any specific direction from council to do so. Because I thought in July it was pretty clear that the intention of the council was put a moratorium on evictions until we.
Speaker 6: Take final action. So for all the members of the audience and behind the dais, there's been a lot of confusion about that. And I apologize for the role I played. February 28th is an arbitrary date. If we can't get something done by February.
Speaker 2: 28th, it's my full intention to bring back an extension.
Speaker 6: But February 28th, I think, gives us plenty of time to get something done. And it looks like consensus is building right now. So I intend to bring something.
Speaker 2: Back for formal adoption by you all behind the dais well in advance of that date. And at the same time.
Speaker 6: I would bring back something then.
Speaker 2: Terminating the prohibition on evictions if you take final action at the same time. They're meant to go at the same time, if that makes sense. And then in response to Councilmember Allen's questions regarding relocation payments currently currently the Long Beach Municipal Code requires the relocation payment to be made 15 days no later than 15 days after the notice of tenancy termination is delivered, and it is required to be paid in full at that time. I think that's.
Speaker 6: Responsive to a responsive to a question you asked a while back. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen.
Speaker 0: Okay. I just thank you, my colleagues, for. For all of your feedback. So that's great to hear that, um, that, that could be extended until we figure all of this out. The moratorium. I'm all about collecting data. And, and then with regards to Council member Austin's. Ask about 2.3. I think the $15,000 is I think we should have a have a. A number on that. I don't think that there should be no limit. And so I like to keep that as it is then. So it sounds like this is the big question is, is 2.1. So I'm hearing yes and no. And so I guess, councilman. Sorry, my ask would be, do you want to make a substitute motion? And we vote on that outside of this. But but I think that I'd like to keep my motion the way that it is. And then we can if we want to make a substitute motion outside of that and vote, then I'm okay with that, too.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I like to make a substitute motion to at least have the report back on a year's worth of data.
Speaker 6: I think that was it. Exactly.
Speaker 4: Okay. Yeah, that's exciting. Yes.
Speaker 6: And Counsel, just so we're all clear in terms of the report, that would be it. It would come slightly more than a year later because we would wait until the ordinance actually became effective and then an entire year of data was collected and then some.
Speaker 2: Amount of time to report back.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 6: I think so. So we're on the main motion with a number of the friendlies accepted. So do we need to restate that or can we go to the vote? I'm clear on what it is, but maybe we should restate.
Speaker 2: Sure. When you said a number of friendlies. Except that I only have that there's one or maybe two. So if you don't mind overstated, the motion on the floor is to adopt sub sections three, four and five from option two. To adopt options three or four or $500 for relocation payment or two months rent, whichever is greater. Report back staff is to report back in a little over a year with the first year's worth of data. And then the last would be direction for me to bring back an extension of the moratorium if necessary, so that it doesn't.
Speaker 6: Expire before you take final action. Right. Right on. Right. Members, please cast your vote. And I'm not queued up, so I need to say yes.
Speaker 0: As mayor, are you and I?
Speaker 6: I'm not sure that I.
Speaker 0: Motion is carried.
Speaker 6: Thank you. The next item we have is 35.
Speaker 0: That item required two votes.
Speaker 6: Oh, two votes. So we need to do this again.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Ellen. That's one price and councilman zero.
Speaker 0: Emotion is great.
Speaker 6: And trying to cue cue into my own here, taking some time. Okay, let's go to item 35.
Recommendation to adopt ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapter 8.102 to extend the prohibition on termination of certain lawful residential tenancies through February 28, 2022; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopt as read.  (Citywide)  
(Emergency Ordinance No. ORD-21-0039)