Recommendation to direct City Attorney to prepare an urgency ordinance amending Long Beach’s COVID Eviction Moratorium (LBMC 8.100) and The Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach Moratorium on Section 8 terminations in the following three ways, to align Long Beach’s COVID tenant protections with the County and City of Los Angeles: (1) extend the moratorium date from May 31, 2020 until August 31, 2020; (2) extend the amount of time to repay rent from six months to twelve months; and (3) add provisions to address tenant harassment. These proposed amendments would apply to residential and commercial tenancies; and direct City Attorney to bring this urgency ordinance back, with these revisions, to the Council for consideration at a special meeting on or before May 26, 2020.
Okay. Thank you. We're going to our final item, which is item 13. Please read that item. Communication from Councilmember Pearce. Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilmember Urunga. Council Member Richardson. Recommendation to direct city attorney to prepare an emergency ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal or amending Long Beach on beaches, COVID Eviction Moratorium and the Housing Authority moratorium on Section eight terminations for consideration at a special meeting on or before May 26, 2020. Okay. Thank you. I believe we're starting here. The maker of this initial motion is Councilmember Pearce and then we'll go through the queue. Right. Thank you, Mayor. And stop. What you have before you is an additional step that we felt like we needed to take, given the current situation that we have with COVID. Obviously, we know that our state and our federal government and our city is doing a lot to try to provide resources to residents, to small business owners , to property owners in this difficult time. And I think when we started this process, we didn't understand how long it would be or how difficult it would be. But that is really settling in right now. We know that the state and the federal government is working hard to make sure that we have unemployment benefits for many of those people that have applied for unemployment. But we also know that many people have not received any unemployment checks even after applying for eight or nine weeks. And that that is just part of this bureaucracy that we're in. We know that some people have yet to receive their income from the federal government. The stimulus check also part of the bureaucracy that that we have. And I'm not just making those blanket statements, and I will share that. I know half of my building has not received their unemployment checks, and I will share publicly that I am one of them as a council member. As you guys know, we are we do not make full time income. And due to COVID, I no longer have a second job. And I applied very early and I have not received one of those unemployment checks even though it's been greenlighted. So I share this with personal experience. This motion, this item was really written to make sure that we protected those that are most vulnerable and that when we govern for those that are most vulnerable, we know that that everybody will thrive. But the item was really to the point. And so I want to share with everyone that it is my hope that today we are collaborative on this council, that we take into account all of the comments that we've received. I know that I've received about 100 plus letters about concerns for this item, and I've received around 100 probably plus by this time, support letters for this item. When the original item was drafted, it was very different item than what we have in front of us today. And I know that that item is out there, that people have seen it. And so they know that this original item included a very long period for the moratorium that it said that it would go until the state of emergency was over. The item that you have in front of you says, 90 days before we got to 90 days, we were going to push for 120 knowing that we would probably negotiate down. And I'm sharing this with you because I believe that the 90 days that's in this motion is really important to make sure that we create stability for our residents, stability for our landlords. It's stability for everyone that's in this situation so that we know what to expect and we can focus on other things, like advocating for more resources at the state and federal level. So I know that there will likely be some discussion on this. This is one area that I plead with my council colleagues to really be mindful that this council, if we're going to bring this back every two weeks, it is going to be exhaustive. And I don't know about the rest of you guys, but these meetings are definitely heavy. And as much as we can do to to manage that workload, not only for ourselves, but for the residents of the city and property owners, I think it would be important. The second part of this item originally, you know, it has 12 months for deferment of payment. I have some comments to make about that. Let me see if I want to stop my comments and actually make my motion. My context is really saying that I would want to work with everybody, but I want us to be mindful of the impacts and know that is my hope that at the end of this item, at the end of this vote, that we have not only support for our tenants, but support for property owners. And so before I make my motion, I do have a couple of questions for our economic development team. I think that John is still on the on the line. And my question for for John from economic development, before I get into my motion is, can you share with us some of the programs that you are currently advocating for and some of the ideas that you have around support for property owners? As we know that if a tenant's not paying rent, that's impacting that property owner. But we as a city only can can do so much to support them. So stop. That's a question for you. Yes. Good evening. Mayor and city council members, thanks so much. Yes. So so in economic development, we always look at tenants, landlords and lenders, everybody who's involved with providing shelter, space, etc., because everybody seems to have both an asset and a liability that's in play. And so when we think about tenant protections, we also think about the landlords who may also have a mortgage or they may have a construction loan, or they may have some sort of other liability that they have to also care for, and that also affects their their lenders. So we have been looking at the economic development department at both how what programs are available for for tenants in terms of of rent support relief. Obviously, we're working with our partners and development services on potential HUD funding that will help with rent relief and in protecting tenants so that they can pay rent. There are some programs at the county level as well. Funding that's coming down from the federal and state government. And then, of course, through our Workforce Development Agency, we provide a portion of rent relief through some of the Employment Development Department benefits when it comes to the landlords and the lenders. There actually are a number of programs that came with the Federal Cares Act and they have to do with everything from tax abatement, new programs that help to relieve caps on the the tax benefits that a landlord might have with regard to operating losses that they can carry forward and get credit for in those those programs. There's about six that we're looking at specifically because some of them are a bit complicated. They're buried in the CARES Act and we want to bring them out and surface them for for both landlords and lenders so that they're aware of of what's available to them, even if it is something that comes as a benefit at the end of the year or as part of their tax filing. But the other thing that we're also looking at, which has been a little bit more difficult, of course, is loan programs that might also be available to property owners in the city of Long Beach, believe it or not. We have thousands of business licenses that are for people, business owners who are in real estate. So they either own maybe a residential building could be anything from one unit to dozens of units or in commercial real estate, it could be a very small or very large building. So they have to have business licenses. And we've been working with our partners at the federal government to try and find ways that we might be able to adjust those programs and make those loan programs also available to property based business owners. So there's a little bit of a range there, and it covers everything from loans to tax credits and possibly even some legislative changes. So I'll stop right there and I'll stick around for questions. Thank you, John. Okay. So I. I want to go ahead and I appreciate that. I'm going to go ahead and make my motion so that the floor can discuss it. So I move as follows. To extend the current eviction moratorium and rent deferment period for 90 days to August 31st, 2020. Extend the current deferral rent repayment program to August 31st, but also include benchmarks that require tenants that encourage tenants to pay at least 30% deferred rent by February 28, which is six months after the beginning of the repayment period, and at least 60% deferment by May 31st, which is nine months after the deferment period. This language needs to be included in the preamble and not in the ordinance. The third is direct the city manager working with the city prosecutor and the city attorney as necessary to bring back a report in in June on the anti tenant harassment best practices in other California jurisdictions. So I want to be clear, this is different than what's been agenda and really trying to get us to a good spot sooner rather than later and saving us a long night with this. So number four is to exclude the following commercial tenants from the extension of the current eviction moratorium ordinance. Multinational companies. Publicly traded companies. Companies with 500 or more employees are definitely open to exploring if that's the right number. The 500 or more employees is set as a small business standard at the national level, even though in Long Beach we tend to think that that number is smaller, say 100 or even 50. So I look to my colleagues to see if that is, in fact the right number. D all tenancies and sub tenants managed by the airport. All tenancies and sub tenancies managed by the harbor department. Number five, direct city staff to work with the airport tenants on a case by case basis to address COVID related impacts and negotiate appropriate rent, deferments or other accommodations in accordance with the FAA grant assurances and other regulations applicable to the airport. Number six, encourage the Board of Harbor Commissioners and the executive and the chief executive of the Harbor Department to work with the harbor tenants on a case by case basis to address COVID related impacts on tenants and negotiate appropriate rent deferments to other accommodating in accordance with the Tidelands Trust and other regulations applicable to the harbor. This motion has been reviewed by the City Attorney and I believe is a motion that addresses many of the concerns that I've already heard. I would like to say that that I'm open to hearing council comments and possible friendlies, particularly on the these the commercial tenant exemptions and some of the other components. So thank you, everybody. I want to thank my colleagues for signing onto this item. We know that this is not the easiest things we've ever done, but really trying to strike a balance to support keeping our small businesses and keeping our tenants that really make Long Beach the place that we all love and call home. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I have a list. Of course. Let me go through that Councilwoman and dance. They also like to second that motion and yes, thank you. STAFF Thank you, Councilmember Pearce, for bringing this very important and very hard item forward. As as Councilmember Pearce said, this is very delicate. It is a time right now that we are experiencing that we haven't experienced before. And as we want to find relief for our tenants that are being left without jobs and without an income coming in due to either of directly related to COVID 19 or indirectly related, we also find ourselves struggling because we also need to help out our property owners who are renting renting this out. So I think that the motion has been very, very thought out. Thank you for working with staff on this. Thank you for everybody coming together and trying to really put something forward that will that will help our city move forward. And one of the things that I wanted to comment on is we really want to make sure that everyone knows that this is not we're not supporting a rent free couple of months. You know, this is to evaluate the the condition that we are in right now and to postpone the payment. So I want to make it very clear that this is not a rent free ordinance or motion, but rather is something to bring a little relief to those tenants who find themselves without jobs. One of the things that I would recommend also, and I don't know if we have to add it in as of friendly or something like that, or if it it just comes down to the individual property owners. But I would like to see something that kind of guarantees that the rent will be paid to those property owners, whether it's in the form of a contract with your landlord or something, just to give you know, just to give the the property owners also a. Some kind of peace that they will be receiving the rent from their tenants. I think the that here this motion is for all of us to work together moving forward and I'd love to hear with all my other colleagues have to say on this. Thank you, Councilwoman. Council woman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, that I have for Councilwoman Pierce. Councilman Pierce. Councilman Price here. You sound very far away. Oh, okay. I'm right here. Is that better? Hello. Yes. Okay. Councilmember Pearce, I wanted to just clarify the. Partial payment provisions that you laid out. Can you repeat those for me again? Because I think I missed it. And also, you want those in the whereas clause, not in the ordinance. Yes. I'd like them in the warehouse clause, not in the ordinance, due to the fact that we I worry that if a tenant is paying full rent and we say that they need to have something paid by a certain amount of the repayment. That they might be able to be evicted if they like. If their rent's $2,000 a month and they're supposed to pay 20 to a month in their repayment period and they only pay 2000. I want to make sure that they're protected legally. And that was one of the concerns that that Rich and our city attorney's office had brought up and said that if we put it in the preamble, that it helps as guidance. So I think I'll reread it for you. I think that would be a great hope to be able to say if we put this in the preamble and then say, you know, that if these if these measures are not met, that then the tenant and the landlord need to negotiate a repayment plan outside of these standards. There's an agreement there, and I know that we've talked about that the last time this item came up. So now that we've had some time to kind of sit with it, so I'll reread it. Extend the current deferment payment period until August 31st, but also include benchmarks that require a tenant to pay 30% of deferment. Six months after the beginning of the repayment period and 60% nine months after the beginning of the repayment period. Okay. All right. So let me go through the ones that I think might be relatively non-controversial. And then and then I'll I'll share with you my thoughts on the partial payment and see if we can have them accepted as friendlies. If not, then I will probably make a substitute. But let me just start with the things that I think are kind of non-controversial. Well, first, let me just start by saying that I think. As a matter of fact, objectively. Everybody. Everybody. Has been impacted by COVID. And from a financial standpoint, I would say that most everybody in our city has felt the impacts financially. Regardless of the category that we put them in. I believe that COVID has impacted everybody. So when we're looking at helping, you know. What? Like you said, Councilwoman Pierce. Governing for those most vulnerable. Well, in this situation, it's a really unusual situation because the category of folks we generally refer to as most vulnerable, that category has really expanded a great deal. And I will I'll share with you and I know I've shared this with my council colleagues that my husband and I, our first time small business owners, it was a dream of my husband's. We both work full time jobs, still day jobs. But he always wanted to own his own business. So we took a whole bunch of savings that we saved over a number of years, and we invested in a small business. We were not even at a point where we were breaking even when COVID happened. And so while we are grateful for the deferment programs that are available. We also realized that that back rent is going to have to be due at some point. And for us, that's in the 15 to $20000 range, depending on how long the closures last. But at this rate, we're already above 10,000. We have no idea how we're going to be able to make such a huge balloon payment. And I'm sharing with this this with you personally, because you can't get a small business loan in today's day and age without attaching some personal assurances to it. And so it's not as though we can just not pay rent and walk away and not have our our own mortgage and our own income. Personal affected. And I share that with you only because I believe that the most vulnerable community today in terms of the definition, has really expanded. And so when we when we help one group, we really have to think about how that impacts another group and how that impacts their ability to pay their bills because everyone's ability to pay their bills has been impacted. So a couple of things that that I want to include or ask you if you'll accept a friend. Leon is. Well, first of all, in regards to some of the exemptions for commercial property tenants, I would also like to exempt that when it's in the Tidelands area. Because I think the Tidelands Fund is an enterprise fund that's very different than any other fund that we have in the city because we have a fiduciary duty to the state regarding how we spend that money and and really having a direct oversight into the programs. And so I would ask that tidelands tenants be included in the exemptions, but I would ask that the city manager and his team be involved in negotiating mitigation or deferment. Contracts or agreements with the tenants on a case by case basis so that they could limit the scope of the application. We want to make sure that businesses or operations that were already suffering prior to COVID are not taking advantage of COVID related mitigation efforts in order to gain further benefits or further deferment. We want to make sure that the COVID related legislation in terms of deferment, is related to a specific time period and that it's not broader than it needs to be for the Tidelands area, specifically because we have a fiduciary duty to the state. So is that a friendly that you would accept? It is a friendly that I would accept. And I just want to clarify, too, that a few weeks ago we also gave counsel and we gave city manager direction to negotiate with each lessee that the city had overall. So we also have that in place. But yes, I accept that. Friendly. Okay, great. The other thing I want to do, and this goes back to the concept of like, look, I think my husband and I would be definitely considered part of the vulnerable community that you've outlined. But I think because because we are tenants. And by the way, I also want the record to reflect that before voting on any business related legislation through the city of Long Beach, I sought and received an opinion regarding my ability to vote on any business legislation in the city of Long Beach. And I renewed that FEC opinion just a few weeks ago, and it was determined from a legal standpoint that I fall under the public generally exception, since any legislation that we would be involved in would benefit a large number of businesses and not mine specifically. So I just wanted to put that out there for the record. But anyway, going back to that, I realize that when we have tenant protections and tenant relief that we put into place, it impacts property owners. And so one of the things I'd like to do is to ask our economic development team, and I'm offering this as a as a friendly to create a to evaluate creating a revolving loan fund for property owners who may have been impacted by COVID so that we can offer them funds through a loan through the city of Long Beach in order to help them with some of their payments. And I want to make sure that that's okay with you as an amendment. Absolutely. It's actually something that I forgot to mention earlier says perfect. Okay. I also want to ask staff as a friendly amendment to come back to council by the June 2nd meeting with a report on what options are both for foreclosure relief for homeowners. Housing providers and property owners. Is that something you're willing to accept? It is something I'm willing to accept. And if I might counter, I think on top of having the staff bring back a report, it might be also helpful to direct the legislative committee to advocate for policies that would extend any forbearance past the 60 days, whether it's for property loans or construction loans, but to really make sure that we in the city are using our resources to to advocate on behalf of them as well. So I'm open to that. And I think that we can go one step further and having our legislative team work on it as well. Okay. Well, that takes me to my next one. And that would be a report from city staff on the status of SB 939, which helps businesses renegotiate leases due to COVID impacts. Reevaluate AB 828, which prohibits foreclosures and AB 2501, which creates long term forbearance and prohibits foreclosures and auto repossessions. So I'm hoping that you will accept the amendment that staff report back on June 2nd on these three legislative initiatives so that our state legislative committee can take those up once they've received some initial information about these bills. I think those are great additions. Yes. Okay. And this is Tom. I just want to point out, we're going to have to put those on supplemental, because we would have to have the reports done in two days to get them up. And we will do our best to, you know, bring what we can within the week. And that would be fine with me, Tom, since they're really report items, they're not voting items and they're not ones that we're going to need to do extensive outreach on before taking legislative action at this juncture. So that would that would be fine with me. The first the final it's not the final amendment, but the final amendment in this category is I'd like staff to report back to council on June 2nd on any property tax relief measures that are being considered or have been voted upon in regards to deferment of property taxes by the County Board of Supervisors. Just an update. Did I lose you? Councilmember Pearce, did you hear that? I support that. Yes, absolutely. Okay. All right. So thank you for that. In regards to so now these are these are the ones that we might not have a meeting of the minds on, although I hope we do. In regards to the extension, I'm I'm agreeable to the extension. However, we are starting to see more and more businesses open back up, which means more and more people are getting. Jobs back, hopefully. And so rather than extending this until August, I would propose that we follow the county's model and extended until June and then June 30th, and then have a report back every 30 days following June 30th, so that we as a council can make a determination as to whether we want to continue the rental eviction moratorium. Um, so I appreciate the the gesture, I would say. Let's talk a minute. Just about the 30 day versus the 90 day. I understand that the county has done 30 days, and that was for areas that did not currently have a moratorium in place and for unincorporated areas. The city of L.A. has 90 days after the state of emergency is lifted. I do agree that there are some businesses that are reopening. But we what I've experienced in my district and I have three retail shops on Fore Street alone who have had landlords tell them, you're allowed to do curbside pickup now, so you need to pay your full rent next month. This is something that is very challenging for them because curbside pickup for a clothing store is not something that is necessarily bringing back business. Right. People like to come in and try on clothes, etc.. I think that it. That it would be so much more beneficial if we did 90 days. So that and with the change that we can come back in 30 like if we did 90 days and we said every 30 days before that 90 days, we had a brief report from staff on it. I'd be open to that. But I I'm trying to create stability for tenants and for landlords so that every month we're not re opening it up for a vote again. So maybe let's let's hear from I, I know that there's always a risk of a substitute substitute, but I really would like to just hear from the council colleagues. And if you need to make a substitute, then you could do that. But 90 days is a hard part for us because we've already changed it back from the original 120 that we were going to put on the on the motion. So. Okay. And then the the other. So I'm I'm taking that as a no at this point. At this point. Okay. All right. So what about 60 days? 60 days is definitely better than 30. Is that still a no? I would very much like to hear from. You know, let's. If we did 60 days and then at 60 days, we that staff brought it back for us to evaluate at that time what we wanted to do. But the idea of a solid jeopardizing it, like one of us having to agenda is it every time that the time limit comes up, I think puts a lot of political pressure on everybody and really is exhausting versus having staff bring forward and saying here's the state of the of the COVID situation. Now Council, you can vote to extend it or not extend it. So. Right, Captain? Yeah. Yeah. Bring it back on the road. Yeah. Staff brought it back two weeks before the 60 day, and then we could have a vote at that time on what we needed to do. I would support that. Okay. And then the the final one that I want to add on here and I need to pull it up because I wrote it out on a piece of paper this morning. And and it's it's for the partial payment. I'll just tell you right now, I'm going to be a no unless we can include partial payment as part of the 12 month extension. So we're not going to extend. That was part of my motion. Councilmember Price, that you asked me to repeat. But I think you wanted it in the whereas, not in the ordinance. Yes. And if we if we could maybe turn to the city attorney and ask him for some clarification on on why that is. That'd be helpful. Sure. I always love hearing from a Chinese. If we can hear from Rich Anthony, who has helped us on this, that would be helpful. Tom, do you know if Rich's. I'm sorry. I'm here. Sorry. This is rich. Um, I had to do this da thing. It took me a while. I apologize. That's okay. Okay. So I take the request by you, Councilmember Pierce, to put the benchmarks, as I call them, or the partial payments in the preamble to mean it is something we're encouraging people to do, but it is not required. You just want to go on record as you think that would be a good idea. But it's not required and it's it's not enforceable more or less. And I think Councilmember Price is saying is that she would like it to be. I have I have no opinion on whether it ought to be enforceable or just a soft encouragement. That's up to you all to hash out. So my my question for you, which was based on our conversation when we were putting this together, was if we put it into the ordinance. What could happen if, say, a tenant does not pay that 30% by the six month period? Would they be at risk of eviction or at risk of additional harassment? Oh, they'd be at risk of of eviction. I don't know that they would have already been harassed and been at risk of additional announcement. I mean, know, if it's a requirement, if it's a benchmark requirement, then yes, if they fail to make that payment, they would immediately be at risk of eviction. And that and that councilmember price is the part that is difficult for me because I know that, you know, as a tenant and I think we talked about this last time, everybody wants to try to pay as much as they can so that they don't end up being evicted and that they're not taking advantage of the system . So trying to strike that balance in between supporting landlords, getting what's what's due to them, but also not putting somebody at risk of saying that if you don't make that payment by that first time, then maybe they have, you know, a tax check that's coming in or, you know, as somebody that lives on very low income, it might be that they can make a bigger payment down the road. Something happens. And so I would hate to put them in a situation where they they might be able to make the nine month, but they couldn't make the six month. And therefore, now they're evicted because of something that wasn't necessarily their fault. And so. That's right. That's why it's it's tricky. Right. And I get that. I think I think it just might be and I may be right. I may be wrong. I don't know. But it just may be that philosophically we may not agree on whether we want this to be a soft encouragement or part of the ordinance. So with that, I'm going to make a substitute. My substitute is going to be that that there will be a repayment period that will be extended from six months to 12 months, but that the repayment schedule will look as follows 10% owed at the first quarter. 25% owed at the second quarter. 30% owed at the third quarter and 35% owed at the fourth quarter. And that allows for an easy ramp up in the event that a tenant is not able to make these partial payments. That tenant upon providing proof. And documentation of their inability to pay. She'll request relief from the payment plan. And will not have to pay those partial payments upon submission of proof or documentation. So that's the first part of the substitute. The second part of the substitute will be that the. Moratorium on rental evictions will be extended until June 30th, with staff to bring the item back three days following June 30th for the. Oh. I'll wait. Whether it will be, I'm sorry, on June 30th. On June 30th, the Council will receive an item at the at its the meeting closest in time to June 30th to evaluate whether it shall extend the moratorium and not 30 days into the month of July and every 30 days from that point on, the Council can reevaluate. In my substitute, the Tidelands Fund exemption that we discussed, the revolving loan fund that we asked city staff to look into for property owners and housing providers. The foreclosure resolution, foreclosure relief options that we asked for staff to report back on the legislative actions that are pending in the state. Foreclosure relief. The property tax proposal is being evaluated by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. And I do not want. This anti-harassment clause that's in here or this I realize that was no longer part of the. But I do I'm not putting any sort of report back on that because I believe it's fraught with all sorts of legal landmines . So with that, that's my substitute. Okay. Substitute. Is there a second on that? Is there a second on that? Supermodel second. Okay. Thank you. Next up is Councilwoman Mongo. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. Councilman Mongo. That's correct. Councilman. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of additional questions. Thank you for the questions that have been brought forward so far. I see that there are some instances that have been brought to my attention where landlords out of a. Significant amount of caution when taking on tenants requested in the commercial world, proof of six months of reserves before providing a lease to imports. And that there are. Tenants who are choosing even though they have the reserves not to pay. And I don't know what the solution might be, but I would be interested in knowing a little bit more about. Councilman Price, in your preamble, is there still a significant encouragement for those that can't afford to pay to pay fully because there are ripple effects to some of these non payments that are detrimental, especially in our commercial markets where they're not backed up by loans from Bank of America or Wells Fargo or any of the commercial organizations who are offering some of this relief. Yes. I'm personally very familiar with that that predicament for commercial tenants. Yes. I think if if you can. I would like that to be included in the preamble, in the whereas clauses that those who can pay should be encouraged to pay. The other benefit of that as these balloon payments are impossible, impossible for commercial tenants and residential tenants to be able to meet. So encouraging, highly encouraging payment and partial payment, I think should be included. Also in a particular case or two where I was discussing the return of a particular employee, and she had said that she's in a very tough spot because of childcare issues and other things, but that she was actually more money. Through current unemployment with the supplemental than she was before. And so. This Mummy friend of mine had mentioned to me, she said, you know, I'm kind of thinking about not paying my rent because I don't have to. But I do have the money. But what if I need it three months from now or six months from now? So I really do appreciate the. Security that we're giving and giving a specific amount of days. But I would really like to also encourage that if your income has not been impacted, that you're strongly encouraged to pay. And and even I don't know what to put in there. Maybe that's one place you have some ideas, but. The landlord that they have may not be able to pay their rent. And here is someone who could pay their rent and or they could be paying to a corporation that owns apartments, who then has to lay off a bunch of employees because the rents aren't coming in. So I just don't know. How to how to solve for some of these problems that are real, that are causing these rippling effects. And there's so much fear of what tomorrow will be or how long will be closed. Will we be closed for six months? 12 months? 24 months. People are scared. I've seen holes out there that there are some that support indefinite closures. And so there's this insecurity about payment. What what are your thoughts? Council on Price. I haven't thought about that. I think those are all very valid points. I'd be open to anything that you want to include in that. I mean, I think it allows us to look at the issue not just in a vacuum, but holistically. But I just haven't given it much thought. So I don't want to throw something out there that I haven't thought about. Okay with that? I would like to. Substitute. And I would like to add. Well. We've lost councilmember mongo. By for rent deferment months and then as. 1/2 we're. Supposed to those. Can you still hear me? I'm looking to find some way where those who have six months of reserves can be exempted from the clause so that. The landlords can help those who most need it. And those who have not received a reduction in income or a change in situation could be I need some help from the city attorney on this, but what I want is if there is a landlord that has three tenants and all three choose not to pay, then the two who are most in need could potentially lose their homes too, because the landlord could lose the property and there could have been a partial payment. So I'm looking for some options to help us really drill this down to those who need the help. This is rich. You mentioned two different things and the first of which was a tenant taking advantage or availing themselves protections here under. That we're not covered impacted. That's not going to happen because the original ordinance that were that were amended now requires proof of adverse COVID impacts. Now, I think there's the section or I should say the example you give. That perhaps is an issue and I'm thinking about how to deal with it is the tenant that has been adversely impacted by the commercial business that's been adversely impacted as a result of COVID. But does have several months worth of reserve. You know, whether it's six or more. They have a lot of money in the bank with which they can pay rent. And these are big corporations taking advantage of some of our landlords. Yes. But the motion as that's on the floor now is that companies with 500 or more employees would be exempt. I mean, maybe it's going to be difficult to get into the specifics of exempting somebody who has six months of reserves. I don't exactly know reserves of what. How do you determine what six months of reserve are? Perhaps a simpler way of addressing large companies, taking advantage of protections that they don't really need to be taking advantage of because they have money is by reducing the maximum amount of employees, or I should say the minimum amount of employees that you need to have. I'm sorry. The maximum number of employees that you need to have to qualify. And maybe if you bring the 500 down, that was in the original motion and is in the substitute motion currently on the floor. And I guess you made a sub sub. Is that right, Councilwoman Mongo? You broke it and you were doing that? Yes. I'm trying to form my son sub. Right. So maybe rather than dealing with six months worth of reserves, you suggest a change to the 500 or more employees and make it something lower, perhaps a lot lower. Well, I guess the 500 employees kind of fared on the protections that are already provided by another act. Is that correct? I don't know. I think so. Councilmember Pearce may be able to speak to that. I think it came from the L.A. ordinance. I don't know why L.A. adopted it that way. So here's my subsub. Subsub is Councilman Price's motion with some additional warehouses related to. Those who have the ability to pay because their income. Or reserves. I'm going to try to put it in the warehouses so it's not as. Impactful, but still impactful. And that those companies I have specific companies in my district who outlaid a ton of cash for Douglas Park and all these others and elsewhere. If you can't make the motion. So we could follow it. I appreciate it because the whereas is the the substitute. Motion with added recitals will. Not qualify as a substitute. Substitute motion. There's no there's no significant difference. You're just adding additional whereas is which are recitals and unenforceable. So you have to make it. I have a change in the payment schedule as well. I haven't heard it. Thank you. Thank you. So the warehouses where as a a tenant is able to pay shall and these are on the commercial tenants. I'm going to focus on the commercial tenants. I think the residential tenants are are less they're few and far between and not probably worth attacking at this time. Remember, if you could make the motion and not explain it, I got to follow your motion. First and then you can just. Sorry. Thank you. And then for the schedule of payments, I would like to revise the payment schedule to be. 10%. At. 10% every 60 days. So it would go ten, 20, 30, 40, 50. If that makes sense of the total amount. Yes. So let's see. Ten two months in 20. After four months, they have to pay 20%. After six months, 30. After eight months, 40. After ten months into the rent repayment period, they have to be at least 50. And then in the final two months, they can pay the remaining 50%. Am I following you right? The previous one was ten 2530. I was trying to go. I was hoping that at the end of year they would have paid in full. And it sounds like a 50% balloon payment at the end would be detrimental. So let's do. Two months, 10%. Four months. 25%. Six months. 50%. Nine months, 75%, with 100% at the 12 month mark. I think that's probably the. Best way to help people stay on track. And then for the clarification on the proof of no income or no subsidy or in the ability to demonstrate. Their inability to pay on the commercial tenant side. Which should be pretty easy to do if you're not open. But then potentially these corporations would have a difficult time demonstrating their inability to pay. Okay. I think I understand the subsidies. Thank you. And I want to thank you guys for working through this with me again. I hadn't planned on making a sub sub tonight. I really have listened to a lot of tenants and housing providers and commercial providers, and I have a lot of fears about how much worse this could get if we don't help people work together to stay on track. And I hope that this also helps tenants negotiate with their landlords a better solution. I have no further comments. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Let me go to Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So and following the conversation on it, I want to say first that I appreciate the movement for where this conversation began, where it is and where it arrived. Under the main motion, Councilwoman Pierce's motion. I see that. And I saw the original file. And I thought that, you know, even though it came down from like five, it came down from 94, and the amendment was accepted to go to 60 with Staff Ridge. And I think I think that makes sense. I think that's what the council needs. I think that's where the council is. It included repayment guidelines. I know that that wasn't part of the original proposal and there was a lot of flexibility and grace in the way it was presented to have some level of repayment guidelines. I think that made sense and I think that's what the council where the council was, I think it considered I heard how it considered a number of considerations and exemptions on commercial considerations on the way it impacts the airport and the port. All of those things are good. I think that it got there. It was all you know, all of these really represent, I think, a collection of the communications we've heard and the discussion we've heard on council, all except for one friendly amendment and for that one friendly amendment to not be accepted and turned into a substitute and substitute substitute motion. Is it really this spirit that we should really be a spirit of collaboration, working together and working? And it didn't really align with, I think, the grace that Councilwoman Pearce put forward. And and I think it was at best earlier. I think it just comes down to philosophical differences. And I don't think this is the time to draw lines in the sand or philosophical differences. I think they're very, very close. Like 90 days, we start bringing it back. Consideration, given the guidelines. I think I think that's where we really are. So I have a question for staff for the city attorney. I don't quite understand what the substitute substitute motion is. Would you mind clarifying what that motion is? I'd be happy to. This is rich again. So the substitute substitute, assuming I mean, I'm not going to read through all of it, I don't think unless you'd like me to. Or do you want me to say how I believe it to be different than the original motion? What do you prefer? I think that would be helpful. Yeah, but just the substantive points, because it just seemed like it was I couldn't understand it was freaking out. You know what? It's not meant to be a justifiable comment, but I don't know what it is. So I'd actually like to read through the entirety of any given. I'll read through the entirety of it and Councilmember Mongo can correct me if I'm wrong. Number one is to extend the current eviction moratorium and the rent deferment period for 30 days to June 30th and direct staff to bring it back in sometime in the middle of June before it expires. Number two, extend the current deferred rent repayment period. And I'm glad we're doing this. The original motion was August 31st, and I don't think Susie's ever changed that, but it ought to be changed. I think the understanding is that August 31st was key to the August 31st and the first part. So I think the motion should be extend the current deferred rent repayment period to June 30th of 2021. So it's a year and it would also include this wouldn't be in the preamble. You have a year to repay if you're a tenant, but you do have five, four benchmarks you need to hit. You need to repay 10% of your deferred rent two months into the period. You need to pay 25% of your deferred rent. Four months in 50%. Six months in 75%. Nine months in. And then the final payment before the year is out. Item number three is out and that has to do with anti tenant harassment and that's no longer a part of this episode. Number four, there would be six types of commercial tenants excluded from the extension of this moratorium. Multinational companies, number one, publicly traded companies. Number two, companies with 500 or more employees. Number three, all airport tenancies and sub tenancies. Number for all harbor department tenancies and Tenancies. Number five Entitlements, Trust, Tenancies and Tenancies would be number six. All those would be excluded. And then five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten and 11. So there are six other parts of it that are all direction to city staff to work with tenants on a case by case basis to encourage the Board of Harbor Commissioners to do the same with respect to providing their tenants with rent relief, directing staff to bring back evaluations, a revolving loan fund, directing staff to bring back a report on possible foreclosure relief. Directing staff to bring back property tax relief measures. Directing staff to bring back a report on ASB 939 eight, 28, 28 and 8020 501. And lastly, having the Legislative Committee advocate for increased forbearance at the state level. I believe that is the service that is on the table right now. Well done. So thank you. So I guess I'll say I think what I'd like to see happen tonight is an extension. I think the 90 days, what we proposed, but the 60 days that was accepted. I think that that's where we should be. I think, you know, the repayment schedules would probably be somewhere in the second six months benchmark starting around the second six months. I agree that it probably should be included and where the preamble is. It might be very challenging to put in inside the trigger a cascade of of evictions and other things. If we don't do this, don't handle this the right way. So that's why I think we want to be I don't think that's where the substance of the motion is. I think the motion aligns most clearly with that is the motion. That's why I'd like to get through. Thank you. Is there a second on that? I think on on council. On Mango's motion. Was there a second on that? Is that it? I will accept that, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to. Well, 1/2. That was Councilman Richardson. Next up is Vice Mayor Andres. If you missed. You know, I really appreciate the just. I want to be clear that I support. For a community like mine in a minority linnet households, because at this time we need to be focused on livelihood and that values. My sincere worry and focus is that we need to have financial literacy in place so that we are not intentionally creating debt. It is sort of rent. I want as a councilor to continue working with our other branches of government so that we can secure federal dollars and protection from our property owners as well as they, too , are struggling. We also need to look for a way to assist our undocumented households that have not been able to obtain resources. They should not be an afterthought. I want to be supportive of a policy tonight that is clear. Came somewhat in alliance with what has come in and other local governments are doing to avoid confusion as to ultimately have a contingency. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have counted Boston. I thank you and I appreciate the discussion tonight as well. You know, when this. Economic relief policies came before us. First of all, the council jumped at the opportunity, understanding that families were really hurting and people were devastated by not only this health crisis, but with the economic calamity facing our city, our state and federal government. I think, you know, in doing so, we painted a very broad brush. You know, I think there was a lot of assumptions made, and that was several weeks ago. And we still don't have the clarity we really need to make great policy in terms of clairvoyance, in terms of where we are going, what our economy is going to look like a month from now, six months from now, 12 months from now. And so we'll do our very best. I think there are some assumptions that, you know, property owners can necessarily absorb the losses, which I think is false in some respects. But I also think there's some assumptions made that all renters are struggling with rent, I guess, is that that's a reach as well. I think. That we as a city council should be encouraging good faith from all parties of property owners as well as campus tenants as well. And frequent and ongoing communications. I think that that's very, very important here. I want to be careful that we don't create policy that is confusing. With this application and interpretation from the public. And I do appreciate that we are trying to massage this to get to a place where people understand payment schedules, which I support, but also compromise in terms of what the extension level is. And I think 60 days is a good place on the. I do think that there is some clarity that's needed in this. And so I would like to offer a friendly amendment to the maker of this this motion and the motion on that motion on the floor. I think it's important that we we really try to. Understand who qualifies for this benefit. And, you know, again, in an effort to eliminate confusion, I'd like to inform. For the maker of emotion, consider a friendly that allows language in to say that you know those who who who qualify for public assistance of you. I did have something written down here for public assistance after March 30, 2020, due to COVID 19 economic displacement. I think it's very important that we help those who need the help right now, and we target our efforts to help those instead of, again, bringing in broad brush that confuses everybody. We love to help those that are in need. Our governor has given a number that he believes that unemployment can can reach 25%. You know, those individuals need to need our help. They need our attention as as public leaders. And so that's it. Now it's never goal. Would you be open to such a friendly amendment? Councilmember Austin. That was exactly my goal. I am trying. Thank you for putting that in such great words. My big concern is that we are painting a broad brush and I absolutely do want to help those that qualify for public assistance. No. We're losing you. Go ahead. That's a yes. You're absolutely. Right. It does impact so many people. I can't tell you how many lamb or. Sure. Friendly. Okay. Great. Next up is Council for Superman. Thank you. I just wanted to get some more clarification also. But first, I wanted to commend Vice Mayor Andrews. He was the first one to mention the concept of financial literacy. And I think that's so important moving forward that we have some type of educational process here to explain how important credit ratings are and whatnot. And and just the pitfalls of not making these payments and just some type of education piece would be great. So thanks to Vice Mayor Andrews for bringing that up. The clarification I was asking for this goes back to the substitute motion. Councilmember Price. Stated that there had to be some proof shown from tenant to landlord. And this question, I guess is for Rich Anthony. Does that go back to reflect what's in the original ordinance. Um, by, I think it was you had mentioned state guidelines or does that all make sense to for what part in the substitute motion was. It does. It's a good question. Council Member Supernova. But I think so. In the original ordinance, we say that in order to qualify, a tenant has to provide reasonable documentation, I think, or reasonable evidence of COVID related adverse impact. The way that I interpret the substitute substitute motion on the floor is that is a little different in its in its. It doesn't need to read the same as the overall qualification language in the original ordinance. This language regarding providing proof of an inability to pay. Is applicable only to the inability to make those benchmark payments during the 12 month repayment period. And it's a bit of a higher bar. They have to provide proof of an inability to pay. That's the way that I heard it, and that's the way I intend to write it. Okay, so that answered my question. I just feel that language has to be pretty tight so we avoid confusion. Moving forward. And that's all I have. With that, I can support this subset. Next up is Councilman Price. Just wanted to clarify that this sub sub includes all of the same provisions that Councilwoman Pearce included in her original motion regarding the title and I'm sorry, the harbor department and airport exemptions with the requirement that city staff work with those individual tenants on a case by case basis to determine rental deferment or mitigation efforts in light of COVID. Does that include that council member Mango? Absolutely. There are lots of grants at the airport that require it. So. Yes, thank you. Okay. Also just want to highlight this about the partial payments we want I want that in there because I know there are council members, probably all of us who really don't want to be putting anyone in a situation where if they're not getting any income and they're not getting any rental assistance, they're still being forced to make a partial payment. I think for those situations, if they can provide the proof and I appreciate Councilman Austin clarifying that that's a different situation, I believe that even most landlords would understand and appreciate and have compassion in that kind of situation. So I just wanted to clarify the intent for that is if people just really aren't making any income and they don't qualify for a subsidy, they cannot make that partial payment, then that would be a situation that would require proof. Absent that, it would not require proof. And and I'm totally happy with the 60 days. I think that makes sense. So. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and take the subset vote roll call, please. District one. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. This is rich. I'm sorry I lost the train. Win, win. Stacey and Al were speaking. Was there a friendly maid that was accepted? Yes. There was. I don't have that. Okay. Let me just briefly, Councilman Mangum. Was proof of subsidy. Hmm. From March in. Proof of subsidy. I don't need. Proof. Payment assistance. No, no, no. It's proof that they don't qualify for subsidy, which would justify them not making the payment. My intent was proof of qualified public assistance. So. The point being is that if somebody has been impacted negatively by COVID 19, their job has been they've been displaced, laid off over the hours. They qualify for unemployment, qualify for other public assistance. That should be proof enough to. Landlord. Property owner that they cannot make for rent. Right. They're not making up the fact that they are unemployed because they actually have an unemployment check or have they qualified for unemployment benefits. Right. So. So this is rich again. I get it. What I was just discussing with council member Supernormal. We want to be able to say you're talking only about the benchmark payments. Is that right, Councilmember Austin? No, not the benchmark mark payments I'm talking about. Again, I was talking about us kind of clarifying who we're trying to help. Right. In this policy, we're trying to help those who've been devastated, who've been hit hard by the pandemic and the economic crisis. Those are caught up in the workforce that is declining as a result of this. The economic impacts that and those individuals can can show that, hey, yes, I have applied for it. I've been qualify for unemployment benefits or even if they can even show me a layoff notice from an employer that those type of documents should be. Good enough to to put them in a position where they can now be any a. Rent forgiveness or relief. Position where they are. On a schedule to repay as they can. I get it. So I for the for the purposes of the motion, I think what Al is actually requesting is to provide a little more clarity on how a tenant would qualify for the application of this ordinance, which was not something we were discussing earlier, but it's still appropriate to it. Just this would require this friendly, I think would require a little more specificity to be provided in the opening section of the existing ordinance when it says you need to be able to provide reasonable proof that you've been adversely affected by COVID. If you're a tenant, well, now it's going to say you need to be able to provide reasonable proof, which will, if you can prove that you qualify for other public benefits or you've received a layoff notice, that will be reasonable proof. I think it simplifies things for the renters. Absolutely. Does that make sense? Are you good with that, Stacey? Absolutely. Okay. Okay. So now we're going to go back to that clarifies the vote. We were on the roll call vote. So. Well, hold on, Councilman Price, is that an additional. Do you keep up again or that I. I did. Go ahead. Okay. So the and I misunderstood that I'm the secondary the motion. I misunderstood that. Councilman Orson I think that's fine. I have no objection to what you're suggesting, but what I wanted to hopefully try to get a little bit of clarification on is for the partial payments or the pay back schedule for those. I had indicated in my substitute that individuals who are receiving no income and don't qualify for anything for whatever reason, those individuals would not have to pay the partial payments. They would still have 12 months to repay. But if they couldn't make the partial payments that I was trying to find a way for those individuals to not have to pay through proof and documentation. So I think the proof and documentation would be that if they can show they're not receiving any income. Through subsidy or work, then they would not have to make a partial payment on that payment schedule. And so that's an A. And I accept that friendly as well. I think that's very gracious. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go then to the roll call vote on the sub sub, Madam Clerk. District one. A District two. No. District three. I have District four. I. District five. I. District six. Yeah. District seven. A. District eight. District eight. I. District nine. No. Okay. Now we'll take a roll call vote on the substitute motion. District one. Name. District two. May. District three. I. District four. District four. I. District five. I. District six. May. District seven. Nay. District eight. All right. District nine? No. Okay. Now we're back to the original motion. So this is the. I think we're gonna need some clarity. Consumer Peirce, do you want to repeat? Mr. Attorney, can you repeat the motion that's on the floor? Yes. Are we. Are the friendlies accepted as part of that motion? I think that I think the friend I think that council council member Pearce accepted a majority of Councilman Price's friend Liz, with the exception, I think of a couple at the end. But I don't think she accepted anything beyond that because there was a substitute on the floor. If. Right. Okay. Can I get a clarity, clarification on what was accepted before the substitute? Absolutely. And that's why I want to make sure that. Mr. Senator, do you have all of that that we went through what we need to be repeated? I think I can go through most of it and then I can highlight what I think is what I'm not quite certain of. Okay. Okay. So I'm going to leave the first part. And here's the part that I'm pretty sure of. Extends the current deferred rent repayment period to. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Hmm. You know what? Let me just start from the top. And it's the number one was extend the current eviction moratorium and rent deferment period. For 90 days to August 31st, 2020. I'm not sure if the friendly was accepted to make it 60 days with direction for staff to bring it back or not. That was accepted to be 60 days and then after the 60 days there would be a review prior to the 60 days, two weeks before to consider an extension at that point. But it was 60 days with consideration of extension for 30 days. Got it. Okay. Then number two would be extend the current deferred rent repayment period, the period within which tenants into repay to July 31, 2021. The benchmarks would be in the preamble. They would be encouragement only not enforceable. There would be a direction to the city manager to work with the prosecutor and the city attorney to bring back a report in June on anti tenant harassment best practices. But that would not be included in the ordinance. The exclusion of the commercial tenants would remain the same as the last time I went through this. There would be six different types of commercial tenants excluded, including title stressed tenancies and sub tenancies. I believe that was accepted. And the remainder five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 would be, as I described them, as directing city staff to do certain things with respect to certain programs and also directing the legislative committee to advocate for increased forbearance. I don't think any of those things changed or friendlies were accepted that were discussed between CD3 and CD2. Hopefully. Hopefully, that's a thumbnail sketch of what we're voting on. If you need more clarification, let me know. Okay. And Councilmember Pearce, do you have a clarification? I appreciate Stoffer for running through those. I know that everybody had an opinion on the way that the repayment should work, so I really will kick it over to staff to flush that part out since everybody had a different thought in that section. So long as yeah, I think that is it. That what you want it to be but you want it to be in the preamble, right? Right. Councilmember Pearce. Yes, sir. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Can I just ask for a clarification, Mr. Mayor? Yes, I had a qualification. Go ahead, Councilman. Okay. How about the amendments regarding the revolving loan fund for property owners? The report back on the foreclosure resolution with the legislative actions. Yes, those are accepted. And Tidelands Fund. Yes. Those were. Accepted. Okay, great. And I want to clarify also just Councilman Pierce, I think what your what your your motion is you're asking for staff. On the actual repayment plan that staff would come back to present to see how that would actually look, what the payment plan would look like for council to adopt. I mean, considering we're in that first six months, there's obviously very little time to. Yeah, we have it's extended 12. But the payment plan process, it will come back from from staff, correct? Yes, I'm. And and I think that the the preamble question, I think I'm not I don't completely understand it. And so I'm assuming we'll get some clarity from staff on kind of where the appropriate place that should go in the ordinance. Yeah. I feel comfortable that I know where to put it in the preamble. And effectively the direction is to in the future, the council is going to consider making that those benchmark payments enforceable. I think that's what I'm hearing. But for the time being, it's only going to be encouraged in the preamble. And that in the next six months, because we've got six months until we want to work on what that payment plan looks like, you can bring that back to the Council for us to have a fuller discussion and about where the economy is at. Thank you. I get it. I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead. That clarifies it. I'm going to a roll call vote. District one. Yeah, I am District two. Yeah. District three. District three. Did you get mine? No. There's three. I. District four. All right. District five. I am District six. I'm District seven. I. District eight. District nine. I. Ocean carries. Thank you, counsel. That concludes the item. All the items on the agenda. I don't think anybody has any new business that I see. No one is queued up for new business. And so with that, we will go ahead and adjourn the meeting of the city council.