Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance to repeal Long Beach Municipal Code Section 8.97 relating to Tenant Relocation Assistance effective December 31, 2019; and Direct City Manager to create a Senior and Disabled Household Security Deposit Assistance Program for qualified lower-income households and identify up to $250,000 in non-General Fund funding for the program. (Citywide)
Actually, 1/2. We're doing that. We'll go ahead and do this 1/1. But we actually did we I think we skipped over item 26. So we're going to that's on this agenda. So we're going to go we're going to come back to item 24 and go back to 26 and another 24. Item 26 Report from Development Services Recommendation to Request City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance to repeal Long Beach Municipal Code Section 8.97 relating to Tenant Relocation Assistance effective December 31st, 2019, and direct City Manager to create a senior and disabled Household Security Deposit Assistance Program. City Wide OC First time to read public comment. If you're here for public comment, please come forward in this order. She's not here. Kieran Reside, Nadia Tushnet, Leanna Noble, Holly Stewart, Myron Wallen and Cynthia think doesn't see us. Please come forward. Are those folks here? Karen Reside, a resident of the First District. The last couple of weeks. I'm going to share stories that what I'm seeing from this relocation fee. The landlords are not telling the tenants about it. I have people coming to me at the senior center. They don't know anything about the relocation payments. The landlords are also not giving them any instructions about it either. Out of six tenants that I've talked to in the last two weeks. Only one person was. Given a piece of. Paper. That mentioned the relocation payment and that they might be eligible. So they have no idea. The landlords are not telling the tenants what this is for. And I'm hoping that this motion is not to. Take away benefits from people that need them very badly and the landlords are still giving out eviction notices. So that's another issue, too. So I hope that we're going to have a discussion that's going to create an opportunity to discuss these elements and come up with some solutions. Nadir Tushnet and I live in the third district. Sorry, Susie. The third district. I am. I do support the $250,000. But in my work with seniors, a lot of them don't even know that it exists. So I think that this needs to be amended and it also needs an enforcement mechanism that landlords need to tell seniors and disabled individuals about the ability to access some money to help them relocate. There are other issues, but this is the one that I keep hearing about. If I'm the one telling people there's something wrong and. I think. That it should be from the city. Thank you. Thank you. Lee and Annabelle. I'm a downtown resident. I'm here also as a member of the advisory board of Libra. And the message is very clear, amend and continue to protect the residents of your city. Do not repeal. Which equals abandoning. The residents of your city. In my downtown neighborhood, there are no less than five buildings in the last. Eight months that have been. Completely empty. That is more than 100 families that were my neighbors. They were kicked out. Something was done to the apartments. It wasn't easy to tell what and the rent was jacked up. So those are a hundred of my neighbors who had been forced out of Long Beach. We have now a good state law. All we need to do is to make that. Law absolutely. Recognized. Here and to keep the current amount and formula that we have for relocation. Benefits. That will put you standing with the majority of the people who live here in our town who are residents. That is what we ask. Of you. Tonight. Thank you, Speaker, please. I was Stewart. Yes. I hope you can hear me okay. My name is Hollis Stewart and I live downtown. Also a gray. Panther. And I belong to a lot of other organizations around here. And I'm here to say that, you know, amend this municipal code, 88.97 instead of, you know, dropping parts of it. Keep us. There is better addiction protection. We just heard from other people from a few minutes ago. By the way, I'm a senior. Citizen of the 80 years old in January. And I care a lot about these things because I see people my age being put out in the street and none of you should be responsible for that because you shouldn't be. The Grinch stole Christmas by getting rid of this protection we need for the people who are under threat. Thank you very much. Keep it amended. Keep it so that people are protected from eviction and from rent increases and keep the money up there so people can relocate when they do have to. Thank you very much. Thank you. Myron Wallace right here. So before Cynthia speaks, Maria Lopez, Alex Flores, Jonathan Gibson and Gretchen Swanson. In that order, please come forward. Ray Lopez is here. Alex Flores, Jonathan Gibson and Gretchen Swanson. Thank you. Good evening. City Council and Mayor Garcia. My name is Cynthia macias and I am a member of the second District and also. The board president for housing Long Beach as a housing advocate who worked in good faith. With this council to pass the tenant below. This past June. Excuse me. To be honest, I'm very disgusted. Is sadly not surprised that you are would deliberately undermine all the hard work of fellow orgs and community members because this is what it looks. Like to us. You all claimed an urgency about keeping families and homes for the holidays and thus passed the moratorium. Was that done just to appease your conscience because you knew. You would repeal. Reload right afterwards? If so, shame on all of you. Of course, except Mary Sun has, because she was not here. But you all have a duty to your constituents, and I hope you do what's best for them, which is amending the Long Beach Reload Ordinance to incorporate state Senate protections in its entirety except to keep the Long Beach hire relocation assistance amounts, do surgery with a. Scalpel, not a hacksaw. And as far as the senior citizens. I work with these senior citizens all the time. And it's not about the money. There's no ADA accessible. Units. For them as well. And we have to think. About the bigger picture. Not just the money. Thank you. Thank you. Relevance, please. Good evening, city council and Mayor. My name is Maria, and in the time of breaking glass ceilings, I'd say I'm undocumented, unafraid and unapologetic. I migrated to Long Beach at the age of three into District one, and now I'm the director of community organizing for housing lobbies and organizing with the Long Beach Tenants Union. I have been connecting with tenants through organizing for the past three years, and one of the biggest wins was our Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. Tenants organized, unified came to council with their stories and their pain, and on June 11th, they took home a win to mitigate displacement for thousands of families in the city of Long Beach. A repeal of such fundamental policy that those directly affected advocated for. On the Week of Homeless Awareness. Veiled itself as a direct undermining of these stories and these families. This is why we asked for an amendment of this policy to keep the promise and commitment to the majority renters city. The amendment is simple incorporate this that the Tenant Protection Act in its entirety at SAP to keep the Long Beach hire relocation assistance amounts as it helps to mitigate the impacts for tenants. This is a common sense approach as it is completely legal feasibly under the TPPA because the amendment ordinance would be more protective than TPA due to its higher relocation assistance amounts. Again, when renters rise cities. Thank you for your support today. And next week or please. Good evening. This is Alex Flores. I'm an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation working out of our Long Beach office. I wanted to talk real quickly about the Tenant Protection Act and the fact that it allows to do it. Most of the speakers have been talking about, which is amend the ordinance. The Tenant Protection Act is clear. It is a floor. It specifically details what a city must do in order to make a more protective ordinance. Section g1b is very clear and it's very easy. What it would require is a city to pass an ordinance with an ordinance which says that they are passing the Tenant Protection Act with no changes, not making it weaker in any way that they're adding something higher like relocation amounts, which is an example already in the Tenant Protection Act itself. And three are binding finding that their ordinance is more protective because of that higher amount. So instead of repealing the relocation ordinance, what the city can do is simply pass that ordinance and make sure that these higher amounts of relocation, which have already capped a lot of tenants that have come into our office in their homes, that those tenants don't lose that protection. Thank you. Thank you. Jonathan. Jonathan Gibson and Gretchen Swanson. Good evening. My name is Jonathan Gibson. I'm a Long Beach resident and a Lafleur's staff attorney. I want to talk a little bit about the city's ordinance and how important it is. It gives two months of relocation assistance, whereas the TPA is a good start, only gives one month. Now, what does this mean for tenants? What we're seeing a lot is these no fault evictions for substantial renovations going through. And with the extra two months of relocation benefits, that means that someone can pay for their security deposit, first month's rent and moving costs. It's so much easier. The TPA, which is simply a four. When someone's facing eviction, these costs mount and this is incredibly important. Just one example we had recently was on Cedar Avenue, where we had tenants who had been living there for 30 to 40 years and they were evicted, but they were able to be given a soft landing by having this extra relocation assistance. And this should continue. It should not be abandoned. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Gretchen Swanson. Before Gretchen speaks, the following folks in the lineup is Ailsa Chang here, Andrea Donato, Myra Garcia and Roberto Lopez and Jordan Wynne who is here. Ailsa Chang. Andrea Donato. Please line up. Myra Garcia and Roberto Lopez and Jordan win in that order. Thank you. Good call. Good evening. Gretchen Swanson, CD2 I am in support of my colleagues who just thought about maintaining and then building on the tenant protective effort here in the city of Long Beach. I want to speak particularly about the older adult and people with disabilities, a portion of it. First of all, the language is old. I was just recognized today by a board of county supervisors for the fact that I'm an expert in keeping older adults safe. So when I come here and look at something that is at best disingenuous, a security fund which they would get back, it boggles my mind that I live in this city that is not addressing the needs. There was a whole group that just walked out of older adults that are disenfranchized from a process of protection. So we need a well defined program, not this security deposit fund, and we need someone to reflect that. We now have a council member who is an expert who has lived the life of housing needs, rental housing needs for people with disabilities. Let's reflect that. Let's use that and do something meaningful. Let's go to older adults and people with disabilities and ask them what they need. Not throw a couple thousand dollars at them and hope that we get that money back. Thank you. Thank you so much of the time. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Ailsa Tang from Long Beach Forward. Now this past spring and summer, housing advocates worked in good faith with this council to pass tenant relocation assistance. And last month we worked in good faith again with this council to enact an eviction moratorium. And we thank you for that. But now we're here to repeal what we all worked so hard to pass. That's not right. Look, the staff report is crystal clear. It says, quote, Generally, the state regulation will apply to more tenants than the city regulation. And the city regulation will require higher relocation payments when it does apply. Indeed, Long Beach tenant rule adopted by this council allows double the relocation than the state to pay. So the solution is to take the best of both worlds. The solution is to amend, not repeal. Amend the Long Beach Ordinance to incorporate the State Tenant Protection Act in its entirety except to keep Long Beach's hire relocation assistance amounts. This is the cleanest and most effective way to comply with both state law and this council's intent to provide two months of relocation assistance to Long Beach tenants , especially those who face no fault evictions due to rehab of their unit. Those families we just protected under the eviction moratorium. Council members. A vote to amend is a vote to protect. A vote to repeal. As a vote to abandon. Do the right. Thing. Thank you very much. I decision not to please next speaker. I'm going to ask the rest of the folks who are here to line up. I know. I see Jordan went into the back after Jordan to be Marlene Alvarado. I think it is Malik Watson, Ivan Garcia and Andrew Montano. And that's the the final closing of the speaker's list is tomorrow. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Andrew L.A. and I'm the associate director of the Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization. And I'm here with the same. Message to all my friends that have spoken. I will just like to encourage you. To step up on the leadership, on renters rights. That's an area looking to. An assistant was the. First to step up. That Long Beach took really long time to protect tenants in in Los Angeles County. We are already talking about the right to counsel there at 3% in rent control cap. And if you like the Long Beach, we are still. Trying to defend the little. That we have. So I highly encourage you to amend what we have to, as they have said, to keep the rates of the relocation assistant and to comply with the state law. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Myra Garcia. We need an. Interpreter. Mr. Modica. I defer to the city clerk on whether interpreted services were requested for today. Why do we keep going? We'll get back to Promises. I thought we had an interpreter. Here, but yeah. There was an interpreter here for the swearing in ceremony. They did not stay for the entirety of the council meeting. We didn't receive a request in the office for a public comment. Well. So what do you want to say? But it comes in the months ahead. Okay, look, we'll do that a minute. Madam Clerk. We can just try to get a solution to that. Thank you. Very little. Hello, many. Hello. I'm Mayor and City Councilman Lopez, project director at Libre, and I am here to speak against the repealing of ten and below. I think a lot of the colleagues have said, you know, that this was a huge victory for tenants, especially for tenants who are already being displaced. And some of the tenants that you helped protect the last like two weeks ago. And at the end, they they'll be affected once again starting January 1st as they will receive the same notices that they received due to substantial rehab. We are asking you to now repeal, but amend the ten and reload to protect the larger group of renters that fall under AB 1482. Stand behind your words from June and continue to protect tenants and your city. The same tenants that you help protect this holiday season will be affected by this repeal. All tenants deserve higher relocation amounts. Long Beach Re Low amounts are unique. Long Beach Unique. The right thing to do is to protect our seniors and also members of our community with disabilities and our tenants. I really do hope that you do the right thing and help protect the tenants of your city, especially the ones that you just recently helped protect. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Hi there. My name's Jordan Winn. I'm a resident of the second district. I want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues and urge you to not repeal this and to instead amend this. I wanted to address two points. One is a personal story. So, as you know, I recently moved from District seven to District two. I recently relocated, and I've been saving up for a while to actually do that. I wanted to focus in on the costs of moving. I moved into a two bedroom apartment and just to move in. It cost about $4,000. And if I were doing that, you know, in one fell swoop, if I was getting evicted, that would be much more difficult than what I actually had to do, which was save up for about a whole year to actually be able to do that. So I'm thinking of the families and people on fixed incomes, people who are working paycheck to paycheck, who are unable to pay for a new place to move, even with. The time that they have in the lower state amount. So this is one of the important reasons that I think. We should consider keeping our local element. The other thing that I want to say is this isn't the only time that. We're going to have to talk about how we enforce TPA and how our. City relates to it and the way in which our policies work around that. We're going to have to figure out enforcement mechanisms. So I think it's much smarter to. Amend rather than repeal. Don't do this haphazardly. Take some time to think about it. Don't throw it in right now and repeal it with. I like the chainsaw metaphor. We need to use a scalpel for housing policy. Thanks so much very much. Our next speaker, please. Marlene Alvarado. Is Venezuelan. Alvarado, District one. Don't repeal. Amend, keep the 2% monthly assistance of $4,500, especially for no fault eviction. If you need to save money because you know. We're going broke. You can take some of that money from the 48% of the budget. For the police department. Because according to 0 to 2000 people. Become homeless with a 5% rent increase. So with the amendment to. Keep the two month assistance, police services will be reduced with the senior and. And deceptively household security assistance program. I would like to know how does a tenant qualify for this program? How will the city ensure this program is rich and benefiting the city's most vulnerable. Seniors and persons with disability? How will the. Funding of this program be sustained over time? Well, the city come to fund the program. In order to leverage state. And federal funds. And I think it's really tacky of you to get rid of the $4,500 assistance program amend don't repeal. Thank you link Watson. Amendment Repeal Amendment bill. I can see. Hello, my name is Malik Watson, a son and a brother to a beautiful seven year old sister. My family and I are familiar to relocating to different areas and it's hard to find a stable home. We've moved to different areas in the city across the country for the past seven years I've lived in the riverside area, but now I'm back in, back in my home city I call home. And I am a part of the education system attending Long Beach Poly High School, even Central Elementary. Now that I've returned, I want to do my part and serve as an advocate for my community. You all yourselves have a connection to the city, whether it be because of your whether it be because of your position or due to your family. Just as much as you care for your family, we ask for you to care for us and amend, not repeal the ordinance for you to the ordinance for you to care for hours and amend, not repeal. Give me give me that. Just as much as you care for your family. We ask that you care for us and amend, not repeal the ordinance and incorporate the Tenant Protection Act, but keep Long Beach Haven relocation assistance amounts. Families are consistently displaced in the city and have difficulty finding another another home. This is why we need to hire relocation amounts to ensure our families remain connected and separated. I kindly request for you to amend, not repeal and keep the high relation amounts to provide justice for communities historically marginalized through racist policy practices. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Ivan Garcia. Hello, Mayor. Hello, Council. My name is Ivan and I live in the First District. And I'm just going to start off by saying we don't need to send more people to live in the streets. We have too many of those people already. And by removing this protection, that would just only create. That effect that we want to. Avoid. Like as many others have said already, we all as a community have worked together to provide protections for these renters. That way, they don't have to save up so much money in so little time that they end up living on the street. And with that, I simply say that we should amend it. And amend it and look more deeply into it and make sure that we don't just repeal and therefore strip the protections away from these people in one fell swoop. And in this, like as someone else has said already, this is actually consistent with the TPA that was passed earlier this year. Therefore, in short, I simply say amend, do not repeal. And that's all for me. Thank you. Thank you. Andrew. Hello. My name is Andrew Montano with Long Beach Forward supporting the best large central Long Beach initiative. Over the past couple of months, I've gotten to witness families come together and pressure council to adopt an eviction moratorium to have them home for the holidays. Arriving at that building, you heard children laughing, crying, playing, saw them gathering around the table. We had set up outside waiting for their plate of food, not realizing the stress their parents were feeling. One of the small feelings of relief came when they realized they had access to an equitable amount of relocation assistance. If you repeal, you are harming those children who were in the arms of their mothers a few weeks ago. Where I'm standing right now, these tenants under our local law are eligible for 3000 to $325. Now, folks want to take that away and leave them with a third of that amount, not enough for a down payment, childcare , new rent, moving costs and many more expenses. According to a recent study, average rents rose 24.6% in a three year period and are likely to continue doing so in the future. And friends are rising and more people are rent burdened. Then the conversation shouldn't be around repealing our local law, but on amending it to incorporate the Tenant Protection Act and strengthening it further with our local relocation amounts and go as far as filling further gaps, like adopting a fresh right to refusal policy like the city of Berkeley to ensure families are able to return to the units after substantial repairs are made, which is the type of no fault notice to vacate that sparked our eviction moratorium. Again, amend, not repealed. Also, there's another another Maria that signed up without. And we're going to go back to her home in San Antonio. Was there a second, Maria, that didn't leave a last name? And my miracle is miracles. Okay, so both. Both ladies, please come forward. Maria and Myra. Good evening, city council and mayor. My name is Maria Dela Cruz. I'm a resident at the district and I was one of the tenants that advocated for the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. This law was the first time I ever saw something that benefit renters and made me happy. I met other renters also fighting, which was powerful and beautiful. Repealing this law will erase this and we don't want that. We also want to be able to keep our relocation assistance amounts as they are higher today. Listen to those tenants like myself that fought for this law and meant to protect tenants and offer more financial financial support. Thank you for your time. I'm halfway through. So when I'm not through with Garcia, I think we need a central district, sort of, you know, if we want to modestly eliminate bazaar, inconveniencing maybe a mutual thing, which clearly, I swear you will not existed. But I mean, if you feel a little familiar. There are corridors of where we need to have it is Gucciardo Doral as Historias de la Familia in Lena Copperfield, Chipperfield Romero Little mural, those competitions as Historias Perabo their powerful installation. Ibaraki is the briefly Carolina city that is killing us all we know Karimov, Jerry Lee Pelosi, Kayleigh MCENANY, Fishkin, but oppo their kiranas countless country that is as he stands here. Being in the housing authority is to be important. Simply get him on with the local guillotine killing all channels for gun control, others locales health protection is there alley cat also chin they those that mean you don't say lethal well Keegan Bailey no no affect a catena seguro socially medical boys UK There were a lot mild already let's get dental health benefits of mutual support would be ample lay and then we won't get emotionally local you cannot give them any capable of killing of Lucero just. Have half of it translated. So the other one I'll do verbatim. Good evening. My name is Myra Garcia. I am a tenant and resident of District two. I was one of the tenants who fought for this law and saw it passed June 11th. It brought me much happiness to know that a law existed for the benefit of families struggling and with low income. It was beautiful hearing the stories of families who are tenants and finally breaking through fear. Everyone shared their stories to pass a tenant reload that reflected the needs of community. Today, we don't want a repeal of our hard work, but we want it. But we do want is for it to be amended so we can keep our amounts dictated by the formula of the housing authority. This is very simple. What we want is to keep our local amounts so that tenants who are struggling can. Can still be protected by the strength of 1482 and our higher amounts. Thank you so much for your time. Again, we want a local policy with the with the protection of the 1482 and the same amount, the Limited Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Guests at a. One thing that that we didn't do as a staff report, which we jumped I jumped ahead to let me apologize for that and turn it over to Mr. Modica to do the staff report and then we'll move forward. And then I think that will clarify for the council kind of where this is at. So. Mr.. MODICA Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the reason that we're here tonight is to really talk about the tenant relocation ordinance, to give you a little bit of a history, and then the staff recommendation on to why we do believe that repeal of the city's local ordinances is in our best interest, and also to create a new program where we really are talking about providing additional assistance to senior and disabled. So on June 11th, 2019, the City Council adopted the Tenant Relocation Ordinance, and that really requires a rental property owner with four or more units to pay relocation assistance between 20 $700 and 4500. If you recall, there was a lot of community discussion that went into that. There were a lot of things that were either included or excluded, depending on all the public input that we heard. Essentially what it boils down to is if you receive a notice of rent increase of 10% or more in any 12 consecutive month, you would be eligible if you received a notice to vacate due to the landlords rehabilitation of the unit, you'd be eligible. And if you were in good standing and received a notice of non-renewal or notice to vacate, it's important to notice. Note that this is a tenant relocation assistance program but does not restrict rent increases and did not require just cause for termination. And so what happened after we passed ours, we spent a good deal of time really crafting something that worked for for our community, as we have seen in the past. When local cities take the lead on these big, big issues, the state often then comes afterwards and and kind of on the heels of a progressive city says, we're going to do something that will be applied statewide. We've seen that happen with polystyrene. We've seen or I'm sorry, with plastic bags, for example. We've seen it happen with minimum wage and that happened here as well. And so the state basically took effect, a bill that's going to take effect January one, 2020, and has two major provisions. Essentially, it prohibits annual rent increases of 5% or more. Plus the change in CPI or 10%, whichever, is lower. And then it also requires that landlords and they only terminate tenancies if they have just cause, which is significantly different than our local ordinance and provides additional renter protections. It includes at fault just cause is the tenant violation of a lease or a no fault just cause where the owner can terminate under a certain requirements. And so the state regulation also includes rent control and just cause provisions, which is significantly more protections for tenants than what the city ordinance had been crafted since it was a different framework. And so the dilemma is that if nothing changes, we're going to have two sets of laws on the books. One is the state law that applies statewide. And then there would be a city law that would basically be superseded in most cases by state law, except for in very slim areas. We do believe that this is going to cause a lot of confusion for both landlords and for tenants who don't know which one applies in which case. And that in general the relocation required under the state is going to apply to more tenants and actually be more money. There are certain instances where the city's ordinance would apply and have a small a an increase, a higher payment amount. And we'll show you what we expect those numbers to be. Just so you can get a sense of the magnitude. So to walk through the finer details, I'd like to turn it over to Patrick here, who will go through a couple of charts on how we believe the ordinances or the laws would work and, you know. Would each work. Thank you, Tom. Mayor and City Council. This chart shows how the city relocation triggers are impacted by the state regulation. The first two triggers of the city's relocation ordinance basically will be rendered inoperable by the state regulation. That is, the relocation upon a rent increase of 10% or greater, or the relocation assistance when a tenant in good standing receives a notice of non-renewal or a notice to vacate. The third city trigger requires a relocation assistance upon removal or relocation of the unit, and that is effectively the only trigger that will be remaining now once the state regulation takes effect. The state regulation offers both rent control and just cause provision and applies to single family, duplex and triplex units. The city regulation effectively applies to apartment buildings with four units or more, but now only two units where tenancy is terminated until rehabilitation. Prior to adoption of the state regulation, about 49,000 units were covered by the city regulation. Based on building permit data that staff assembled. We estimate that 6.75% of rental units in the city are being rehabilitated annually. So the number of units now covered by the city regulation is actually much lower. 6.75% of that 49,000 equates to 3311 units. But in reality, we think that the actual number of units that will be vacated is much less. The state regulation will assist more than 69,299 households. The city. The city regulation includes a requirement that landlords notify the city when entire buildings are are vacated in the first quarter of implementation of the city's policy. That's August through October of 2019. It was reported to us that a total of 45 units were vacated. That is a small sample, but it's the only sample we have. That is true telling of the units that are being vacated in the market. And if you take that 45 unit number and extrapolated over the full year, that would result in 180 units that would likely be vacated due to rehabilitation. That's about 5.5% of the 3311 units. I'll turn it back over to Tom. Thank you, Patrick. So while we are recommending, given those numbers and the way that the ordinances and laws interact, that we are recommending that you repeal it, but we also are making a recommendation that you enhance one particular area that we've really seen through the community conversations as being the biggest area of need. This is an area we would go beyond what the state requires and have a program in Long Beach set up for our seniors and disabled residents who can be, you know, have needs beyond what we believe the state is going to provide. And so what we're requesting is authority to create a senior and disabled security deposit assistance program for qualified lower income households. We are still working on this program. This you would be giving us direction to create it and come back to you with the final funding sources. We expect this to be non general fund but have about $250,000 combined out of federal home dollars, as are housing dollars and the state homeless prevention assistance and housing funds that we will be getting later in 2020. And so we imagine that this fund would be providing assistance to our most vulnerable populations and go beyond the state protections. The exact amount of subsidy and how that would work and where they would come. Those are all things that we're continuing to work on and we would give you a report back. But it was pretty clear the council really wanted to do this in the in the first part, but we didn't really have a mechanism to do it. So this is we've been putting our heads together to get to the goal of what you had said was one of your highest priorities in this. And so the next thing we're asking is the next steps. We are requesting that you tell the city attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance to repeal this code so that it can line up with the implementation date of the state law, which goes into effect January one. So we would repeal as of December 31st, you would direct the city manager to create that fund, that $250,000 fund, identify the funding sources and get that created and underway and report back to you that you would work with the city attorney to prepare the urgency ordinance and bring that back and identify and fund the program that we've talked about. So with that, we are available to answer questions. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, first of all, thank you to the public for coming out and speaking on this issue. It's been a we've been talking about this issue for a long time, and many of you iterated that. And I want to thank staff for really following and being a part of this conversation and picking up where the council wants to go. The conversation here was not about not about removing protections. When we started this conversation, the city manager mentioned this. When we started the conversation, there were no state protections. And as the state developed their protections, there was a, you know, a lot of disarray in the market and in fact, a lot of people. And there was significant interest in having a very clear policy and rules of the road on January 1st of January 2nd, and a very clear policy, the state policy, we did a moratorium to make sure people are protected until that kicks in. And then we're coming in today and the city staff is presented a repeal to go to the state policy in the areas where city staff heard from counsel, from the public that it needs to be enhanced. Seniors and disabled individuals, those you know, we've created a way to enhance one policy with enhance the policy with a local fund. It's not burdened by the public, not administered by the public and by the private sector, but administered publicly now in many ways. And I think I think staff are putting forward the table in many ways. In most ways, the state regulation is superior to our local law. More people are covered under the state law. Our policy does not have a hard just cause backstop. The state has a just cause backstop. That means that it protects more people than what our original Long Beach policy did. It also has a lower threshold on the rent cap. Ours wasn't a rent cap. It was 10%. But it wasn't a cap. If you pay higher than that, you have to pay reload. There is a cap in the state of 5% and it's a period in many ways for renters and what we have here locally. So the narrative of this is a take away. It is not. Now, the public has done a really good job in educating us on some some, you know, areas where, you know, we might need to do more work. The rules of the road here are about clarity. So the recommendation is to is to repeal. Now, as a part of the second part, where it says create a senior disabled household security deposit program. That's where the enhancement is and that's where the really the opportunity is. So on, you know, in the staff report, the line just below table, it says, as can be seen above, the city wrote The city regulation in the higher reload amount will only apply when it is asked to vacate due to rehabilitation. That's a narrow there's a universe and we did a little work. It's not really a big group of people. It's a small group of people that we that we know that would receive essentially one month of rent in the new law instead of two months. Right. And that's not what the intention was here. Right. So so I must recommendation. I'm going to ask Rich and I had a conversation when we looked at and we found these are the very people who brought this issue forward. The idea wasn't to cut you out the ideas we know we want to expand the protections to everybody and be under one law that a conversation the mayor had a conversation with rich about is it a way to make sure that what that difference is and that very narrow universe we're talking about can this find can actually can we bring back options, bring back a solution for this fund to help people under that very narrow scenario? We still have one policy. The rules of the road are the same, but we add an additional enhancement. Can we bring back options for that rich. Mayor and council members? We certainly can. And I, in turn, have had a conversation with staff to ensure that that is something that we can do. So basically the direction, as I understand it, Council Member Richardson is in addition to an enhanced program for the elderly and the disabled. As staff recommended. Staff should also look into the addition of a city funded, enhanced either relocation payment or security deposit assistance for people that received re low under the state program because they received notice of termination of tenancy due to rehabilitation. We would effectively be trying to address through a city administered program and I'm sorry I'm going on long, but I want to be clear so everyone knows exactly what we're talking about. We would effectively be trying to address through a city administered program the exact people that would otherwise be getting a smaller relocation payment due to this repeal. In our initial sort of review of where the gap is and where the staff report is really a very narrow group. And so if we can make sure that that group moving forward has access to that fund, so they essentially receive the same amount, whether it's in the form of down payment assistance or not down payment, excuse me, running issue in the form of security deposit assistance or in the form of a reload. We want them to be able to have the same amount and we want that to be a part of the fund, not something that we pass on to the landlord. Exactly. That's something I think we can do. Let me let me clarify one thing to just just to be sure. I think what's important here and I want to I want to just echo something that that Councilman Richardson said is the state policy in in 99% of the time is going much further than what we obviously adopted as a as a city. And what there is a and in fact, I know that some folks had mentioned that the state re low amount is less than the city amount. That only is the case in a very, very narrow piece of that whole pie. In fact, dramatically more people will get the higher reload payment that the state has than the than the city currently allows for. And so I think what Councilman Richardson is describing is there is a very small piece of the pie. It could be, you know, and obviously, depending looking at the numbers, it could change year to year. But it's always going to be a very small group of folks that in the current system of repeal would receive a different tenant reload benefit when in fact a vast majority of folks would almost all the time receive much more of the tenant reload. I just want to clarify that we think that is correct and. And so I think what what Councilman Richardson is describing is that it could be and you and I have discussed this number. This number could be as low as ten folks a year. It could be one building, but it happens in a certain year, could be 40 units a year. It's really dependent. It could be higher than that depending on what the building size is. But it's really on this issue of what do what does rehab on the tenancy issue and how that's affected by the higher we low amount . Is that correct, Mr. Modica? Yes. So that's our understanding as well. I think that was well put that we really don't expect that portion of the city's law to to come into effect that often. We can certainly look at the request to modify and add those people who would be affected there into the $250,000 fund. I do want to point out that the way that we have identified some the resources for this, it can't be used for tenant reload. It is done for housing assistance for qualified households. So we would take them and put them into the as a as an area of of eligibility provided they meet with those funding sources. Or if we find that that's not a case, we'll have to come back to you on a different approach on how to fund that. And I think, again, the request, as simple as just how do you address that, that small sliver of folks. We want to make. That small sort. Of come home. We don't want. I think you're right. I think that's I think we're on the same page. There are contractors. Thank you. Sorry that came up fast. You guys are still talking. So I want to I want to say to the residents that are here today that this item, when we talked about it ago, that it was never an intent to remove protections, remove dollar amounts, or to loosen protections again, for for renters. And so I think when these items move forward quickly, that often we it takes us all a little bit of time to make sure that we understand what we're all talking about, that we all understand what the state policy is, what it is that we have in the books on the city side. And so I'm going to ask just a couple of more clarifying questions. So the mayor just recapped the fact that the state ordinance covers more people, and that is, in fact, true. Yes. Yes. And the dollar amount of reload for the majority of people. It was a comment was made from the audience that it was only one month's rent. Can you or Patrick talk through what is a very low amount for the state and what is it that we have on the books right now for the city? And I know that that Councilmember Richardson is addressing this. I just want to make sure we ask and get clear answers. Councilwoman Mongo, the state's policy. Go for it. I'm sorry. I've never. I've never. Never. Go ahead. The state's policy offers one month's rent for relocation assistance. And so that would depend on the month, the rent that the tenant is actually paying and the unit that they're living in. So we don't know exactly what that is, but we do know what average rents are in the city. The city's relocation schedule is $2,706 for a studio apartment $3,325 for a one bedroom. Apartment $4,185 for a two bedroom apartment and 40 $500 for a three bedroom apartment. And it caps at 40 $500. And can the city attorney talk through for me the urgency of this item? Certainly. So to be clear, and I think it was clear in the staff report, but if this item, if you give direction to bring this item back next week as a repeal and an urgency ordinance, it would not immediately become effective with the intention, of course, I think by everybody is to ensure tenant protections through the end of December 31st until 1482 comes into effect. So if you do not adopt it as an urgency ordinance, then I think you're defeating one of the purposes of repealing, which is to not have two competing relocation regimes at the same time. If it's not an urgency ordinance because of the requirements of the city charter, the repeal wouldn't take effect until sometime in mid to late January. And so for that margin of time between January 1st and whenever it became effective in late January, it would be quite confusing for tenants and landlords. There would be two different relocation regimes that they would have to comply with. That is, in effect, why we're requesting urgency. One more question. The Long Beach ordinance that we had passed, we had asked for notification pieces. And I'm just wondering, are those are we intending on those staying in place or will we have to return at a later date to ensure not only notification of buildings that are being rehabbed, but also I know that staff worked for a long time on making sure we had notification that would be provided to tenants about their rights and that we had asked landlords to provide that. Would a staff see that landing right now? Well, our current ordinance still does. Still does that. But if it gets repealed, we have a lot of information on our website that could be enhanced to explain in greater detail what the state's regulation entails and includes. And I believe in terms of the rights of all that, that has already happened. So we put a lot of that information out already, I believe. So that has, you know, that that's. An ongoing process, right? I mean, you've got new people that move in. You know, we want to make sure that our landlords have that information. They're providing it to their tenants as well. And lastly, AB 1482 has notice requirements as part of. It as we had additional ones that I, I know there's a reason why we're trying to keep it simple tonight. And I know there there are a lot of things and I. It's frustrating because I know that we've had lots of conversations and for me tonight was supposed to be about following the state and then making sure that we kept in place all the things that Long Beach said we wanted to do. And so I'm trying to understand tonight for being able to make this vote and understand what next things need to happen to make sure we don't go back on our word after all the months of work that we've done. That's why I'm putting us through asking these questions. There were other notices, notifications around credit reporting around renters insurance. Those little things that I think were only really important to me. And I just wanted to know, do I need to come back with an ordinance to request some of those items? Now, as I recall. Those items that you requested. I remember you doing that were not to be part of the ordinance and they're not part of the ordinance, those that was direction that the rest of the council supported to give the staff that correct. And the information didn't. Need to be in the ordinance, but something that we will continue to do. So those were in the information sheets that were sent out and those will continue to be available. Yes. My last question is, when, Patrick, you were given the presentation, you talked about the steps that needed to happen, set out in G, one, B, which was pass the ordinance and possibly add a higher threshold that the city wanted to in a binding ordinance. In the recommendations that you guys have in front of us that says request the city attorney to prepare to repeal that it's got the senior disabled fun prepare emergency ordinance and then again disabled fund. Do we need to take a vote to do anything to make sure that the state policy is in fact adhered to in the city? Because that's what it sounded like when you gave the presentation at the beginning. If I may, Councilman Pierce. No, I don't. I think the answer is no. The city does not need to do anything to ensure that a 1482 is effective in the city of Long Beach. I mean, it will be okay. I just from the staff presentation, I thought that there was an action that we had to take. No. And so what I want to make very clear for the residents constituents is that. Where. There is a policy on the books, that is just cause, which is something we couldn't get done on council. So there's more rights. There is tenant rela, although it is not the same amount that we had talked about. And then there is a proposal on the floor to make sure that for that small subgroup of people that are been in rehabs have enough money to get them whole as well. And so I it's a tough vote. I'm going to vote yes tonight. But I want to make it clear that there are still rights and there is still relocation and that we possibly have work to do in the future. So that that is what I just wanted to ask those questions and make sure that everybody was clear, because I know a lot of us had conversations beforehand and there was there's no reload, there's no protections, and there are protections and we we can do more. And I think that we will do more. And so I just I want to thank all of our advocates for continuing to be brave and come out. Thank you. Thank you. Council member members, please. Gordon, cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. We're moving on now to item 22, please. We've read item 2224.