Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XV of Chapter VI to Eliminate “No Cause” (Notice to Vacate) as a Grounds for Eviction from Ordinance No. 3148 (City of Alameda Rent Review, Rent Stabilization, and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance). (Rent Stabilization 265)
And I'll read the title really quickly. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Article 15 of Chapter six to eliminate no cause notice to vacate as a grounds for eviction from Ordinance 3148 City of Alameda Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance OC. And before Ms.. Potter begins, I'm just going to double check with our city attorney. So the Vice mayor is is a small landlord. And so he feels the need to recuse himself from part of the discussion. Is this the time when he should leave before the staff report? Yes. Yes. Okay. So if I can clarify, state law requires me to recuse myself in cases where the land that's under discussion represents less than 25% of the of the city's land as one of the alternatives that is on the agenda tonight. And some of the speakers, I believe, will be speaking to there is a recommendation to consider looking at how to treat owner occupied rentals in the city and therefore that is triggering a need for me to recuse myself. So my request of of my colleagues is that if after I will go to the back and listen to the public comment, everything else, if you might be able to take that item up first, is whether there's interest to have that conversation and deal with it first. Then I can return it, have a come and join the conversation, having heard all the public input, etc. from the back of the chamber. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we'll just wait for Mr. and. A. Point of order question for the city attorney. If so, I rent out a room, two rooms at my place. Do I follow under owner occupied. No. And so, Councilmember, if I may ask you a follow up question. When you say you rent out two rooms, are you essentially a landlord and you are renting out me? Need to be closer to the microphone. Are you renting out two rooms in your home that you occupy and then you're in essence and operating as a landlord in that capacity? I live in that that housing unit. Yes. I think we may need to make a distinction about the terms of our ordinance previously. Mayor and council and and for the benefit of Mr. Chan, who has just recently joined us. Literally. He's been here a week. A week? Yes. The way that we define a housing unit under the ordinance, the particular situation that Councilmember de SOG has is not considered a housing unit. And therefore, we have opined that the ordinance, those provisions do not apply to him and therefore he was not required to recuse himself on this matter. Okay. I agree with Mr. Rausch on this very much. To the extent that if you're renting out accessory dwelling units or separate units, that's a. Difference, not separate units. And they do not have their own kitchen rooms. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. So with that, Ms.. Potter. Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And the item before you this evening is introduction of an ordinance to eliminate no cause as grounds for eviction under the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance. And I'm just going to do a really quick housekeeping item. You may notice that for Variety, we have the projector, the height and the PowerPoint projected on the sidewall. We went through two nights of budget hearings last week when I had the lights of the projector shining straight in my eyes and I. I threatened to boycott. And so they now they came up with this solution. So I hope it's not shining in your eyes. But if it is. If it is, I'll move to the other. Oh, yeah, for sure. No, it's. If it's starting now, I wouldn't let it go too long. It's pretty awful. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Thank you. On April 2nd, the City Council held a special meeting regarding potential amendments to the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance and at that time directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would eliminate no cause evictions from our existing ordinance. The Genesis, or how the Council got to the April 2nd meeting, dates back to the spring of 2017, when the City Council actually approved the same amendment. The Council approved an amendment in 2017 authorizing the elimination of No Cause evictions. A referendum was was successfully circulated at that time, and ultimately the council repealed that ordinance. And then an initiative was also successfully qualified for the November 2018 ballot. And that initiative would have incorporated the ordinance in the city's charter, which would have precluded any changes to the ordinance without a vote of the people. That initiative failed, and therefore the Council is able to amend the ordinance as it sees fit. And that and really with that outcome of the November 2018 election that led up to the April 2nd meeting that I started this slide with. The ordinance that is before you this evening would eliminate no cause terminations. It would, however, continue to allow no fault terminations. And no fault terminations do require the payment of relocation benefits. No fault terminations include owner move ins and removal, permanent removal of a unit from the rental market. In addition, the ordinance will continue to allow for four cause evictions. For cause terminations do not require the payment of relocation benefits and for cause terminations include the failure to pay rent, breach of a lease nuisance and failure to give access. One of the things that we did hear from some folks while we were out in the community talking about proposed amendments to the ordinance was a concern regarding the temporary tenancies. And as the Council had previously approved in Ordinance 3180, the ordinance that was ultimately repealed, we do have a provision that we will be bringing forward to the Council in July that defines a temporary tenancy as a tenancy that is 12 months or less in a primary residency. And that temporary tenancy does not require at termination the payment of relocation benefits. In addition, excuse me, at the time that the Council looked at these kinds of amendments around temporary tenancies, it also agreed that military personnel renting a primary residence with a temporary tenancy for military personnel would be five years or less. So I just want to clarify that point will be coming back to the Council on July 2nd, when the Council directed staff to begin the process of amending the ordinance regarding no cause eviction protections. Staff indicated and staff concurred with the need to do community outreach. And we have been conducting community outreach over the past month and a half. We did hold a community house on a community open house on May 2nd. We had between 70 and 90 people attend that open house. We've been holding on an ongoing basis focus groups for landlords and tenant organizations. We posted the issue boards that we presented at the Open House online for one week. We had about 280 respondents. That's over 1000 comments that we received online. All of those comments, Open House and from the online survey were included as part of tonight's staff report. And we are continuing our outreach efforts. And in fact, we have scheduled the next community meeting on Thursday, June 6th at the Elks Club, the Rathskeller at 630 in the evening. The staff report did present several alternatives that the council might want to consider as part of its deliberations this evening. And one of those alternatives was a proposal to essentially do a carve out from no cause eviction protections for landlords who live on the property that they rent to tenants. So really it would be landlords living on their property in duplex triplex four plex that carve out what would staff's recommendation if the council wants to consider this would be really to keep the status quo what we have under our ordinance with which is that we permit no cause evictions with certain restrictions. You can you're limited in the number of no cause evictions you can do in a year and you can't raise the rent more than 5% for the next tenant. And you have to pay relocation benefits at. And that would if if the Council were interested in considering this carve out, it would impact just over a thousand tenants. The Council could hold off on adopting the amendment this evening and await state action. There's currently a bill, AB 1481 that is making its way through the legislative process. It was amended just yesterday. The amendments on that just cause eviction protections that would apply statewide. The two amendments yesterday were that were introduced was one to provide a termination date for that legislation of January one, 2030. And the Second Amendment was to require that a tenant live in it in their residence for six months before they would be eligible for the No Cause eviction protection. The logic being that there would be a six months would be ample time for a landlord to determine whether or not there was a good fit. The council could adopt the amendment that's before it this evening and it could commit to revisiting the ordinance a year from now so that we have an opportunity to monitor and gather data on how the No Cause eviction protections are working in the city based on the direction that staff receive from Council on April 2nd. We are recommending that the Council introduce the ordinance that's before you this evening that eliminates no cause terminations. And that concludes my staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, counsel. Do we have clarifying questions on Miss Potter's report? I think Councilmember Vela does. By the way, I'm giving lots of deference to Councilmember Vela. She gets the first crack at a question every time her hand goes up. So, just so you know, Councilmember. Um, Miss Potter, you mentioned that you met with focus groups. Can you let us know who who those groups might have been? Absolutely. We have been working with the Alameda Renters Coalition. Who represents them? The tenants here in Alameda. We have been meeting with the East Bay Realtors, has a local government relations committee. We meet with representatives from the Local Government Relations Committee. And then there is an organization that is called the Alameda Housing Providers Association. And we have met with that organization to. Uh, with regards to the third organization who's, who's the point person for that organization. So Jeff, Canberra has been working with that group. They have a board of directors and we met with Jeff and a number of his board members. Okay. Um, with regards to the carve out that's proposed, uh, was there a particular group that proposed that carve out? I think a lot of the landlords who are active in the East Bay Realtors Association have been promoting that idea. I think a lot of landlords, some of the management organizations, management agencies who represent a lot of the smaller landlords here in the city have been proposing that that potential. Accommodation or carve out. With regards to the estimate of a thousand tenants being impacted. How did we get that number? So we worked with our our consultant and asked them to take a look at the number of properties that are duplexes. Triplexes and four plex is where the property owners address matches. The ownership data. And so they came up with 810 properties and then I asked them to break that down. The vast majority of those properties out of 810 properties, about 552 of those properties are duplexes. There are very few for Plex's and then A and then there are 100 or so. Triplexes where the property owner lives on site. So it's a thousand units then as opposed to a thousand tenants because there could be a family living in a unit. Yeah. Yes. Of households. Right. Thank you. 1000 households. It's about 1100 tenants that would be impacted if the council pursued that carve out. Well, do you understand the distinction? Misspell a council member is making. If you're saying a thousand or 1100 households, a household is often more than 110. Correct. It's 1100 households. Households. So double that many tenants or. That you don't know. Yeah, I think that if we could look at that the average household size now but I don't know how many people I that's number of how could we. Safely assume that they aren't all dwellings with just one tenant in them. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Other questions? Councilmember? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Miss Potter, for your presentation. So, AB 1481, does that have any carve out for owner occupied? No. And then do we have an idea since we put our rent ordinance in place? 3148. How many? No cause evictions have been for nuisance, drug dealing or prostitution. No. No idea. Or there aren't any. We do not know because you don't have to list a cause when you submit for a no cause. Okay. Thank you. Question. Councilmember DE So. Is it correct to say that in fiscal year 2017, 2018, while we might not know how many no cause evictions were attributed to. As Councilmember Otis said, drug dealing or whatever that we do know that in that fiscal year there were altogether just 31. No cause evictions based upon this. Yes. And in the prior year fiscal year, there were altogether 26. No. Cause. Yes. And I would just point out, though, that that is the number that were reported to the to the rent program staff. Okay. For for clarification, I believe the staff report also indicated that there's no way to determine when a tenant simply leaves. A. Property because of, say, a rent increase that they can't afford or correct. The the program tracks terminations and not voluntary vacancies. Councilmember Odie, thank you. One follow up. So of those no, no cause evictions that Councilmember De Saag asked you about, do we know how many of those were for owner occupied? Well, the the majority are for single family homes. Okay. Yeah, for single family homes. I'm talking about duplex triplex. The. I guess the ones that are they're being requested for a carve out. I mean, is. This probably have that information. I just don't have it right here. Okay. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions. And then I believe that we're being asked to make a determination of whether we do want to consider the carve out, because if we don't want to consider the carve out, then we'll bring our colleague back. And council may want to take public testimony and then have that discussion. Okay. Okay. So I guess either way, Mr. White's going to miss out on public comment, but. Although I believe he said he was going to be listening from. Oh, that's true. He can do that. Okay. All right. So I take it we have some speakers. Thank you very much. Currently, we have 13 public speakers. 13. Everybody will get two minute speakers. So 1440. So when we have more than six or seven speakers and you're speaking, time goes down from 3 minutes to 2 minutes. And I think we may get more speakers as we go along. We're going to try to move this item along. So the clerk will call out like three names in a row, listen for your name, scoot over to the aisle or wherever you need to be to be next in line to speak. So 2 minutes and and remember the requests. We don't do applause booths the way what have you. We just speak and listen. Okay. We are ready. Okay. The first speaker, Sharon Oliver and then Toni Grimm and then Joanne Nader. Oh, yes. Sorry. I'm sorry. I up and use the microphone. Okay. Good evening. My name is Sharon Alva and I am the chair of the Alameda. Chapter of the based Association of Realtors. And a member of the Local Governmental Relations Committee. I'm here to encourage the City Council to exempt owner occupied in small 1 to 4 unit properties from the eviction control portion of Ordinance 3148. We recognize the need for housing stability for renters, but also we need to protect homeowners who have secondary units to rent in their primary residences and small investors who own 1 to 4 units. Homeowners with a portion of their property rented out have put their savings and sweat equity into their homes. Some evaluators older buildings have rental units, but in these older buildings, sound travels and the living arrangement is proximate, even intimate. If the relationship with the tenant is not good, it can be expensive and contentious to continue living together. If the relationship with the tenant. Is problematic, where's the owner to go? Often the very reason owners live in a duplex or triplex is because they. Could not afford a single family home. These are not wealthy owners of large apartment buildings. They are sharing their home because they need to or small investors. Owners are disincentivized. To rent when they feel they are losing control of their home. The current market conditions, coupled with more local regulations, are inspiring rental property owners to sell. Smaller rental buildings sold in the current market are often. If not always purchased by owner occupants, which reduces the supply of rental housing. Allowing owner occupied a 1 to 4 unit buildings to continue. No cause evictions would not exempt them from the limitations on rent increases when the new. Tenant moves in. The eviction would not be. For financial gain. The exemption would allow homeowners to enjoy the property. They put their savings and dreams into the same property where they are living. Or in which they count on for their retirement. We urge you to allow owners to be able to evict tenants without a costly legal process. If an unfortunate situation calls for it while protecting tenants in not allowing large rental income. To enter next speaker is. Grim. Good evening. Everybody. I believe. That there was only one bit. Of data, one document that the. Council needs to be guided by for your decision on just cause evictions. That is the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, which establishes the concept of. Due process of law before a person loses a basic human right. And that is an important guarantee of a stable democracy. If you believe that housing is a basic human necessity, then you must believe that housing is a basic human right. That right should not be taken away arbitrarily without a cause, and it should be applied to everyone equally. It doesn't matter what size building a person lives in. It's not the. Building. It's the person who matters. There should be. No carve outs, no waiting periods, no exemptions. Equal protection under the law. It says so in our Constitution. Let's live by that. Thank you. Next speaker is Nader. And then the next three. Are Lester Dixon, Karen Lithgow and Kari Johanson. Thank you. Hello. Hi. My name is Gene Nader. I'm here representing the Alameda Justice Alliance, which includes the Alameda Renters Coalition. Alameda progressives renewed hope. The Alameda firefighters, the Alameda County County Labor Council, Buena Vista United Methodist Church and the local Teamsters Union, A.J., views housing as a real justice and fairness issue. And that's why we were so involved in fighting to defeat Measure K. In the last two years, there has been a 42% increase in homelessness in Alameda, and that includes seniors, families with children and veterans. And we just don't want to see our neighbors displaced because of no cause of action. No, our neighbors should not live in constant fear of being pulled out of their homes unjustly. And we know that alameda care because two years ago or two or three years ago, there was a survey and 80% of alameda support just cause. So we know it's one of the best ways to stabilize our community. We urge you to support the just cause ordinance with no carve outs. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dixon. And then followed by Mr. Hansen. Correct. Okay. Come on. Hi. Good evening, City Council. How y'all doing? Uh, my name is Lester Dixon. I stay on the west side right over there by what used to be known as the Bebe's Now Summer House. I just want to say, hey, just cause I'm okay. Cause no cause is wrong. He can sit up here and pull somebody out when they pay the rent. They doing everything they supposed to do. They selling no drugs. Ain't hang up the apartment. Ain't doing nothing wrong with the. You just decide you want to put somebody out. That's wrong. That's. That's all you know. So look at the human side. And that's all I'm asking you to do is just, you know, like, just cause and all that carve out and all that other stuff. And waiting till 2030 and waiting until the state do whatever they know. Do do us do Alameda. We need just cause right now we don't need to wait, you know, and then, like, whatever happens gonna happen. But, you know, just cause that's all I got to say. So I just asked you all to vote for just cause. Please. Thank you, Mr. Hampton. Actually, Mr. Lithgow next. To this is that he's closer. Yeah. Hello? Good evening, Madam Mayor, and city council members. My name is Karen Lythgoe and I'm here as a landlord with a request that owner, occupants of small 1 to 4 buildings retain the right of no cause evictions. And here is why. The four unit building I live in and rent out is a 19th century Victorian home that I bought in 1990, not having the means to buy a single family home for myself without rental income. I bought a fixer upper multi-unit property to provide income support. Fixing up each of these units has allow me to provide nice homes to four families while receiving rental income, which is a win win for all. What's also true is that these older homes were never meant to house multiple families in the walls and floors. Separating units don't provide the kind of privacy found in newer properties, while careful screening of tenants is helpful in creating a good fit in these densely packed communities. Situations occasionally arise where tenants don't fit in and need to be moved on in. These situations aren't always contained within the language of the lease. So those of us that raise our families in these small buildings in a communal type setting, indeed some measure of peace and safety really do need to have ultimate control over who is living under our roof. As buildings turn over to new owners and tenants come and go. Further restrictions put onto landlords will discourage those owners from keeping spaces within their buildings as rentals. Well, the City Council looks to other towns for precedents on how to deal with no cause evictions. It's important to keep in mind the limit is unique, and that's make up of rental stock that we have so many of these older homes carved up into rentals. So special care must be given to the right solutions at what might be the politically popular thing to do isn't necessarily the right thing to do in the long term for our town. And I trust that this city council has the ability and the wisdom to do the right thing. Thank you for your time. Thank you. JOHANSEN We have Alan Teague, Chelsea Lee and Marilyn Schumacher. Thank you. You do a better job of that than I do. Hello. Good evening, Councilor. Mayor. And I'm glad to see Millie is still here. I don't think she's glad she's here. But I'm. Sherry Johansen. I represent the Alameda progressives. And my first statement is I'd like to say that. I'm very proud that we're a sanctuary city and I approve of the council supporting that. The AARP, the progressives, urge you to support tenants rights to a secure home. Free from unjust evictions. We want, without caveats or without any amendments to the proposed ordinance, with the overwhelming support for no one measure K winning every single precinct. From Bay Farm to Bayport, homeowners and. Renters alike. All of the voters of Alameda support eliminating. Just cause of eviction. Overwhelmingly. There's been sort of a paradigm change in the living patterns, especially due to the high price of homes in the Bay Area. Renters, homeowners, co-ownership is just kind of out of reach for most young families. And we need to be on the cutting edge of protecting tenants already. Alameda in Alameda, they represent half of our community and the percentage will only go up. So it's really important that we. Start the. Protections for that, for that group of people. The tenants also include. Most of our vulnerable members, seniors, disabled and those in lower income. So I strongly urge you to please do what the voters have asked you to do. And last November. And I support just cause tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Teague. And then Chelsea Lee. And then Marilyn Shoemaker. Nobody should be kicked out of their home just so the landlord can raise the rent. But equally, nobody should be able to stay in a place regardless of their bad behavior. Three strikes for cause termination is required to make this possible. Without it, we got our second hand ordinance smoke. Our second hand smoke ordinance. Without it, anti-social behavior will be permitted. Councilmember Vella asked me about due process, and due process has been brought up multiple times. Absolutely. People need due process. This has the same due process as every other. Just cause termination the state court system. It is not amateurs. We have judges and juries to adjudicate the evidence and whether or not is indeed a just cause. This is a balanced change to the ordinance. I hope that counts. The Council can balance the extremes and forge a compromise, which many, but not all both sides can live with. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Lee. And then Ms.. Schumacher. I want to compliment all the speakers. You are doing a great job. Thank you. Hello. Hi. I'm Chelsea and I am a tenants organizing intern with Filipino Advocates for Justice. And this past spring, I worked on a community survey in Alameda. And so we went door to door receiving responses from over 100 Alameda tenants. And from these efforts, we found that 88.5% of respondents oppose evictions without good cause. So a large majority of the folks we talked to believe landlords need a just reason to evict tenants. However, it is also important to note that you can't have true just cause protections without rent control and without a hard cap and limit on how high landlords can increase people's rents. And with that, we also found that 92.9% of respondents believe there should be a cap on rent increases. And 61.9% of respondents have received rent increases of 5% or more in the past 12 months. And also 50.4% are not confident. 23.9 of whom are not confident at all that they can afford where they're currently living over the next 2 to 5 years. And so Alameda tenants deserve and want just cause protections. However true, just cause cannot exist without hard limits on rent increases. And so I entered this work hearing the narrative of the 470 central apartment building, a building once housing a whole community is now empty, a community completely broken and displaced, and people are being uprooted from their homes and lives. My work here started with a narrative of absence and broken communities, and it's very obvious that tenants want and need just cause and real rent control in Alameda. It's time to start. It's time to stop breaking up communities. And it's also important to note that we really, really need just cause for a lot of the folks in Alameda. And as for our survey, our findings can also be found on our website, and then they will also be forwarded to council tomorrow morning. Thank you. Thank you. Following this, Schumacher, we have Denise Galvin, Don Cristobal and Karen Miller. Madam. Excuse me, Madame Mayor and City Council members, this is different than the. Carve out that has been referred to. Previously. The core problem is a small number of landlords. Are kicking people out just to raise the. Rents. Allowing all owner occupied rental properties to accept strict rent control. Waiving costs to Hawkins for three years. For termination for no cause. These owners can't raise the rents of tenants and they are paying relocation fees. This is a simple direct solution to the problem. And Alameda solution. This was talked about. At the community open house, but this is not the. Carve out that the staff presented. Thank you. Thank you. Next we hear. Yes, we have Ms. come in then, Chris. Mr. Chris following Ms.. Miller. One at a time, please. Oh. No. One at a time. Okay. Honorable City Council members. My name is Denise Galvin. And so now high student and youth leader with Filipino Advocates for Justice. On behalf on behalf of the Filipino community and youth of Alameda, we implore you all to say yes on just cause to stop evictions for no reason. Our own members know this harsh reality having been displaced and struggling with higher and higher rents tonight, we may just get we may get just cause, but this would only be the first step to securing our community. Without a rent cap, families are still in danger of displacement, even with just cause we cannot have rent control without a rent cap. Rent control is a huge issue in Alameda as prices are going up and everything is at stake. Whether it's your apartment, our schools or your friends and family, please prove to us that everyone does belong here and provide us with a provide us with a rent ordinance that includes a rent cap and just cause protections. Thank you for protecting our medians with your. Votes for just cause. Thank you. Next speaker, Mr. Cristobal Dennis Miller. Hello, guys. My name is Don Cristobal, and I am here to speak to support a just cause ordinance. And I would like to start with democracy is in a democracy the forefront of American ideal. How come the majority of the people living in living in Alameda are unjustly threatened with being evicted with. Sorry, sorry, sorry. With Tanner's. With Tanner's having to pay the rate, with tenants having to pay the expected amount of rent that land owners owners are demanding, which is not at all viable to the majority of the tenants here in Alameda. If we deny the plight of the people who wants a rent cap just because the land owners want to live a life abundant in profits, wouldn't that be too selfish of them to make money from our struggles on families who struggle to make ends meet and rise from hardship? That's not democracy. I stand for just cause and for the people to stay silent, fearing that they will be the next one evicted just like it had been for me and my family who used to live at the Bayview Apartments on 470 Central. We are reliant on the city council members to do what is right, not only what is right, but to create a society where everyone's where everyone thrives equally, despite US's large gap between the rich and the poor. That's democracy. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Miss Miller. And then followed by that is Doyle, Sailor Katherine calling and Laura Thomas. Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. My name is Karen Miller. I live in Alameda. I have a 16 at Victorian that was converted from a single family home. My tenants refer to themselves as housemates. The home was not built as a multi-unit building and the walls are not built with insulation and noise and odors travel between them. I believe there should be an avenue besides a legal court proceeding to evict a tenant for constantly disturbing the other tenants in the building. I was able to do that last year with no cause with a tenant who would not stop smoking and vaping marijuana at her unit. I was getting complaints from all the tenants, especially the one with a seven year old who shared a wall with his tenant and another one who suffers from asthma. I asked her the tenant repeatedly for two years to stop, but with no result, even if it is against the law in Alameda to smoke anything in a multi-unit building, I can pretty much guarantee that if this went to trial, a jury would not find in my favor. How is that fair to the other tenants? I also would ask you to allow owner occupied landlords to evict tenants with no cause they are housemates of the other tenants and should be allowed to choose with whom they live. It said their property. Some speakers are referred to Measure K being defeated to support their position about just cause. There were many folks who voted against Measure K because they were against all rent control. If you want to look at the voters will look at how one was defeated. It was defeated by a much larger margin than L when at the time there is not a one size fits all solution to keeping tenants in their homes. And I ask that you take into account the various nuances of each situation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Mr. Saylor. Your Honor, the mayor and city council members. I am Daniel Saylor with renewed hope. We have renewed hopes, strongly support adding eviction control to renters rights for Alameda. We commend the city council to take this important step to protect renters living here from unjust evictions. Thank you. I'm calling in the Miss Thomas. That was threatened. Okay. Hi. I'm Catherine calling. Thank you for bringing. On I'm bringing back this very important topic. To protect all of this city. And while I appreciate staff's many meetings and the survey they did. I also have some. Very serious concerns. About what's been. Conducted so far. Just as the numbers were fuzzy in the meeting with the Renters Coalition, the numbers presented were 810 units. Now we hear it's 1100. We heard in terms. Of a thousand people. But on closer questioning, it's many more. 1100 units would. Be all of summer. House and. 22 complexes. The size of 470 Central. This is a. Huge part of our population. I appreciate that the people here that are presenting owner occupied just me small building but we. Are talking about a massive carve out of of renters here in Alameda. I support the previous speakers and that we need equal protection it should. Be fairly applied. Across the board. No carve outs. Thank you. The last Christmas. Thomas. Laura. Thomas, your last. Did you used to have? She still had time left, didn't she? Catherine. This part? Yeah. Did you have a last point you want to make? You were. You had a little time left on your clock. Yes. The last point is. Not only was I present. With the renters and speaking with city staff. I also went to the. Open house and the second attachment on the. April 2nd meeting that. Showed a number of. Possible renter protections like relocation. Benefits. For constructive evictions when there had been so many rent increases that. People are moved out without. Any they're simply. Moved out with. With no moneys. That second page was not a poster at the open his or included on the. Surface now taking this Thomas. Good evening. Laura Thomas, vice president of Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. I just thought I'd make a comment that the ordinance before you is, uh, is really a milestone in the renters struggle in Alameda and it deserves your support. Renewed hope was here in 2013 when you, Madam Mayor, were on the council and Marie Gillmor was mayor. And you heard an appeal from the RAC of a four plex where everybody was. Evicted by a woman. Who bought the property and felt it was her right to clean everybody out and raise the rents. The tenants were all elderly. Or disabled. And you were able to all you were able to do at the time was write a caustic letter to the landowner, the property owner. But I remember well, the both you and Mayor Gilmore said to the owners, representative, you both told them that if you had to hear any more heartless stories like that one, you would be ready to see rent control in Alameda. Well, it's been over five years, and we've heard a litany of terrible stories. And as Lester Dixon said, we don't need to wait anymore. You, the council, and we the people who must have the power to protect Allem Edens. And this just cause. Eviction law. Is long past due. So I think that's all I want to say. I certainly admire the youth that were here that spoke most eloquently. It's clear to them that in a democracy there has to be housing rights and people have to be protected. And that's what's fair. That's what's just. And that's what we hope you do tonight. Thank you. Thank you. And we have another speaker, Jared Wright. Mr. Wright. Hi, everyone. Thank you. Thank you so much. First of all, for considering this ordinance for the just cause protections. I hope you'll pass this ordinance without a carve out for only your owner occupied. I just wanted to point out that the Alameda County point in time count was just released by everyone home. It's available online now. The data shows that 8000 people are experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. Currently, this is an increase in 1440 3% between 2017 and 2019. And the number of people becoming homelessness, becoming homeless each year is far outpacing the number of people assisted with housing resources. So for every two people becoming homeless, only one is being returned to permanent housing. So this information shows and demonstrates the importance that we must first build as much housing as possible to relieve the growing supply shortage that is causing rampant housing price inflation in the Bay Area. And secondly, we must enact tenant protections and rent stabilization ordinances like this one that prevent Alameda residents from losing their homes just because the rent that they initially agreed to that was initially agreed to between them and their landlord no longer matches a new hyper inflated rent. That is that is now part of the market. So please consider passing this. We cannot afford to have 1100 new households that are vulnerable to being evicted. So thank you so much. Thank you, Andrea. Okay, so now quick housekeeping detail. It has been a little over an hour. I'm going to call a break. We will be back in 10 minutes, everybody. So it's it's 813, let's say 825. I'm going to start the meeting at 825. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, it is, definitely. Okay. As I said, we are coming back at at 825. And I want to now close public comment on this item and open it up for council discussion. But first, let's tackle the threshold issue that our colleague, the vice mayor, asked us to decide to determine whether he comes back or not. And that is, do we want to consider a carve out, as has been proposed for small units? Owner occupied, I think, was the proposal of perhaps a duplex triplex for Plex. What is the council's thought about that? Let's go to Councilmember Vela first, whether she had her hand up or not. Did you. Have. To? But I I'm I'm not in favor of the carve out. And frankly, the reason is, is that I think that it becomes more complicated than it needs to be in terms of at what point does the owner move in? Does that carve out, then go into play if the owner isn't living there? Can they you know, can you what if the property is owned by a trust or something like that or multiple owners? Just one of them is one of them now able to use that exemption? What if it's some sort of inheritance thing where somebody. Inherits a 20% interest or something like that. I think it becomes administratively difficult. And I would I would like to avoid that and then just pass it without the exemptions. And if if there are issues that come up, then we can address those issues. Okay. And who else? Council member, Judy. Yeah. Can I ask a couple of. Questions you may have. Attorney and city attorney. Yes. And just for transparency, I'd share this. I think it was the three strikes proposal. I'd share that with the city attorney earlier in the day and wondered if he cared to comment on the legality of those proposals. Oh. Please. Thank you. So, Councilmember Ody, I think just to make the public be aware of the questions at hand, I'll just repeat them. One of the questions that that you that you would ask was whether or not a landlord may a may seek the council to amend the ordinance so that a tenant may or may be evicted for three separate violations of terms and conditions of the lease. And then that eviction would be on a no just cost basis. And my thinking on that is that while it is legally permissible for the Council to create an explicit exemption, repeated violations, say, for example, lease terms to the judge to a just cause eviction protection if the council choose to adopt that tonight. Such an exemption. My understanding from your staff is that it's administratively difficult to implement. And in addition to that, that particular exemption would somewhat duplicate what state law currently authorizes under its nuisance theory. Civil Code 1161 four authorizes a landlord to evict a tenant for creating a nuisance and under 1161 sub for a landlord may do so upon demonstrating that the tenant has been maintaining a nuisance and a care is not required under state law. So in a way the landlord is proving the same thing but at different places, which is whether or not there has been repeated actions that deserve eviction. I don't think there was a second. Thank you. A second part of that, right. Like a three year something or other? Sure. I believe your second question was a proposal, which essentially is that the proposal? My apologies, my. Well, it's better than your. Your desktop computer. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'll adlib that since it jumped out of my my screen. I believe the the the proposal was something to the effect of the landlords would agree to not raise rents for a three year period in exchange for an owner occupied exemption. And what I've indicated to you is that the one legal concern I have is the three year period. I believe that that is a a voluntary waiver of rights under Costa Hawkins. That's not likely lawful under Costa Hawkins. What this council is able to adopt is an ordinance much like the existing ordinance, which is that if a landlord engages in a no cause eviction, that cause to Hawkins, that allows the local agency to say then the next rent can't be any higher. In this case, the council has gone beyond that to say the next rent given going beyond that by giving a little more room, by saying it's a 5% differential. But whatever that control is that the local ordinance provides, that could only govern the next tenant, not the next series of possible tenants for a period of three years . And that particular provision, we have legal concerns. Okay. I appreciate that. And your expert advice. Did you have a question or I can just go into my quick rattle off? You know, he raised his hand. Did you did you want to follow up on that? Mr. Johnson. Okay. Okay. So it's over. So the question that we're trying to get at, because whether we did bring our our colleague back or not, is having to do with the carve out. Yeah, I have some. Just really quick, please. So. The concerns I have with with such an idea would be creating two classes of tenants. And I think one of the other issues with this is I think customer value brought it up. You know, the definition of owner. You know, San Francisco has a really complicated definition of owner. And I just fear that could be manipulated in such a way that, you know, there's no predictability. You know, Oakland, I think, had some exemptions for four duplexes and they took those away. So I think that is they have a similar housing situation as us, which a lot of with a lot of older units. I you know, I was sad that, you know, we used to have a lot more folks from 470 Central that came in and spoke. But I mean, they've all been forced to leave town. So and when we came up with that original ordinance, you know, I was one of the people that defined that mathematical formula. And I apologize to tenants on that because it didn't work as it was intended. It was intended to stop mass evictions. It didn't always do that. So I do think our ordinance has an aspect of flexibility that if there's a problem that arises, I think we can have our staff come back in whatever time frame. I think it's a year and give us information on that. And I also think that if if nuisances and these owner occupied is the issue. I mean, there's other solutions, house rules, those type of things. So I at this point, I'm not I did think about it a lot so and asked for some opinions from the city attorney. But at at the bottom line, I don't want to create two classes of tenants. Okay. They were gone. Thank you. Were going to Councilmember Desai. I think the question right now before us is whether we should have a separate carve out discussion from the discussion of the updated ordinance as a whole. And I think that is something that we can do, that we can have a separate conversation on the carpet out of the hall and have each of the council members here come up with their final decisions. And then sequentially, then we could conceivably take the balance, which is 80% and 90%, the balance of the ordinance. So in an effort to allow Vice Mayor Knox White, I think that's the issue. The issue isn't for for people to opine one way or another. But but how to sequence the issue so that Knox White can take part in the latter part? Well, I believe that's what we're doing. So I think. Mr. Chen, do you want to. So it's important to point out that if the council does not make a final decision, in other words, vice mayor cannot continue to take part. So as is part. Of the the body as a whole. Exactly. If it's continuing to be considered by the council as a whole, the vice mayor could not take part because of context. Okay. So do you do you want to opine one way or the other? Mr. de SAC, council member differ. Yes, I do think that we should we should have a discussion regarding carve out and I think, you know, it it doesn't change anything, you know. Yeah. Okay. I thought that was what we were attempting to do. Am I missing something? Do you want? Do you have anything you'd like to discuss about kava? Well, here's a here's a question that I hope doesn't go against my time. So the question is, if I have a discussion about carve out now with 7 minutes, 49 seconds, does that eat away at the balance of the 749? And at then after the carve out discussion, are we going to start a whole new 9 minutes? That's a fair that's a fair point. And I and that's interesting. So I think it's the chair, given the ambiguities in the rules that the chair has the right to make a call here. Yeah. And my call is I'm going to call these two separate discussions. The carve out is what we're talking about now. The city clerk looks pained. So what you could do is you could do your discussion. And when you guys get to your time down to zero, you could just vote to suspend the rules by four votes. Well, I think if I may be entertaining this, I was thinking that councilman was asking, is this going to count against our greater discussion if when assuming we bring Councilmember Knox White in. What to. Villa? I have a. Kind of point of order question, which is how many votes are needed to have a carve out conversation if Knox White can't participate? I believe you need three votes. So. Yes. Okay. To even have a carve out discussion. Okay. Okay. So maybe I should go next. Yes. Yes. I'm happy to make a motion that after we have the kind of a discussion, we reset everyone's clock to 9 minutes. Okay. Chuck. Is that problematic, Madam Clerk? I don't think that's problematic. Good. I don't either. Okay, let's keep moving. I mean, I think we're going to. Move on that. Are you going to? I don't think. Shall we vote? Is that okay? Why don't we vote on it then? Okay. So did you want to make that motion? Yes. Okay. So set the motion. Oh, that after we had this carve out discussion, we reset the council members clocks to 9. Minutes to have a second. Okay. All in favor. I opposed. Okay. It carries 3 to 1. No, no, it doesn't. It doesn't matter. Six four. It needs. Four. It says four votes to suspend. And to suspend. Okay. All right. It's worth a try. I just don't want to. No, it doesn't. We may do the vote again if we run out of time. Let's I think it's let's just see where we are. Okay. So for right now, we're going to just talk and then we will, you know, if we've run out of time, we'll we'll take another vote and either we'll have more time or we won't. So. Okay. Okay. So here's my thought. I do not favor a carve out for reasons already stated. And on top of that, I am one of three representatives from Alameda County to the COSA Compact Legislative Policy Committee. We've been meeting every week for the last almost two months now, I think. And one of the things that the CASA Compact, it's a very ambitious set of legislation going through Sacramento right now to address our housing crisis in California. And there are three principles of the course of combat, and one of the first one is protection and protection of tenants. And the second one is preservation of the housing we already have for rental housing. And the third one is production. We need to produce even more. We have a huge imbalance in supply and demand, and so I view a carve out as one less protection at a time when it's very well needed to the point in time count numbers have been cited. We, I think, need all the all the assistance we can get. And I, I sat in on a meeting last week with Miss Potter representatives from the housing authority, with housing providers. And I'm mindful of your concerns. However, a number of the issues that were raised really had to do with for cause type behavior. And the the suggestion that, well, you know, some providers wanted to be able to do no cause evictions to save legal fees. But then the examples that were raised were of tenants who refused to leave, even when served with a notice, a valid notice, and then it got into legal fees. So that I understand those concerns. There are other ways to address the concerns of smaller landlords with their legal fees, and one of them is the real estate community might even band together and put a fund together much in the same way they offered to do something similar to help tenants. I'm not sure that anything ever came of that, but certainly that's a possibility. But in any event, my concerns are that. The tenants are put in a vulnerable position. When I've said this more than once, when I was running for mayor and walking door to door at the ferry terminals. I would meet tenants all the time who were afraid to tell their landlords about needed repairs because they didn't want to be pegged as that problem tenant and then possibly be evicted. Because right now we have a 2% vacancy rate. We don't have enough housing to go around. I've heard the arguments that, well, if you do this, then we're just going to turn our multifamily units into condominiums. And my response is we need condominiums, too. There are people who would like to be owners and that just might give them that foot in the door. If you want to turn your rental unit into a single family for sale house. There's a need for that, too. And, you know, we're trying to build as fast as we can. But right now, my concern is that we do the right thing and we cannot afford to have another 42% increase in the number of unsheltered individuals in two years. And to think that even this minor, so-called minor carve out would impact 1100 units is just, I think, more than our city can bear. So I would not support a carve out. Do we need to vote on that? Okay. So I'm council. Does someone want to make of it? Councilmember Desai. A comment. I would like to make a comment with my prepared presentation in large part because it does actually deal strike at the issue of the necessity of what I think is a carve out. The presentation will be counted against your speech time, correct? Grant Yes. So I've entitled my presentation. Let us do good based on what our heart. Which is why we're all here, based on what our hearts and our heads tell us. And this is a hopefully a data driven and a number based presentation. Okay. So back in 1993, when I was a grad student at UC Berkeley's Senior Regional Planning, I had an opportunity to work with a real estate outfit in Berkeley, Saint John Associates. And what we were doing is we were analyzing the impacts of Berkeley rent control, which was instituted in 1980. We were looking at 1980 census data, comparing it to 1990 census data. And just by chance, we were also taking a look at Santa monica's 1980 data versus 1990 data, because Santa monica also began as rent control in 1990. And by the way, our city attorney is formerly from Santa monica. And interestingly, single family rentals, just single family rentals, detached rentals from 1980 went from 3900 of basically 4000, and it dropped down to basically 3000. So it had declined. It had declined by 1000 over a spate of. Its warming up. It had declined by basically 1000 from 1980 to 1990. And when we compared it to the other rental stock in surrounding cities, both of Santa monica as well as Berkeley, you know, we didn't see the same thing happening. So what that told us was when you have Berkeley style rent control with hard caps and just cause that especially the smaller mom and pop landlords begin to go out of the the rental business. And we saw that in Berkeley in 1980, 1990, and also Santa monica. Now, I've also gathered data that allows us to track what has gone on since then. So to this day, Berkeley's single family rental stock has not come back to what was there in 1980. In 1980, there was 3980, and today there's roughly 3500. Santa monica is has has surpassed its 1980 rate. And my hypothesis is because as a percent of rental stock in Berkeley, Berkeley has a high percentage of single family, had a high percentage of single family homes as well as rental stock, whereas Santa monica had a low percent. So there was a lot of perhaps, you know, mom and pop landlords who probably weren't, you know, there weren't like the landlords or the capital. L They were more landlords, perhaps with a cap, with a small case. L But it's important, though, to, to note the difference, because when you look at Alameda, you know, when in Alameda , our rate of single family rentals, rental stock, single family homes that are rentals is roughly 26.9%, which is based upon the five year census x number. And so what that tells you is that when you when you impose a Berkeley style rent control with just cause and and also hard caps, that's going to affect most especially the single family rentals as well as the duplexes and the triplexes. And you ask yourself, well, why? Why would it affect the smaller units relative instead of not affecting as much the larger units, you know, units that have 20, 20 rental units or 50 rental units. It's because a simple math, you take a look, for example, the median asking rent that's on Craigslist today for a single family home. The median rent is roughly 30 $800 in the city of Alameda. So, okay, 30 $800 a month, times ten years. You get basically $457,800. So people then, you know, if you're operating in the context of a Berkeley style rent control with hard caps and also just cause eviction, people who could start doing the math as a say, well, why am I going to wait around for ten years to gather $475,800 when I could sell a single family home for, what, $800,000? $900,000? And on top of it, you could because of IRS rules, you could take some of that proceeds and buy another rental stock. And it's elsewhere in some other town, in some other state and not be subject to, you know, capital gains or at least be protected for capital gains for some time. So this is my message, especially to the persons who are here. If you don't do a carve out, if you don't seriously address the carve out, what you're going to do is you're not only going to have single family homes or even duplexes. The Triplexes converted either to ownership from rental stock to ownership or converted to to to which to condominium. But what that what's going to happen to people who live in buildings with ten rental units or 20 rent or use and 50 rental units? What's going to happen is as you decline, as you decrease the rental stock, you're going to begin to put pressure on the 20 rental unit buildings, on the 50 rental unit buildings. So you can't just say, oh, you know, we're we're going to impose this kind of rent control on the city of Alameda. We're going to toughen up 3148 from the compromise that it is right now. We're going it we're going to convert it into a Berkeley style rent control. You can't just do that and think that there's not going to be impacts to tenants. Let me repeat. When you put when you decrease the the rental stock as a single family duplex type X level, that's going to put more pressure on the renters. The 20 units, the 50 unit apartments. So as council members, we have to think about those implications. The other thing, I think from a big picture point of view that I'm really concerned about, this just cause imposition is I mean, the very data that we have that I asked earlier from the outset, there have been only 31, 31 no cause cases in the past fiscal year and prior to that there was only 26 no cause cases. Now think about it, 31 no cause cases from which, you know, maybe justifiably there should be some kind of just cause maybe 31 no cause cases out of 13,389 rental units. So we are about to make this incredible, profound change to our rental stock. Based upon the record of only 31, no court cases. I'm sorry, but the data does not support the type of changes, the magnitude of changes that we're seeking. If we want to help out the tenants and the small landlords. I think the and within the context of the 3148. I think tonight we really seriously have to take a look at at the carve outs for single family rentals as well as duplexes and triplexes because at the end of the day, when you start seeing the numbers decline like you did in Berkeley and in Santa monica from 1980 to 1990, you're going to see the same magnitude of declines for the reasons that I said. The math is just the math. You know, the amount of dollars that you get for rent for ten years. Why wait ten years when you could just sell it and get 800,000, $900,000 and then reinvest? Thank you. Councilmember De Saag. All right. Do I? Yes. Councilmember Avella and then Councilmember Brody. Uh, so I'd like to respond a little bit. I'm. I'm all for data. Um, in fact, I teach classes on data. I think data gets stale, and data depends on what you actually look at. And I think that there's a few problems with the hypothesis that's being presented. So first of all, single family home stock can also decline if you convert a single family home into a multi-unit rental or if you add an ADU, it's no longer a single family home. It's also not taking into account that there's been a real focus in the communities of both Santa monica and Berkeley to focus on density . And so there has been a real push to increase the number of units and to not build single family homes for that reason. And finally, the single family home numbers, even if we do take them at face value as they've been presented, are not the focus of the carve out that's being presented. The carve out being presented. As for duplexes triplexes where the owner lives on site, not for a single family home. And so I think, at least based off of those reasons, I kind of see that as being problematic. I also think that regarding the number of no cause evictions, uh, a number that we don't have is the number of tenants who did not report habitability issues like major habitability issues for fear of being retaliated against. And, uh. I think this is a really important point because renters are vulnerable in ways homeowners are not. Namely, if they pay their bills on time and they maintain the property that they live in and they're good neighbors, they can be given notice to move with no reason at all. Worse yet, if a landlord is evicting tenants for discriminatory reasons or in retaliation for asking, you know, for, say, necessary repairs to keep the property property habitable or based on a protected class. We just did a proclamation for API Heritage Month. My grandparents got into the rental business and actually became homeowners because they pulled together with other Filipino families to buy property because people wouldn't rent to them because they were Filipino. I think that's a poignant fact this month. But the point of this is both the discriminatory reason and the retaliation basis are both considered illegal under our laws, and the burden is on the tenant to prove those cases. The burden is not on the landlord. And that's something that's difficult, if not impossible to do. And I think it's very difficult if you're in a position where you don't have the resources available that, say, somebody who is a homeowner may have. And finally, I think we also need to look at trends and there's other trends. One is that there's a lot of communities in California that are passing just cause eviction protections. Namely, Santa Barbara. Recently in April, 6 to 1 voted this year to pass just cause eviction protections. And the council there, you know, really focused on the fact that it was about protecting against mass evictions and about balancing this power relation relationship so that tenants didn't need to be worried and that, you know, these cases rather rather than saying there were 31 families that were evicted for no cause that that an actual articulable cause be put forward. And under our provision as proposed, we can still do that. And I think, as the mayor pointed out, all of the cases that were raised in her meetings and certainly the ones that have been raised to me would qualify under under the proposed ordinance, as is without an exemption. So I'm not going to for those reasons, I'm not really willing at this point to consider an exemption. Thank you. Councilmember Brody. Thank you. Just a couple of quick comments on the the slides that my colleague presented. Well, first of all, I don't think there's a single family exemption or carve out being proposed. So I'm not going to really address that. I look at the numbers when I see 31 in the last fiscal year and 26 in the year before, you know, I see 57 families that have been displaced from Alameda. That's who I see. Real people. People just like you that sit out here. People just like us. People that now probably don't have an opportunity to live here anymore. And why? Because our landlord decided to take advantage of our laws, which they were freely allowed to do, and tell them, sorry, we don't. I don't want you in my property anymore. So these are 57 real families. So and the second thing, it just reminds me of my friend Mike McMahon, who says there's lies, damned lies and statistics. So, I mean, I look at this. Well, you can look at that one way. You know, we re we've had five more cases in 17, 18 and 16, 17. So you could say, well, that's a 20% jump in. No cause evictions. That's kind of a big number. Right. So we can look at it that way, but we can also look at it in a different way. You know, if on average. The landlords have a tool available to them that out of 13,400 units they only use about two two and a half times a month over a course of two years. Then it just makes you wonder why are they spending so much money and so much energy to protect a tool that they rarely use? So to me, it's not well, there's not that many tenants that are going to be impacted by it. To me, it's like this is something that's rarely used. So I just I don't know if it's worth spending all this energy and making a value judgment to protect something that, you know, it's just not taken advantage of that much. So, again, you can have lies, damn lies and statistics, so we can spin them any way we want to spin them. Okay. So do we have a motion on whether to move forward with a carve out or not? Yes. Okay. Is the motion to move forward with a carve out? Yes. Okay. It's there. I have a motion to move forward with a carve out in the ordinance. Do I have a second? I do not have a second. The motion fails for a lack of a second. To have a new motion. To not move forward with a carve out. Sure. I'd like to motion to close debate on the carve out issue and move forward discussing the just cause proposal or ordinance without a carve out. Do I have a second? Second? Okay. We have a motion to second on favor. I oppose it. Okay, so move. All right, so the motion. The motion to move forward with the ordinance without the carve out passes for do nothing. And we can bring the vice mayor back from exile. Thank you. He's just in the back room. He's 45 seconds behind this. At no. Oh, yeah. So he'll be here in 45 seconds. Great. Um. Okay. So we're going to let you do all the talking until you catch up to our time. If you get 5 minutes. Yeah. All right. So it can be. Do you want to report out just for the better? Well, he was listening. You were listening. Oh, okay. He didn't hear the last vote. So June the. Last vote was unanimous to proceed with the discussion without having a carve. Up. All right. So so now we come back to the the the item before us, which is to amend the Almaty Municipal Code, the specified article to eliminate no cause as a grounds for eviction from ordinance number 3148. Who would like to lead the discussion? Who's got the most? Well, no. I mean, anyone can start. Okay. I actually don't have very much to say. I want to thank the city attorney. The explanations that were given while I was in the back room were the same ones he and I discussed earlier today as well. And help me understand the issue as well. I think at this point in time, without belaboring this item that much longer, that everybody has actually expressed the values and the need. And the reason we have are here to talk about just cause perfectly well. And I'm ready to support a motion to support the staff recommendation as soon as somebody as soon as everybody feels they've had what they need to say. Um, does anyone else want to comment? Do we have a motion? What's your pleasure, Counsel? Councilmember To make a. Short comment, because I don't think there's a lot of suspense in my feelings on this matter, considering nobody calls me No cause. Jim or carve out Jim, I. I just want a second. I think what Tony Graham said, I mean, to me, that's that was the thing that hit home the most. I think housing is a basic human right period, end of sentence, stop. And if you're going to be that, that rights can be taken away from you and you need due process. Our Constitution demands that. And I think our values demand that. So that's all I have to say. I'm happy to support whoever makes the motion or happy to make it if someone else doesn't. Other comments. Councilmember Bella. In my piece. I'm of approval of the staff recommendation to him in 3148 to remove no cause. Second. Any discussion? All in favor. I oppose the motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you, everyone. And I do want to thank all of our speakers and thank staff and the attorneys. Now, we don't. We don't because we have another item and a lady who needs to not stay here too long. Thank you all for for being here for this discussion. Okay. We are moving then to six.