Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Various Amendments to the City’s Rent Review, Rent Stabilization, and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance (No. 3148) Which May Include Amending Various Sections of Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning Review of Rent Increases, Limitations on Evictions, Eliminating the Sunset Clause, and Making Clarifying Amendments; and Public Hearing to Consider an “Ellis Act” Policy and Adoption of Resolution Adopting a Policy Concerning the Requirements, Procedures, Restrictions and Mitigations Concerning the Withdrawal of Residential Rental Units From Rent or Lease (Ellis Act Policy). (Housing 265)
Here, go. I would like for staff to work with a technical working group consisting of property, landlord and renters, particularly to deal with exhibit two b2 d one eye to eye for i5i9i 1516, 17. Exhibit three, one, two and five. And to get input from the different stakeholders and to relay the summary of those input on those items to council. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now who was. I know. Yep. Right. But Councilmember Vela and Vice Mayor de san. Excuse me, Vice Mayor Knox White. It's not even that late. Had comments he wanted to make council. Who's going first? He made us thank you and vice mayor actually had. I will I will. I want to make two points. I want to make a point about the data that Councilmember de SAC presented. He is right that, ah, a certain blog did present some information. They presented it completely, incorrectly and unfortunate it was reiterated again tonight. But the No Cause eviction data that was shown up on the screen here actually shows. And since we have passed our rent control rent stabilization. 3148 no cause evictions have gone up the the blog that was cited didn't understand setting an annual rate of no cause and therefore it just used the numbers. And I think it's really important that people leave here understanding that we have seen an increase in no cause evictions. The other point I just wanted to make, since I have the floor and then I'll let it go really quickly, was that I think we heard a lot of stories of people who cannot afford their rent when it goes up. And I think that we can look at as much data as we want that shows that most people are getting no rent increases. But the fact of the matter is that we're actually trying to protect the people who are getting kicked out of their homes, not just saying 42% didn't have a rent increase. So it's not a real big deal for those who are getting done. And I and I really I just I want to data says a lot of things, but at a certain point in time, the data point for this for me that I am looking at is how many people are getting rent increases that are on affordable and unsustainable and about forcing them to leave town. And so I just want to not let that go. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Councilmember Avella. And in fact, I think it's just our no cause evictions have gone up over 16% I think is what the the actual stats are. And I think that there's something to be said. We've talked about having staff with regards to a rent cap. Two of my colleagues mentioned having staff come back with recommendations. I would just add a little asterisks on that, which is those recommendations, at least in my opinion, should not be based off of a blog post. They should be based off of the data that we have and an actual analysis of what surrounding communities are doing, because I think we're part of a larger metropolitan area. I think it's worth looking at what's happening in the larger metropolitan area. That said, I think that, you know, there are clearly a number of big issues that that we are asking staff to look into. I think they're important ones, too. The vice mayor's point means 58% of people in Alameda have experienced a rent increase. And I would like to know out of that 58%, how many have been displaced as a result? I do think that there were unintended consequences, essentially, of kind of how our ordinance was put together and what it did and where different holes and loopholes existed. I think that, you know, if we're going to look at just cause I agree, it should come back sooner rather than later. And I think it needs to come back along with an Airbnb regulation because we don't have one. And we need to understand what's happening with the Airbnbs that are operating in Alameda because that's taking rental units off the market. And frankly, I don't think saying 90 days is enough because when you can rent those out at a very high rate per night. And frankly, I'm a little concerned based off of the issues that we've had this past week, where there was something that came to light, where somebody was kind of illegally posting Airbnbs potentially in other people's properties and things like that. So I just, I think we need to step in and we need to regulate that and it should come back when we look at just cause and if we're looking at an Ellis act that needs to be a part of the analysis that I would like to see. Certainly I'd be more inclined to support a 30 day or 45 day cap. I think the smaller the amount of nights or the fewer the amount of nights that people can put their unit out on Airbnb, the less of an incentive we have for people to pull market pull units off the market. I would also like us to look at, you know, and since we are coming up on budget time, what are the budget costs to this and include that in the report back from staff when we're looking at what's the cost of administering these new changes to the program? Because I don't want to be having to make changes to the budget right after we enacted. I think we should be considering it as part of it. I'm supportive of of having staff come back with a rent cap. I think finding a way to streamline the system. I think there's a lot of issues with Rack. I think it's a very cost effective way of doing things. And I think to my colleague's point, it creates a very, you know, adversarial process that I think pits people, pits tenants against landlords. And in it, it muddies the relationship. So I think that we're going to have a cap. Let's have a cap. But I would like to, in my opinion, do away with the rack. If we're going to have a hearing. Officer, that's fine. But let's figure out what those boundaries are. I think the the registry that needs to happen, but I think it's also a lot of work. And I think we need to get on the same page about what's included in that and how you're going to go about getting that data. I think ultimately a lot of the that I also like the change proposed by Councilmember Odie that for Costa Hawkins exempt units that where there's essentially a construction constructive eviction that we require an option of a relocation payment. Essentially what that amount is, again, I would want staff to come back with recommendations that are based off of data and analysis and not just pull a number out of thin air. You know, I think that. I think there's still a lot of conversation that needs to happen. I actually don't believe in having a subcommittee work on this because I think that that's a very selective and biased way of kind of doing the analysis. I'm happy to have staff speak with different people. I think that's part of the process. But I would like to continue to have this as a as an open and fluid conversation with the public. I think we owe it to people to do it that way. And I also think that when we make these decisions, we need to keep in mind that we don't have a housing policy as a country. We have a system that is based on property ownership and the principles that support property ownership. And so if you look at how we spend our money, including tax deductions and everything else, the vast amount of money goes towards protecting property owner rights. And there was a period in time where the only people that got a say in what happened in government and what our laws looked like and are how our system was constructed was based off of the principle of property ownership. And that was at a time that other human beings were considered property. And I just find that to be not the principle that I want to be guided by when we're making these decisions. I actually think we need to be guided by principles of compassion and community, and at least trying to empathize with people who have experienced housing insecurity. And a vast majority of those people are people who look like me. They're people that are or were not allowed to vote or have a voice in government for many, many years in this country. And I think that part of that conversation, we're not going to correct it all overnight. I'm not asking us to. But I do think we have to at least keep that lens in mind when we're making these decisions. And I also think that this goes hand in hand with, you know, we're going to have to build more units. I'm not saying that this is a system that we put in place forever. It's why it's an ordinance. Hopefully we'll see some change. We'll see some units come on the market. And together the combination of these things can help improve the stability of our community. And I think that that's what we need to be focused on. That's what I'm focused on. I'm supportive of the proposals put forward by Councilmember Ody and Vice Mayor Knox White. And I'd like to. See what we can put together on that and then make a decision. Thank you. Okay, so I'm going to start adding quote from some data that I think you'll find reliable unless Thursday, Councilmember Avella and I spent the day in Orange County, actually in a conference room that we were where members of a statewide policy committee of the League of California Cities and Housing Community and Economic Development. And so this is from some of the materials we reviewed, lots of legislation aimed at building more housing in California, addressing our homelessness crisis. So according to the state legislative analyst office, the average California rent is approximately 50% higher than the rest of the country. And even California's least expensive housing markets are more expensive than the national average. In California, there are almost 6 million renter households, and of those, more than 3 million of the renter households pay more than 30% of their income toward rent, and nearly 30% of those 6 million pay, 1.7 million households pay more than 50% of their income toward rent. So that and this is a finding there from the California Department of Housing, Community Housing and Community Development that an unexpected financial hardship can lead to homelessness for many residents. And in fact, California's homeless population rose 16% from 2015 to 2017, with many people becoming homeless for the first time. Once a tenant loses their home, the cycle of homelessness can be difficult and expensive to break, according to a 2019 study by the Economic Roundtable, providing services and emergency response to homeless individuals can cost taxpayers nearly $35,000 per person per year. So an upfront investment in keeping families housed could save the state billions of dollars. But we're not just doing this about economic dollars and cents. We we fit into the larger picture of what's going on at the state level. Every city has to do its part. I was reading the staff material and the rack was originated in 1971, in Alameda in 1970 or in the 1970s. It was a different time. That's when measure that limited density on our island to no more than a duplex went into effect and has been in effect ever since. I sometimes speculate about what this whole situation that we're dealing with would look like. How would it be different if we had more multifamily units, if we had smaller homes where people, empty nesters, could downsize and open their properties up to families moving in? If there were those smaller units that first time renters or buyers could get into. But we deal with the hand were dealt. So in no particular order, just kind of the way it came up in conversation. The rent cap. Yes, I was on the council when we enacted the 5% and it was a placeholder, if you will. Yeah, the landlords wanted 10%. And at the other end of the spectrum, I think the renters wanted no percent and we settled on 5%. But it always was meant to be a a placeholder that we would have more time to consider the impacts of the ordinance that we enacted. And of course, a referendum happened. And, you know, life happens in between. But I do think it's reasonable to look at the CPI. Someone said it can be manipulated. I, I, I kind of like my hard data and the CPI is something and it's been mentioned before, we do need to be fair to both landlords and tenants, Allen said. Yes, we need to do it. The five year I think is actually find that two year. It's not that, oh, if you do two years, you could do to you know, you could even get punitive damages from both the the renter and the city. So it's a deep incentive, but that's a discussion item. Relocation. Yes. Eventually we do need to follow the had model. It shouldn't be your relocation. Should it be based on what you're currently paying? Because you might be paying way under market and then you have to go and find another place on the rack. I'm with my colleague, Councilmember Vella. I think that our money towards rent programs would be better spent by getting hiring officers, more staff to deal with the tenants one on one. And I just throw in I'm really uncomfortable at the personal nature of information that tenants are asked to provide in the rack appeal that was pulled because the landlord withdrew the increase. These tenants had to say what they were earning in Social Security and in the course of their medical really in a public document. That's that's not right on just cause. Okay. I was the first one to come out and say we need to get rid of just cause. And I haven't changed my position. And if anything, I'm even firmer in my conviction to get rid of no cause. I mean, it's euphemistically called just cause. But when I was running for office and going door to door and talking to two renters, more than one told me, you know, I have a good landlord, but I'm not going to tell him about these repairs that are needed because I'm just afraid I could be evicted for no reason. And then I don't know where I would go because my rent's pretty reasonable in the rack up here that we didn't hear. The property manager said something like, Oh, well, you know, they never raised the needed repairs until they go to the rack, until they appear rent increase and the staff person and I appreciated that said that's because renters are concerned I mean it was one of the back panel said that's because renters are concerned that if they were to bring up a needed repair, they'll get a rent increase. And in this case, the property manager of a three story building with senior citizens said, I always take the stairs. I didn't know the elevator wasn't working and she was the property manager and her remedy for the cockroaches was to put them through sticks. Many anyway, just cause it has so many unintended consequences and buyouts. Constructive evictions. Yes. Good points, Miss Potter. Let's bring in that. I want to also talk about this idea of assistance for mom and pop landlords. Yeah, let's go for it. But I'd turn that equation around. Why don't we let the landlords go ahead and put together a fund? They can contribute to it. And then if there's someone who says, I'm a small time landlord and I can't afford this relocation expense, they can go to the landlords who put this together and make their case. They can do a promissory note. It can be a lean against the property when it's sold. So I think that's a way of achieving some balance if indeed mom and pop landlords, whatever that means, because it's really hard to determine with trust and everything who owns how much and what. And then, yes, we do need to also be building more housing and more affordable housing. It's easier said than done. There's lovely 20 affordable units available to people making between 20 and 60% of the area median income. Those 20 beautiful, sustainable units cost $18 million to build. So we're building where this is the housing authority. We're cobbling together income sources. We need to do all this and more, but definitely let's keep people in our house, in their housing. And I think I've covered it. I'm the I'm splitting the fee, the program fee. I would be okay with that, except that it shouldn't be that 50%. It could be borne by the tenant should it be counted toward the cost of the rent, because then that's with the 5% or five of the rent increases based on the original cost of the rent. Okay, that's me. So, Councilmember Daza. 20 seconds left. I this is. I just want to say this. I believe that there the hard data shows that the rent ordinance 3148 is working and that we should work within that regime, modify it in conjunction with tenants working with small mom and pop landlords. Yes, but not to replace it altogether with a Berkeley style rent control that has hard caps on rents. And just cause the data is does not show that we need to go that route. The data shows that we need to keep with 3148 and modify it if necessary. Okay, so we have given out and Rotella. Since I still. You quickly before. Seven. I appreciate your comments, Madam Mayor, especially recalling the process that we went through and if I was there until the bitter, bitter cold in the middle of the night and. It was, you know. Our intention on on two of those one was our intention was that the 5% would be a cap and now it's turned out to be the floor. So it didn't turn out the way that we intended. So I just want to make sure that that's clear. And on the eviction side, you know, we thought we had put in a formula that would prevent buildings from being mass evicted. And that didn't turn out to be right either, because we all saw what happened to 470 Central. So I think what we've talked about today and I appreciate the comment or complimentary, but I think Debbie came up with the idea about the constructive eviction rent increase. So I just want to give credit where credit's due. I think this is Alameda style rent control. I mean, I think this is uniquely Alameda. You know, it's been crafted by our history. It's been crafted by our experience with it. And what changes we make are crafted by the needs that we heard from our citizens. So I'm going to call it Alameda style rent control because I mean nothing against Berkeley, but I think it's something that we came up with and it's better yet Berkeley. We don't get into any rivalry. Okay. So any further comments before we send Ms.. Potter away with all of our input? Do you have any questions, Miss Potter? I thought it might be helpful for staff if we could recap some of what we heard from council this evening so that we are working on the kind of focused on the right issues. It sounded like there was a priority to come back with a just cause of action ordinance in the staff report. Staff recommended that it be a stand alone ordinance and so agreed. I would want to confirm that what we would work on would be a standalone ordinance for the just cause of action. Yes. Yes. Yes. Referenda approve it. Yes or no. And then it's per me and and quickly we do it. Is there a consensus from the council that at now that we've received direction that it would be useful for staff to reach out to the to the community to get feedback on council direction that may inform some of what staff recommends and perhaps it's less relevant on the just cause, but it may be more relevant on the maximum allowable rent increase. There are more options. So I'll chime in and say I'm fine with reaching out to the community. I agree with Council member Vella that I don't think you need to convene a subcommittee, but I think you know how to make your rounds of the different constituencies. Do you have a hint? It kills me. I would kind of concur with the mayor. I mean, I'm always happy to hear from the public, but I don't think we should let that drag down the process or slow it down at all. So, I mean, there doesn't need to be a consensus and like we tried three or four years ago that drag the whole thing out another year. Right. The intent. I think that the goal on the just cause eviction ordinance and perhaps the maximum bailout, maximum allowable rent increase would be that the second meeting in May to be back for the second meeting in May. That's probably much more doable depending on once we began that kind of analysis and researching the options. Just given the lead time that we need for council reports, the maximum allowable rent increase may come back for council consideration in June, but the goal would be to bring the just cause eviction ordinance back the second meeting in May for council action. Yeah. Just notice it properly, please. I think if we're going to do our outreach on the on the cap, trying to be a little broader, I think we tend to go to the same well over and over again. And I think we had landlords here earlier who felt they didn't even know anything was happening, despite the fact that there were meetings. And so if we can find a way to to try to ensure that if we're asking renters for input, that renters have a real chance to get that input of asking landlords to give input, that landlords that not just in certain specific organizations and groups have that opportunity somehow. And then relative to the Airbnb issue, staff will regroup and take a look at what we think would be our time frame to come back on the Airbnb issue and will endeavor to have a track. It may not be as quick, so I guess partly it would be useful to know for us, is there a desire to see the Airbnb and the just cars come back together that could potentially delay the the just cause? QUESTION Councilmember Villa. When are you planning to come back to us with the Ellis Act portion of it? Well. A staff was going to recommend that the Council Act this evening on the Ellis Act policy, which is before you there's been a publicly notice public hearing and the hearing has been conducted. So there could be I'm happy to answer any questions regarding, you know, the council, if the council has the ability to amend the policy that is presented as a draft policy. Okay. So regarding the Airbnb, I'm I mean, I'm the one that that has kind of raised it. I know Councilmember Odie raised it as well. I, I would be fine with it coming back this summer afterwards. But I do think it's been lingering out there for some time and I think having it come back in like July or something like that gives our new city attorney time to look at it. And that would be when I would want it to come back. I don't want to wait too long, but I understand you can set limits on staff time. That's helpful direction. Thank you. No, no argument. I'm sorry. No argument. With that. No argument. Yeah. Okay, that's fine. I do think that the just cause should take priority. Yes. That that is the direction that I heard. And so we will be looking at the second meeting in May for the just cause ordinance that we will also move forward. We would recommend that the maximum allowable rent increase, whatever the council we will come with recommendations about, you know, that rent increase banking the role of the rack versus hearing officer what the maximum. Perhaps should be what that might do in terms of impacts on the budget for the rent program. All of those things would be addressed in the report that would come back to council. We would also recommend for that issue that it be a standalone ordinance and so we would handle that is the way it would come back to council. Um. That, that sounds, that sounds reasonable to me. Is that good with the rest of you? I see. Nodding heads. I'll take that as a yes. Okay. So as far as the Ellis act, you want to say if you think it was. Before, maybe before the discussion on the other side, because we are requesting action this evening for the two other, we had two other kinds of rounds of amendments that we are still recommending that the Council act on. I would because we have direction on the exhibit three amendments, sort of the new amendments that were before you this evening. And the issue of that, the constructive evictions really came from rent program staff as they saw what's been happening on the ground, but that we would combine both sets of amendments and bring them back in one ordinance for the council's consideration. And I noted all of Councilmember de Suggs points or proposed amendments that he would like more discussion on. Happy to take those back out to the community and have that discussion with the community. We will also evaluate all of the proposed amendments and see whether they are still needed given that we, the Council, has given direction. In the interest. Of Councilmember Gillis. Sorry, in the interest of transparency, I understand that he rattled off a number of different items that are there. I would like to know what items he specifically said he would like direction on, but I'm also a little concerned that there's direction being given by one member of the council as opposed to I mean, I thought we were supposed to give direction as a body. Yeah, I think if you could list the the concerns because I don't think I caught them all either. And then let's see if we have at least a majority of the council mind to pursue. And you and Councilmember Vice Mayor Rex White. Well, I just I know that Councilmember Odie mentioned that he was comfortable with essentially that what became the 3180. Right. So I want to be really clear that are we saying that we're comfortable with everything and now we're going to discuss certain ones that Councilmember de SAG has that let's have some more discussion around that because I guess I seconded my informally. Mr. Otis thoughts I'm 3180 I want to make sure that that my feelings about that we should just move forward with these right now I. Particular. Councilmember day so. I. Should like to. Speak is to make sure to get stakeholder input on those items. That's my goal is to get so that people clearly understand from stakeholder particularly landlords perspective on the range of items that I had laid out. And because there were so many, I couldn't go into detail except give their gave their a number. Two and all all of these amendments, proposed amendments were vetted when the process was underway in the spring of 2017 because the ordinance was actually adopted. So what's reflected in exhibit two is what was adopted by the Council prior to the repeal. My suggestion, but clearly it's dependent on council direction, was that if the council desired a a review of these because it's been a couple of years in the community, staff is happy to facilitate that discussion. But that's clearly what the council, you know, what the council desires is what staff will execute. So I will note that, first of all, all of the items that Councilmember de SAC listed were on exhibit two. So not the 3180, because I circled them in red. As you're reading them, my inclination is to leave them and move forward. I mean, I do feel that I said my part about what I feel about publicly making public this personal information from tenants and proceedings. I would like that considered, but I feel that the program staff, you and your staff have had now that much more time. It's been three years since we enacted the ordinance and it's had that much time to be tested. So I don't know that we I don't see a pressing need to go back and open these up because again, we just held them. We just set them aside because we had to go through the whole measure k election and you know, the public spoke resoundingly about the outcome. So I but but what does the rest of you think? That's my thought. Brody Trotter. I mean I mean, I kind of agree with the mayor. I do think the particular issue I asked about the passing of the 50% of the rental fee, that's something I wanted changed. If we were going to change, at a minimum, the requirement that there's proof of payment before you're allowed to pass it on. I think the my colleague Ms.. Vela talked about not including that in the rent increase. And I think what the vice mayor agreed with my comment. So I believe the way was well, I believe what was what's been recommended is that the the portion of the rent fee that's passed on to the tenant would not be part of that. The rent cap is the way the ordinance in exhibit two, that's what 3180 had included, was that it's not part of the rent the rent cap. It's in addition to. I don't think that it should be passed on the tents at all, but I don't know if there's three votes for that. Okay. So it's. Is there possibly interest in revisiting the the amendments that are contained in Exhibit two? One of the things that we could do is that that list and go through that list and determine which of these amendments might be moot based on the direction we receive tonight and come back with a scaled back, you know , a scaled back list of amendments. And we would combined exhibit two and exhibit three, and perhaps there's an opportunity for the council to revisit if they desire. So you're saying you would do them at staff level? Correct. Yeah. Because if, for instance, I did note on page to paragraph D excuse me, C when is revised the formula for the percentage of rental units for which a no cause termination of tenancy could be utilized? Well, if we're possibly getting rid of no cause terminations, then we don't need to revisit formulas. But that's housekeeping, I think. Right. Staff can do. Okay. Councilmember Vela, then vice mayor. And that's why I think the direction from the majority of the council is essentially to have that staff analysis done and then come back to us. My position would be I don't want that to hold up or get in the way of the just cause or the the rent cap conversation that that these things should be ongoing and standalone. But I think that what makes the most sense from staff's perspective would be to have the council take action on the just cause eviction protections and on the maximum allowable rent increase. Then we know what those ordinances require and we will go back and then tackle the essentially the amendments that are currently in exhibit three and Exhibit two based on the feedback we heard. And we'll, we'll that that list and we'll eliminate things that no longer required based on a future ordinance that has not yet been adopted. So it'll probably lag the just cause and the maximum allowable rent increase by a month or two as we do that staff work. That's great. Are you saying you want us to take action just cause tonight? No, no, no, no. Oh, yeah. We can't even. It's okay. Okay. And even counts. I'm you to clear because you know 3180. I spoke to a lot of landlord groups because I got to run for office last year and over and over and over again, what they said was just cause that's why we put M.K. Measure K on the ballot. They didn't actually they liked a lot of the changes that were in 3180 besides the just cause which they felt right there wrongly came out of in their minds nowhere. And you know, yeah. So I don't want to spend too much time. That's I guess my point is, is they seem to be aware of what was in here. And I never once heard somebody say I didn't like that stuff. I'm sure there are people who don't, but they just don't want to drag it too long. And let's let's put this on so we can do Airbnb and get other things right. From staff's perspective, these were primarily housekeeping, but it probably makes sense if there are new ordinances that we check the amendments against the new policy and make sure we're we're consistent and we're taking care of changes that are relevant. So that I believe that takes. I'm sorry, one more Councilmember Ody. I mean, I'm not going to support changes to those sections, but given that one of our colleagues is actually asked about sections, it would be good if staff is prepared to answer any questions on them and when when the time comes for that presentation. Yes, sure. And go ahead and finish, Miss Potter. And then I what I perhaps there was less clear direction about what how the council wanted to proceed relative to relocation, anything, any kind of changes to the to the the way that the relocation benefit formula is. So I some I'm fine tuning of that could be helpful. So I'll jump in that you and I have discussed this and I know that in September we will get our next annual report on the rent program. And I think it might be the right time to, to consider that then um, I think it sounds like we're biting off quite a bit right now and okay, fine. So, well, yeah, so will incorporate that into the discussion come September. And then lastly, what we are asking for relative to action by the council tonight is to adopt the Ellis Act policy that is included as Exhibit One of the staff report, and I am happy to answer any questions relative to the draft policy. Any questions, Council? This. Mary, I. Have a quick, quick question. There was a concern that was raised about who is going to track. So when somebody pulls something off the off the market and says up off the market. Who's tracking? I mean, how how how do we know? So my problem with the all the data that we talk about is we're only getting self-reported people. We don't know who is actually doing no cause evictions. We just know people who are telling us they're doing no cause evictions, etc.. How do we know that? Because I think I could be comfortable with the two year if I had confidence that we were going to track and that there were going there was going to be real strong prosecution of the fines by the city. But if we're kind of like, well, we're going to do our best, then I'd rather go with the five years and the longer that other cities have. So the one of the biggest changes by adopting a policy is that there will be a requirement that you record against the title of the property that you have done in Ellis Act termination, and you will provide the contact information for the in place tenant. And right now we are essentially complaint based or we track it and we try to phone and calls so we will know with an exact policy. We are recorded against the property and it doesn't get more sort of official or with certitude than to record against title. And we've also have drafted a number of forms that we can that we're going to provide to both landlords and tenants that will track what is in the policy so that both landlords and tenants have documents so that landlords know what to provide to tenants. Tenants know what they need to provide back to the landlords so they can be tracked if they, the unit should come back on the market. So we're thinking that while it's obviously not bulletproof, we think we do have procedures and forms in place that will help. But where right now we really don't have anything to. It's an improvement in terms of data. Yeah, I'd like to hear what my other colleagues think. About any other thoughts. Council members Okay. Carlson, Brody, thank you. It's just that I still prefer the five and ten and you'll have to come back and amend 3.8.1, right. If we change the course, that one talks about the 5% increase. So you'd have to come back and change that if we do other changes. I, I don't know that we would have to change that. I believe that that penalty is independent of the maximum allowable rent increase. We're saying that if the unit is re rented within five years, they can only charge a rent that's 5% higher than the employer. Okay. All right. Councilmember Avila. I would propose that we adopt it tonight if there are changes that need to happen to it afterwards, after we adopt the just cause and some of the other things I think that we can do the closer look, perhaps if we can agenda is that with the just cause because right now we don't have that aspect of it. That's so I would, I would say the motion. Yeah. So I'll make a motion that we, we go ahead and approve it right now as written so that we aren't delaying it, but that we asked the direct staff to have it agendas when just cause comes back. So because this is a resolution that will be effective this evening I understand then so. But we can agenda is it when we agenda. Is just an opportunity to talk about it that. We can talk about it in that way. If there is a proposal from Councilmember o.T or others to make amendments to it, we can do it at that time. Sure. I understand. Like a plan does that a second? Sure. All right. I have a motion in a second. Arm twisting, whatever you want to call it. All in favor. I i. Any opposed abstain. That was unanimous. Thank you very. Much. You and I just want to say a big thank you to Miss Potter for staff, housing authority and staff. You've been doing really heroic work pulling all this together and you are helping protect our tenants. We can do more. I think we will, but we're off to a good start. So thank you so much for your hard work, okay? Yeah. Fuck up. Okay. Now we are going to really quickly do this. I'm six eight. This is introduction of ordinance amending the amended municipal code by eliminating the sunset clause, which would take effect December 31.