This is the City Council study session. Today is 20 November 2018. As we begin, I want to welcome our guests from Latin America. Thank you for joining us in Chambers. We had an opportunity to speak up for a little bit. So it's great that you're here today. Thank you. We had an opportunity to speak up for a little bit. So it's great that you're here today. Thank you. I have three comments people who like to address us on non-agentized items. If you have something you'd like to address us on, that is not on today's agenda. Please, if I wanted to these give it to the city clerk and you'll have three minutes to speak. Mr. Gingold, you're first. for the record city attorney Larry Weiner just told me that the the new terms of public speaking and transportation and parking that he did not say that and those are all now invoite and not enforced. Isn't that what you told me that you didn't say all those restrictions city attorney? You just told me that in the hallway. We're not having a dialogue. You're speaking to us. Okay. Also, I just spoke with Susan Healy-Keen and mentioned the appeal I have about the surveys going out. She told me they're sending them out anyway. I told her that part of the municipal code that the attorney Larry Wiener sent me in the past says that when something is appeal, it is stayed. I have listed the code numbers of the municipal code that the attorney, Larry Weiner, it sent me in the past, says that when something is appeal, it is stayed. I have listed the code numbers, the municipal code, to all of you, and that she must conform by not sending out the surveys until this has been adjudicated. Also, I wish I didn't have to come here and be negative sometimes. And, you know, the press, former mayors, the strategic planning members, cabinet members of the other commissions have said, you know, don't come and be negative. Just file a lawsuit against the city. A civil rights lawsuit. Let's say they've treated me taking away my civil rights and constitutional rights and brown act rights, but I'm still trying to keep things locally here with you guys. I tried to speak at a number of, at the fireman's house, with the mayor. Yesterday at a way of sun meeting and on agenda items and a denied speaking. Yesterday at the mayor cabinet's meeting, I spoke to Willie Bosnian, John Mears, for a moment in the way of sun and then came in. Mayor Gold had already asked for public comment, but I wanted to speak at the end of the meeting and one of the strategic meetings, Mayor Gold did already ask for public comment, but I wanted to speak at the end of the meeting, and one of the strategic meetings, Mayor Gold said, you're gonna speak at the end of the meeting. I said, okay. So I assume that would be okay. And according to, and Mayor Gold has asked me, not to talk about the Brown Act. And well, one of his, not Mayor Gold, someone in City Manager's office said to me that Mayor Gole restricts my speaking because he doesn't like me hearing about the Brown Act which is a law so I have no idea why. But I wanted to speak at the end of the meeting when all the commissioner spoke yesterday so that I would be able to comment on what some of them said because some of them have been giving fake news as I, in the prior meeting. When I realized he wasn't going to call on me, and the mayor spent about 20 minutes just talking about Southern Cal Edison. And I had put in a card, a letter, to Keith Sterling, secretary, that I wanted to speak, and bring it up to the mayor. He said, I don it up to the mayor. He said I Don't want to interrupt him He's certainly said mayor at the end. I have a letter from David Gendold He would like to come up to speak Mayor Gold said That's already happened. I said I think I'm entitled to speak and he said meeting adjourned the letter said said, I, David Gendel, and Mayor's Cabinet meeting, wish to speak on agenda item commissioners report from the last meeting today at the conclusion of the commission reports. So I am adequately responding when the commissioners are finished. This is an agenda item in his govern by legal accountability. Okay, sorry. Allowability. Thank you. Okay, sorry. Allowability. Thank you. Okay. Your time is up. Thank you. But I wasn't allowed to speak. Thank you. I want to give a copy of the letter to Vice Mayor Mears. Well handed to the City Clerk, sir. Thank you. Let's give it to the City Clerk. Really bossy. They'll share it with the other commissioners and I have a copy to be informed for me. This was confirmed by the way last night in the City Manager's office. Give it to the City Clerk, sir. Okay, Marsha Hobbs. Thank you, Mayor Gold and City Council members. I just wanted to say briefly that in the appointment of the new, or the not new planning commissioner, who I think is done a wonderful job and is worthy of an additional term. But I do believe it is the responsibility of the two liaisons at the very least to explain to the public how and why the appointment happened. Thank you. Thank you. Emily Fialho. Are you speaking? Or should I? I am as she might. I'm sorry, just excuse me one second. David, you're interrupting, please. Yes, ma'am. Start again. No, I'm just giving an intro because I've never been in here since I was a teenager. So I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. again. No, I'm just giving an intro because I've never been in here since I was a teenager. So, I am a graduate of Beverly High, where I actually met my husband. Four other members of my family are also Beverly High graduates. I'm a company today by my four-month-old livi, who is Beverly High Class of 2035. We hope. Our other daughter Lara, class of 31, is actually a student at BV. She just started this year. On behalf of my family and many other young families in Beverly Hills, I sincerely wanna actually thank you, the city council for the new city ordinance that eliminating what has been called the no just cause eviction. So that now it's more difficult for landlord with bad intentions to evict families like mine. I honestly didn't know it was happening until it happened to two very dear family friends of mine this year. And they were actually new school friends of ours and it was very hard for us. And unfortunately it happened right before the ordinance. But they're making do. And I wanted to let you know that my husband and I returned to Beverly Hills because we spent our growing up years here. And our roots are here. Family, friends are here. We work nearby. Leo and I are blessed with actually a very fine land lord. We do run here. But over a period of years things do happen and indeed several families with young children who were playmates are of my daughter and current playmates were affected from their homes for no reason this month to go into summer. So I really appreciate it and I guess people don't really have the time to come in and tell you that, but I did want to say that. And I think it, I really was a bit ignorant, not knowing that this was happening until it really did happen to very different. So we hope that one day we'll be able to buy a home here, but in the meantime, it's generally reassuring to know that we will be secure in the homes we have made for ourselves and our children. So thank you. Thank you. We look forward to the graduation. I have a letter that's been asked to be read into the record. Dear members of the City Council eight months ago I presented a proposal. The City Foconic of programs in 2018. This proposal consisted of nine ideas, seven of which were approved by the City Attorney, without question and two remained as to be further discussed items. I strongly asked several times that this proposal will be evaluated separate from the holiday programs. Unfortunately, that request was not accepted because of all the necessary preparations for the bold holiday. My Hanukkah ideas were not treated with the firm resolved that they deserved. Council should be aware that they never even saw my proposal. Very interesting ideas as befitting to the Jewish population of Beverly Hills. 2018, a small number of Hanukkah events will be scheduled. Nothing compared to what should have been developed and even those that are listed here, even those that are listed have some serious complications as to maximum attendance. Let council learn its lesson and respond in 2019 when the proposals are presented to you signed by Rabbi Simka A. Green. And with that, I don't have any other cards for public comment. There are nine, we'll close the public comment section and move on to item number one, A1. So, Lordes, please. Good afternoon, Honorable Mayor Gold and City Council. I'm a Lorde Cire Driericas, your Assistant City of Kirk. And my report today presents the interview panel recommendations for the Architectural Commission, Fine Art Commission, Recreation and Parks Commission, and Planning Commission Recruitments. I would like to mention ahead of discussing the recommendations for each of the commission that the interview panels would like to thank all the candidates and The city is fortunate to have extraordinary applicant pools The interview panels encourage the candidates who are not chosen to reapply to upcoming vacancies attend as many future commission meetings as possible and Participate in team Beverly Hills if they have not done so so I'm going on to the Architectural Commission. The interview panel composed of Vice Mayor John A. Mirish, Council Member Bob Wanderlick, AC Chair Sherry Hirschfeld, and Commissioner Andrea Gardner, Appetale, met on Monday, November 5th, and Wednesday, November 7th, to interview four candidates for the position of Commissioner Michelle Kaye, who is serving until the end of this year. The interview panel unanimously recommends Jennifer Kaye Schriver for the position. She must attend all commission meetings leading up to her appointment. If the council agrees with the recommendation, a formal report will be presented for adoption of the December 11 council formal meeting. The interview panel was also scheduled to interview three candidates in the disciplines of building construction, landscape architecture, or visual and graphic design, for Commissioner Andrea Gardner-Apetale who is a licensed landscape architect. Her term is scheduled to end on June 30th of 2019. It should be noted that one candidate withdrew from the recruitment process. The interview panel unanimously decided to postpone the interviews to a later undetermined date. At this point, I would like to ask if the council liaison would like to add their comments before I continue to the next commission. Recommendation? For the architectural commission, we do have four very well qualified candidates. Certainly, thank them for coming out and encourage them to come out again. But as you said, we do to pick Mr. River. Agree, it was very well qualified people and it was unanimous and we are lucky to be able to have her on the commission going forward. Let's are you okay with it? I am okay with it. Yes. As am I. Okay. Fine Art Commission. Fine Art Commission. The interview panel composed of Vice Mayor John A. Maryish, Council Member Lillie Bossie, Fine Art Commission Chair Zail Richard Rubens, and Vice Chair Stephanie Van met on Tuesday November 6th, to interview four candidates for the position of Alan Kaye who was serving until the end of the year. The panel unanimously recommends Deborah Frank for the position. Ms. Frank must attend all commission meetings leading up to her appointment. If the council agrees with the recommendation, a formal report will be presented at the December 11 council formal meeting. I have comments from. Sure. Yes, so we did have some great applicants. But Debra Frank got a unanimous yes from all of us, so we're lucky to have her serve. Okay. Council member Wendellick, you okay with that? Yes. Go that? Yes. Go on. Friedman? Yes. As am I. Record in park. Recreation in park's commission. The interview panel composed of Mayor Julian A. Goldem D, Councilmember Lester J. Friedman, RPC chair Francis Bylach, and Vice Chair Lisa Rosston met on Monday November 5th to interview three candidates for the position of Commissioner Francis Bylach, whose term is ending on June 30th of 2019. The panel unanimously recommends Amy Sherry for the position. She must attend all commission meetings leading up to her appointment. If the council agrees with the recommendation, a formal report will be presented for adoption at the December 11th council formal meeting. Thank you. Member Friedman? So, we had excellent candidates for this position. And I know it's already a war in statement, but every one of them would have been a great commissioner. We decided on Miss Sherry and it was the unanimous decision. And I agree. Keep going. Planning commission. The interview panel composed. Oh, sorry. I didn't. I got that. Councilmember, are you OK? Yes. Yes. Sorry. I took the granted. So planning commission. The interview panel composed of Mayor Julian A. Goldem D, council member Lily Bosse, PC chair Andy Lickt and vice chair Alan Robert Block met on Tuesday November 13th to interview six candidates for the position of commissioner Alan Robert Block whose term is ending on June 30th, 2019. I'd like to note that one candidate withdrew from the recruitment process. The panel unanimously recommends that Commissioner Block's term be extended one year until June 30th of 2020. An ordinance will be required for the extension and will be prepared for introduction at the December 11th Council regular meeting if the Council concur with the recommendation. Absolutely. So first I'd like to thank the six applicants that had applied. And I just want to be clear that we have had a similar situation a few years back, where there was no majority candidate. And we asked Craig Korman to stay another year. So the interview committee was unable to find a majority candidate. And thus we were able to unanimously, however, recommend that Commissioner Block stay another year. And during such time, we will again reopen the Planning Commission applications. And hopefully at that point, find a majority candidate. Anything you want to add? Nope, I think that covers it. Wonder what? I'm okay with your decisions. I am okay. Okay, very good. Thank you, Lordes. Are you doing number two? Yes. So the design review commissioner, very I burn since term is due to end on December 30th, first of 2018. And he's eligible for a reappointment to a second term of four years per municipal code section 2-2-105. He has submitted a letter indicating his willingness to serve a second term. Council liaison, spice mayor John A. Mirish and Councillor Member Bob Wanderlick both recommend this reappointment. If the City Council concur with the Council of Layais on Recommendation, a formal report will be prepared for adoption at the December 11th City Council regular meeting. We did speak with Mr. Bernstein and we were comfortable with this dedication to the commission to recommend him to continue. Okay. Councilmember Briggs. Yes. Yes. Yes, I'm a yes. Good. Yes. Okay. We're up to item number three. Discussion of possible amendments to the rent stabilization ordinance with some request from staff which we will go through as we get through the report. Good afternoon Mayor Gold and Council members. We are here today seeking direction on possible amendments to the rent stabilization ordinance. direction on possible amendments to the rent stabilization ordinance. This is following discussions that occurred on October 11th and October 18th, where a number of items were discussed. Some, we got some direction on others. We are seeking additional direction. First and foremost, I think there was agreement on the objectives for the rent stabilization ordinance. And I think there was agreement that the objective is to promote residential stability and to maintain the quality of Beverly Hills buildings stock in the multi-family area specifically. We have listed the possible amendments that are here before you, which include exemptions of certain buildings, limitations to relocation fees, elimination of no cause evictions, which as you know, became an urgency ordinance on October 18th, followed by a permanent ordinance that had its first reading on November 6th. The second reading will be on your consent calendar at the formal meeting tonight. Banking provisions, habitability standards, financial assistance for potential financial assistance for qualified tenants and a possible luxury unit exemptions. Discussion about pass-throughs. Annual allowable rent increase, rent stabilization commission and possible protections for Beverly Hills unified school district families. There are about 35 questions embedded in this staff report specific to each of these possible amendment topics. Some will, if for instance you should decide not to pursue one of these, there would be less questions. I have them all laid out for you. We can go over those now or you can wait until you get into further discussion. It's at your discretion. Thank you. So my goal for this would be, to be as much, sorry? Sorry. My goal for this would be to get as much in censuses as we can through these things. So after we hear public comment, what I think we would ought to do is if you have 35 questions, start with number one and we'll see where and then we'll go to number two. We'll go through the council, we'll go to number two through the council and then we'll go through 35 questions. Okay. We have them by topic so we can go through in the order of discreeting. And that way we'll know everybody's thoughts on each of the questions. Okay. Okay. Is that work? Are we okay with that? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. If there was anybody like to address us on this matter, please, please fill out a card and give it to the city clerk. I was going to say remarkably I'm sitting here with none, but that was soon to change. Okay. Okay. All right. So our first speaker, Enrique Mannheim, please. What up the noon, Mayor Gold and City Council. On October, when there was the last time that people were able to talk, one of the main points that the gentleman here who is the hire by the city to make a review of the situation on the rent said one number that in my opinion was very important. Rent increases based on whatever data he collected was 2.3% for, I don't know how many years. So here we are sitting and the city is trying to spend thousands and millions of dollars putting more and more restrictions on landlords. When people has not gone to 10%, people landlord in general has been doing very nicely with an average 2.3% that was he said. But we have 35 measures where we want to put more and more restrictions on landlord City of every hills is a pride of all of you of me. I believe here for 50 years And I don't think that we have done that bad that we need now such a strong control over landlord I don't know if any of you have ever gone to the city or any when there is now an eviction before, used to be relatively court, there are the Schreiber Housing Project. There is the Basta EDN eviction defense network. It takes six, seven, eight months sometimes. And worse to that, now that you feel like eliminating non-evection, not cause, I tell you about non-cause. I cannot be the police. My kids cannot be the police when it comes down. I have situations where tenants say they rented the apartment based on two people, three, four. There is a big balcony. They put another bed there. And we see the bed coming in, coming out when we call to try to see. We see the people coming in to the building. We see in another building doing illegal things. In general, all the land was came here and we're very nice. And trying to tell the city council, please be fair. I'm going to try to finish what's saying for the first time in my life. Yes, I was using the no cost eviction. And I got a call and say, you cannot do it anymore. Wow. That's the reason I am here. I don't think that we should spend millions of dollars on trying to enforce, when the same gentleman told you one of the things is not to do anything because in general it increased at least only 2% or 3% over the years. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mark Elliott. Good afternoon mayor Gold members of the City Council. I want to address the what's on your agenda for RSO Of course, I'll start with the maximum allowed increase. It's really the key to residential stability at 100% of CPI, which is where we are now with the current 4.1% increase, and also for chapter 5. We're providing a greater increase in Santa Monica and a substantially greater increase than West Hollywood. In fact, we're 100% of CPI is 66% more that we're returning to landlords over West Hollywood. We're giving them that much bigger and annual allowed increase. So I wonder if we need 100% of CPI or if like half of the other rent control cities in California have found less than 100% is sufficient return to the landlord. Especially we have many owners who of course they're not paying any mortgage interest, but even debt aside because debt is not included in the calculation of net operating income. Cities like West Hollywood and Santa Monica have found that's 80%, 75%, even 60% of CPI is sufficient. In terms of pass-throughs, I suggest you harmonize chapter five and chapter six. I don't see any reason to have different pass-throughs. In my view, the only pass-throughs, I suggest you harmonize chapter five and chapter six. I don't see any reason to have different pass-throughs. In my view, the only pass-throughs that are, that are, should be allowed to the tenant or the program, RSO program fee and the mandatory inspections fee if you decide to approve that program. Those fees directly benefit tenants. I will happily pay for inspections to make sure units are up to standard. However, when we think about the water reliance fee or trash or alley fees, to me those are the costs to doing business. It's the difference between a condominium owner and a residential tenant, the condominium owner, I think should be expected to pay those. They're a property owner, rental apartment, dwellers of course are not property owners. So I would suggest you restrict the pass through to program inspection, I'm sorry to RSO program and inspection. We've talked, you've talked about a end of the lease termination allowance. That to me that's a probationary tendency. To me, it's a rollback of your pledge to end no just cause. We know we give landlords a disruptive tenant opportunity to terminate a tenant, but I don't see why we would also allow probationary tenancy where at the end of every lease that one year lease they can terminate a tenant. I think even advanced notice and even relocation fees doesn't accommodate the tenants for having a life upended for a termination just a year after she moved into the unit. On that same note, landlords have talked about screen for character. I'm sorry, they can't screen for character. In my view, the only character that should concern a landlord is credit worthiness. Is there another aspect of a tenant's character that should concern them? I don't think so, and they do have recourse to the disruptive tenant. On inspections, I fully support the systematic inspection. Let's split the fee. And one more important note, I think you should consider enhancing the rent commission's role. You've offered landlords an opportunity to get rid of the disruptive tenant that's a lower standard. There is no opportunity for a tenant to contest a four-cause termination, which actually might not be warranted. Reach of the so-called House rules, for example. Those tenants should have the opportunity to take that to the rent commission as well. We should not terminate any tenancy unjustly. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Dr. Moffitt. Mayor Gold members of the Council, it's easy to get lost in the weeds of this matter, so I'd like to take a few moments to emphasize some of the more salient points that we might occasionally lose sight of. First, the urgency ordinance has been in place approaching two years now. And I derive a powerful message from the fact that in all of that time, not a single property owner of nearly 7,700 units has successfully appealed to 3% and now 4.1% allowable rent increase. 7,700 apartments and not one appeal. I estimated it would take a junior accountant about an hour to fill out the appeal form. It isn't complicated. My takeaway, therefore, is that the owners of 7700 rental units review their numbers and concluded that they are making the same or more income than they did in the base year 2016 before the ordinance took effect. That is the only plausible explanation. This fact explains in part why we are asking if the council consider an allowable rent increase of less than CPI, 0.75% equates to 3.1%, and if a 3% adjustment did not result in the reduction of operating income to even one property owner because they never made that point to us, the facts will show that neither should an adjustment of 0.75% of CPI. A second salient fact, you would think that if property owners did not appeal the 3 to 4% allowable rent increase, they would at least provide some evidence that it doesn't work for them. But no, we haven't seen that either. With all the efforts the city has made to bring us all together to discuss this, their side is steadfastly refused to share any facts with us. We have not seen a single financial statement of a single building, even with the address hidden. We have not seen a pro form of profit and loss statement from national real estate trade and organizations. They could have debated H RNA's numbers, for example, the statement of H RNA that operating and operating income generated by apartments in Los Angeles is two thirds of revenues but they didn't challenge that number either. In effect based deliberation which council discussion should be decisions cannot be based on wild assertions with no facts to back them up. Thank you. Thank you sir. Gerald Simon. Chris Ammond. Chris Ammond. Good afternoon. Mayor Gold. Council members, my name is Chris Hammond and I live at 347 North Oakhurst Drive. Good afternoon. Mayor Gold, Council Members. My name is Chris Hammond and I live at 347 North Oakhurst Drive. I'm a member of the Oakhurst Group and we try to preserve and protect a rather unique district in Beverly Hills. We're here today to call your attention to page 95 of your packet, our public written comments. Our request therein is an attempt to align the interest of the citizen renters, the developers and our city. What we're asking by adding the two sentences that are that we put forth to the list of possible RSO amendments is one we're asking for no LS activictions until the plans have been approved. The reason for that is because the planning process is sort of a nebulous amount of time, but at best it takes about to, sorry, about a year. And what we're saying is please don't displace multiple family renters unnecessarily and reduce the rental inventory prematurely. Our second point has actually been on the books for about 20 years via municipal code, excuse me, I get this 10-3-4202, which says, excuse me, no demolition until all building permits are issued. It is generally accepted that that process takes about a year, which gives the developers plenty of time to enact their LSAC evictions. And also that's what the code explicitly said. Now we recognize that our wording might not be the exact mechanism. We deferred to our esteemed city attorney to craft correct language, but we hope that you embrace the spirit of our concerns and the unambiguous intent of code 10-3-4202. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, sir. Steve Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Gold and Council members. I wish to emphasize what Mr. Heminges said. This is an important amendment and it affects tenants by simply tying in the LSAC and demolition to the developers Timeline Some examples of what happens when you don't tie in for example at 432 North O curse 34 units Which eventually were built but the land was vacant from 2005 to 2013 At 462 South Rexford seven units were approved in 2007 the year before the year of the year. It was in 2005 to 2013. At 462 South Rexford, seven units were approved in 2007. The tenants were apparently evicted several years ago, but there's no reason for those units not to have been taken off the market. So anything which can increase the inventory or maintain the inventory is very, very important. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Richard Treiber. And that's the last card I have if anybody else. Public would like to address us on the matter. Afternoon, Mayor and City Council members. As a landlord myself, I want to say I think you've done a wonderful job in finding what we're doing and I'm fully supportive at all all I think it's a you have done well job well done. Thank you sir. Okay. Nobody else? All right we'll close the public comment and Susan are you going to drive this? Okay. So again I neglected to also add that we have Paul Silvern here today and three of his amendments are in your packet as well regarding number six financial assistant for qualified tenants and luxury unit exemptions and pass through those represent the three memorandums that are in your packet so we we can touch upon those or you can ask, Paul will be available for questions. Should you have any during those? So we'll start off with exemptions. What was determined in October or what we heard from council was that there was a desire to exempt duplexes where at least one occupant owns at least 50% of the property. The questions we have to further refine the ordinance would be should the should owner occupy duplex exemption also apply to chapter five. We have it where we had talked about it for chapter six. And then second, if owner occupied duplexes are exempted, should eviction protections be extended to these owner occupied exempted units as well? Okay, well thank you for the preview of Number 2. We're going to start with Number 1. Okay. Before you get to Number 2. Sure. Okay. So, Council Number 1, Blake. Yeah, your name. number two. So, council number one, Greg. So, I didn't think it was necessarily a done deal that we were exempting on the occupied duplexes from chapter six. I think what I said was that I didn't totally see the logic for doing that, that I thought that exemptions should be narrow, that I wouldn't stand in the way of us having an exemption for owner occupied duplexes, but would want to keep it narrow. And, well, but for this particular question, I do see chapter five is somewhat different than chapter 6. Chapter 5 was established for a smaller subsection of the population and to provide special protections for the smaller subsection of the population. I think chapter 5 is down to not really very many residences at this point and in the not too distance future it will continue to decrease. And so I would want to maintain the protections that we have in place for Chapter 5 and not to allow an additional exemption for Chapter 5. The answer is yes. So the exemption should not apply. No. The answer is no. Okay. Thank you. Just want to make sure we're reading it right. Councillor Mellon Friedman. So based on what Councillor Mellon wondered, look said. Also, if I can, let's just one other point. You know, those regulations have been there for a while. Those are people's expectations already. And so this would be a change to what people's expectations are as regards chapter 5. So what I'm not clear on is whether or not there is an exemption that should apply to chapter 5. At this point in time, we don't have an exemption. So I think the question really should be, should there be an exemption to chapter five period? And I do agree with council member Wanderluck. I think chapter five is a dwindling inventory. And I don't think it was any expectation that there would be any change to chapter five. So I would agree with them. And I agree as well. I think we absolutely have to maintain the protections for chapter five stringently, so I agree with my colleagues. Question, so there are no more new chapter fives, correct, they're being all phased out. That's correct. So at some point, this becomes kind of irrelevant, correct? Then I agree. As do I. Number two, by the way, yes or no works sometimes. So number two, if owner occupied duplexes are exempted, should eviction protections be extended to these owner occupied exempted units? This is now chapter 6. Correct. That's for clarity. We've closed, so many handed me, that we've closed public comment. Are we moving on to the air? Number two. Yes. So it's still in the if stage, so the answer is yes. I don't understand what you just said less. Well, it says if owner occupied duplexes are exempted, but we haven't exempted them yet. Is that correct? Well, have we? That's why we don't know. This means for chapter 6. Yes, it's correct. I think this is with the intention that we are. Open chapter 6. For chapter 6. Okay. I don't think I understand the question. So perhaps it can be explained to me. Okay, I think that we thought that chapter six was going to be exempted for the owner occupied duplexes. So in the event that chapter six will be exempted, should we also allow protections, eviction protections? In other words, no just cause, or just cause eviction protections for those that are in duplexes. Okay, so before we answer this, let's answer the four questions. Yeah, first question. And the core question then would be, shouldn't, for chapter 6, should owner occupy duplexes be exempted? So I will not stand in the way of the provision if it has that, but I really don't understand the rationale for it. I mean, I think the economics should drive it, that if it is more expensive to keep up a smaller unit, well, there's the opportunity to justify that through the appeals process. I don't really understand the special relationship argument. You have a special relationship, so does that mean that you want to charge more than the allowed rent because of the special relationship? So I understand that owner occupied duplexes will at least restrict it, so it's not somebody who owns a bunch of units that has to be an individual, a real person who's owning the unit, It's not going to be very broad. So I don't mind it being there, but you're saying that I don't really understand the rationale really for the exemption. I just want to, the way I think of it is if you have a single family home, like let's say you do right now and you have a backhouse and you were renting out your backhouse. The way the law is currently right now, there is no restriction for you in terms of how much rent you charge, how much rent you can charge next year, et cetera, et cetera. We don't have that in place. So to me, I view a owner occupy duplex very similarly as to a single family home owner who owns a backhouse or another accessory structure that they are renting out to someone else. And I don't feel that it's fair that if you have a single family home and you can do that to rent that somebody who has a duplex wouldn't be allowed to. So that's where I am. Right. And I understand that, but I guess maybe I flip the coin on the other side and say that should it be that if you own a single family house and that you have a back house, that it shouldn't be subject to some sort of friends' name. Well, that's a big step. Prop-10 didn't pass. Yeah, that's, I mean, prop-10 didn't pass. And, you know, I guess what I'm saying is I wanted to be equally fair. That's my thinking. Okay, thank you, Council Member Friedman. And I stand on the heads side of that, which is Council Member Boss's position, that I do see a difference in there being a duplex. I think it is different than having a multiple unit. I do think, however, that the duplexes should be registered. And I do think there needs to be clear definitions in the statute as to the percentage of owner occupied, well, the relationship of the owner occupied person in terms of it being the owner, their children, and probably even their grandchildren, because I think we're in a position right now where there are owners that have grandchildren that would be moving into it. Parents. So it could be the parents of the owner. Correct. Or grandparents of the owner. Correct. So yes I do. Could be the occupants. Yeah. Well you think, well Lily talks. Okay. That might be a while. No, I'm teasing. So I do support this. Although I have to say that we received an email yesterday from a family who moved, they were evicted from their apartment and recently moved into a duplex and they're paying much more money in the duplex and they are a family in the Beverly Hills school district. So I know that we have talked about wanting to protect families in our school district and I don't know that we've talked about that in regards to the duplexes. We'll get to school district. But I do think that this, you know. You can always exclude that. Okay. That's- Take the generic case and then we can make a- All right. So generic yes, but my intention is to somehow make sure that we protect families that might be in this- We'll come back to the access. So we're only answering the first part of the question. Should owner do you are saying is be exempted and as I've said before I think they should be as do I Okay, so now we can come back and answer this question and I'm sorry. Do you want to reappine? Okay? So having decided that they should should eviction protections be extended through the Yes, yes Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I don't know if we're going to deal with it separately, but let's say you want to, I think for duplexes or I think in general for apartments, if an owner actually wants to occupy a unit themselves, I think that there should be the possibility to do so. And there should be some sort of protection. I'm not sure it would should be relocation fees. It could be perhaps extended periods of notice. All right, so you're talking about a different scenario. One in which duplexes is occupied by two non-owner. Well, no, that's separate. And the owner wants to move in. Let's say you have the owner, because this only applies to our occupant. So let's say that they want their children to move in. With them. Yeah, in the other unit. Yes. Okay. Okay, so. I would have some sort of eviction protections, I would have some sort of eviction protections, but I'm not sure if it should necessarily be the relocation fees or perhaps an extended notice period. But I do think that possibility, and again, I also think it needs to be bonified. You can't just do that to a VIXO, and you need to be able to prove that they're staying for a set period. A question? Are you envisioning a different standard for duplexes than for pyplexes or quads? No. I would say, in fact, for any property, I would think that people should have the ability to move in, to inhabit a building that they own themselves, and there should be protections, but in the instance that they're bonafide, it's a bonafide move into one of their own buildings, they're, again, it could be relocation fees or it could be maybe extended notice. Is that a separate question? Are you already having a question? If you do have a question. So in the next slide we have relocation fees. Yes or no works? Yes, it's in there. All right. So you have consent. I'm just trying to move this along folks. There are 35 of these things. We've done one. Two. I think we have consensus about eviction protection. So for clarification for the ordinance, because we have to write this up. We're talking about exemption for duplexes, not in chapter six, not chapter five, correct. We are talking about ownership. We had talked about that where it's at least owner of 50%. I'm hearing now additionally, it could be both units because it could be included family members as well. What else? For this to apply one of the units needs to be occupied by the owner or the kids or whatever when you start it, right? Right, okay. So that would only be one owner occupancy per duplex. So let's just say the first step is if there is an owner occupier, this will apply. The nuance that the vice mayor I think added was if that situation exists, there's an owner occupier and somebody else in the second unit and the desire is to move a family member into the second unit, would the same eviction protections apply? I think that's the question he asked. And I think in general to be fair, we should look at the issue of people or direct family members moving into units. I wouldn't make the distinction between duplex or not. To me, to be honest. Yeah, it's actually part of the follow-on questions. So what I'd like you to do for things like this is keep a list of the questions. We are. If we get to them in the course of your questions, great if not, let's add them on at the end. Do we know how many owner occupy? I mean, we all agree on question one, but do we know if there are any owner occupied duplexes that have chapter five, well we already did chapter five? No, I get it, but are there any? I mean, is that a complete list? Let's keep going. We have to check on that. So the quote, yeah, we'll check on that. And just one other question. Owner occupied means currently owner occupied. Yes. Knocked it at some point in the past. Right. Now. But I also want to add to. Right. In the future in terms of enforcement. How do you know that? You know the somebody is going to stay there. I mean that I want this to be like a way to game the system. So we've thought about this and we would have to still have them register, but they would be exempt from the provisions of the rent stabilization, but they would still have to, because we would have to know when they moved in and when they move out. So annually this would be, yes. They would follow an application annually for exemption, at a time of registration. And this is under perjury. I mean, how do you agree with that? Absolutely. All right, so can I suggest to that we kick enforcement as a separate issue? You can talk a lot about enforcement. I mean, unless you guys want to do it in real time. I have a question about owner-occupied. Okay. So, owner-occup occupied could be an individual, could be a partnership, could be a family trust? What we had talked about before that it has to be, the owner has to be a person, not a corporation. So, a lot of properties are held in family trust because that is really an individual. It's not a corporation that is set up. It's a family trust. Is that being considered or is that a Larry question? I haven't talked to the staff about that, but I would think that a family trust is an individual. So I would say yes. It's a family trust. That would qualify as a natural person that is owning that. As opposed to a corporation. Correct. And I would just want that to be clear in the statute because that would be my intention is that somebody who creates a family trust for tax purposes that really is a individual. A lot of blockages, and I think the reason the question has to be a partnership. I'm sorry. I have an appartanship that an individual owns more than 50% of. What can I also say? I think in a partnership you would have, if it's a true partnership, yes, you'd have, that would be an individual. Okay. Okay. Clear than what? Relocation fees. Number one, should relocation fees be required when evicting for use by landlords and specified relatives? Warner-learn. I think at a minimum we should be providing protection for tenants and perhaps this could be dealt with by a significant pre-announcement time period. Would it be legal, let's say you are an owner occupied, let's say that you have in your mind at some point in the future, you might want to move a relative into a unit. Is it legal? Would it be binding to have an initial lease in which the renter is acknowledging that that's a possibility and so that the renter has moved into the place fully aware that that's a possibility that might happen in the future. But Bob, you would then be getting people who are just putting those clauses in just to protect themselves and become meaningless. Yeah. I think so. So I think perhaps we can provide the protection by having a lengthy enough notification time period because I you know renters even in that situation can't be treated lightly. I mean they're living in a place and if somebody wants to move in a relative they they shouldn't just be free to do it willingly, they have to know that they're impacting somebody else's life also. They have to plan out. Okay, they have to plan out. So what's the right number? Six months. Six months? I would say at least six months, and I would also say a year, you know, if other people were up for a year. Lester? I agree that it should be handled by an extended time period. Six months would be the minimum that I would consider. So yes to relocation fees and yes to a minimum of six months, but I would even say nine months. I'd say no to relocation fees, but I'm okay with nine months. I think you give them planning. I mean, people to pay to move into their own property is assuming it's bona fide. I would say they have to stay there for at least three years. And also that they're not able to, well, I think it's a separate question, the notion of if they're doing that, and then after three years they can raise to market rent, and my feeling would be to discourage funny business, you'd say that they can't in that case. So I think that's a kind of protection. I feel it's kind of harsh to suggest that if people are moving into their own place, but I'm okay with extended notice so that people can plan. Are you saying that under three years they would not be able to raise up over three years? They would be able to raise up? No, I'm saying that they have to. I'm saying also, let's say that they moved out after two years and gave the system. Then I'm wondering retroactively, they would have to pay relocation fees if they game the system to the people that moved out. But if they're, that's to stop them from gaming the system. And we'd have to. I thought we had said that in terms of relocation fees that we weren't going to do that anyway for the first year. So. We haven't gotten to that one yet. I know, but we had talked about that. So in actuality, it's not really three years. If we said the first year is kind of a honeymoon period. No, no, but let's say these are people who let's say someone's been living there for a few years and someone wants to move their ailing mother in or something like that. I feel that that's something they should be able to do now. But don't you feel that the people that have lived there for all those years should have relocation fees? I think you should. I think at the very least you should give them extended an extended notice period to allow them to plan for. I see both sides, but I think you know here's someone moving in there in this case in firm mother and I think it's kind of harsh. It's a probably, you know, especially if it's a duplex or whatever that they should have to do that where we haven't had it. So I- Well, should we make this more restricted to just smaller buildings? But maybe. Why would it, I mean, you're not gonna fill the building with all of your relatives. You know, but- You'll be surprised how many cousins start to appear. No, but I think when we define families, cousins aren't counted. Lily, what your cousins aren't counted. So and beyond that. Or inferm others. Well, how about this? But the logic I think that we're saying has to do with is more of the personal relationship of moving a family member in. If you have a larger building, one, it'll be a short time before a unit is otherwise available, and it more is a corporate practice running a larger building. More of a business, and so why should there be extra leniency from moving somebody out of that larger building so that you can move in a relative? There isn't to me. There aren't, I mean, again. A home is a home. I could live there. I could see, I could see restricting it to smaller buildings. I think the logic in favor of doing it and just taking that. But it's home. I mean, whether they live in a big building with more apartments or less apartments, it's somebody's home. I mean, it's their life. Well, but if someone's living in a duplex and it's their home, they actually own it and they're, you know, they want their grandma. All right, so let's pick a number. Let's first of all, I was gonna suggest that, because I'm okay with nine months and no relocation fees, but it also be okay with allowing somebody to pay relocation fees cut the time. To what, six months? Well, to whatever they can go through. Shouldn't that be, I mean, any agreement people reach voluntarily, we're not gonna stand in the way. So you're not, well, you don't want somebody later to claim, you have to have a piece of paper. But you're not as we agreed with this. Yeah, well, you know, but you're not precluding that. If someone says I'm going to give you X amount to move out now and they agreed to do it. There'd be a number of units that is a threshold for requiring relocation fees. What's the name? We're going to do that. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12. I think everybody should have that. No, no, you're talking about that. But you're talking about for moving in yourself. So there are some cities that require lower relocation fees for relative moving in. So I don't know if that is something that the council does. I mean, here, I'm somewhat divided on the issue. I'm in favor of having at least some protections for the people in place. And so I would make this narrow and so I would say let's say anything limited to quads or less Lester I'm okay with that but I Kind of agree with councilmember bossy in terms of a home being a home and I'm just wondering that if it's limited to quads or less and then do some sort of graduated relocation fee for larger units such as after the first year 10% per year that the person has been in the home Graduated up to the 11th year which would then mean they would get the entire Relocation you're not talking about for family members moving in you're talking about No, I'm talking fees in general. No, that's not what we're talking no, I'm talking about family members only for family family members About family members in Only for family members. Yeah. I'm talking about family members. In other words, a larger unit, more than the four units, after the first year, would be 10% relocation fee per year that they have been there up to the eleventh year, which would be the other seven years. So, if they were there 10 years, they'd get 90%. Is that as opposed to full relocation fees for a five unit. Correct. Correct. As opposed. So I think I would prefer to keep it at full relocation fees for five units or bigger. Well relocation after relocation fees for the bigger buildings. You want to start at 100% right away. I could live with that. I think that the, I prefer my method. But I could live with that. OK, so from my perspective, like I said earlier, our home is a home. And whether you live in a 3plex, 4plex, 10plex, I mean, we've seen what having relocation fees has made all the difference to so many people that have moved out of their homes. So I stick with what we have had. I think this is a step backwards. And so I'm still with 100% of the relocation fees. And to me, it makes no difference how big or little the home is. So I think a home is a home too, but it's also home to the people who actually bought the buildings, maybe their parents did, and so for them to be able to move in themselves. And I think we have to separate between, you know, trying to evict someone and trying to have the ability to move someone in who is part of one's family. I actually kind of like Les's approach because it means that if someone has lived there for 10 years, they're more invested and they get the full amount. I also understand the notion of leaving out bigger buildings because they feel like they're more businesses rather than sort of homes. So I quite frankly could probably, I could probably live with either. I do think it's important enforcement is going to be important to make sure that there's not an abuse of this, that people aren't going to be moving in. And again, it's not going to be cousins or whatever. They're not going to be moving in just to game the system. And so I actually like the vice mayor's suggestion that for some time period after the family member initially moves in, if the family member subsequently moves out, then to prevent gaming of the system to have something like you can't just raise it back up to market so that the family member has to have been there for at least some time period. For that to qualify as a voluntary vacancy. I think you could even, you could do that or you could even suggest that because we do have this registry now that when they eventually move out, it could only go to whatever the market was when they moved in plus the allowable increases. So that would stop them from gaming the system in such a way, you could do that. Who ever wants to answer this since you're all agree? What is the difference to you between the different sizes of buildings? I mean, I understand the owner occupies duplex. But how does it now change if it's 4 or 10? I think as Bob said. Because you only have one family member. I think as Bob said, that one of the smaller buildings feel like more less of a business enterprise than the bigger ones with all of these units. And I think it's a question of that. Whereas as said, less is suggestion tying it to the amount of time you've been there, that in theory, I'd be okay with that too, could apply across the board. Because his is only for units, five units or more also. Well, assuming, but he's also assuming that you exempt, but I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem with saying, to me that would work across the board. And I would agree with that also. If you wanted to do something along those lines. Well, let's stick with this for the moment, but I would agree with Council Member Friedman's suggestion also. Can you clarify again what you're suggesting? Sure, in buildings that have units of five or greater that there would be a relocation fee and it would be 10% of whatever the relocation fee is for every year that the person has seen. You will have your relatives in assuming you must the nine months. the nine months. About that way, but yeah, it would be within that. So in that case, you're better off if you're being evicted to move for a family member to move into a bigger building than a smaller building. Because, or are you saying you'd give them for the smaller building? Yeah, you would be better off based on that. So then, so then, it would just be in any building. Yeah, I mean, you wouldn't want to diss to do so And you're someone cuz they're in a smaller building. Okay, I still want clarification Okay, one more time. Yeah one more time and just actually for folks sitting here I don't know if anybody's here to talk about the structural tower. We're not gonna get to that today I hope we get to body cameras, but if it's time sensitive, we're talking to anything on the close. Five o'clock. So if it's time sensitive, we'll cut this short and come back to it. If it's not time sensitive, we can see how the afternoon goes. But at the rate we're going, we're not going to get there either. I'm going to have to you guys. I mean, you're welcome to sit here. Talking to the police. Yeah. All right I'm just sorry I had to answer that. If it looks like we speed along all of a sudden we can call you and have you come back. How's that? As long as you don't give us a ticket for speeding. Probably not going to happen today. I just want to know how we got to where we're talking about relocation fees required when evicting for use by landlords and specific relatives. And now and we're talking about relocation fees required when evicting free use by landlords in specific relatives. And now, and we're also doing number two as well in terms of length of occupancy. Well, they know, because two is. Could you start at talking about how long we're doing? He did, but I want to make sure that. He's talking specifically to evictions related to a relative occupying the property in that specific, we'll cut to the generic, but in that specific sense, this was a recommendation. So whether it's a duplex or a fourplex, as long as you own the building and live in that apartment, right, that's first prerequisite, correct? Move into it. And you have to live, it says owner apartment, right? That's first prerequisite, correct? Move into it. And you have to live, it says owner occupied, right? You're moving into the building. Well, I don't know, that's a question. It is owner occupied or just you own it. It doesn't matter. Well, that's what we, I mean, you know. No, so in other words, you own a building and nobody, let's say you own a building with three units and you wanna move into it yourself and no family members live there, but you're gonna move in, bona fide legitimately move into your own building. That's what this is. So it will be owner occupied, but it may not be right now. I think that's what we're looking at. Or you want to put your parents there. Or your parents or your kids or, but again, legitimately. Okay, because again, I recognize we're talking, you know, going forward, but when we have talked about this in the past, at our last meeting, we talked about owner occupied duplexes. That's separate. That's we're exempting, we agreed, we're exempting those and that's a separate issue from now as to if someone wants to move into a building that they own. I mean, I know I've said consistently I think that they should be able to do that and we're now asking should there be relocation fees. And my suggestion was, less a suggestion was 10% each year that someone has resided there and my suggestion was an extended period of notice nine months or whatever. I mean six months or not. Actually, I think less was your suggestion just for the larger buildings or for all buildings. Well initially my suggestion was exempting the small units up to four and just applying the 10% for them. All right, I'm going to, you know what? This is people, I mean I'm not the only one that's confused here. I know that. So let's stay your physician. Let's start from the beginning. Okay. This is way too important. Okay. Let's start from the beginning. Okay. So we have units. The question is should relocation fees be required when evicting for use by landlords or specified relatives? My understanding of that question is that it may or may not be owner occupied right now but a owner or their immediate relatives want to move in. Okay, stop right there. Now, are we talking about, we're talking about beyond duplexes right now because we've already agreed that owner occupied duplexes are right. So when we're talking about three and fours. And more. But also duplexes that aren't owner occupied. All of them. So you want to duplex, and two people live there, and you want to move there yourself or have your mom move there. That's a duplex, but it's not owner occupied. We're talking about all buildings. All buildings. Right. Okay. All building. Keep going. Okay. So question is should relocation fees be required? So the required for who? For the person who is being evicted out so that the family member can move in. Whether or not it's an owner occupied building, whether or not it's owner occupied. It doesn't matter, whoever is getting evicted. Correct, because the duplexes are already exempted. So basically what you're saying is, I live in a building and you own the building and now you want, is it your brother or is it it can't be your brother. No, it's going to be my child or my grandchild or my parents. It's the immediate family. So child, wife, whatever, I mean assuming you're, how about if you're divorced, no? Well let's get through the big picture. I'll try to understand. Okay, so it's your children or your mother or father? Or grandchildren. Or grandchildren. My suggestion was, or grandchildren. Grand on, grand on down. Okay, so what you're suggesting is, if you own the building, do you have to live in that building or you don't have to live in that building? You do not. You do not have to live in that building. You do not. You do not have to. You just have to own the building. Right. Correct. And you can evict somebody who lives there, no matter how big the building is, to put a family member in it. Correct. Right. But different rules. With no relocation fees. No. With different rules for a two, three, or four versus a five and a both. Okay. now explain that to me. Okay, so to explain why. Well, first tell them what, why, and then we'll deal with the why. Okay. So the why is a good question, right? It is, I'd like to understand. It was really an answer to the question that you had posed before, which was a home is a home, and I wanted there to be some sort of relocation fee for those buildings above five units. Okay, let's stop. I was okay with the below five units, before you and below, having a nine month without relocation fees. So, in answering and trying to get to a compromise, I felt that it would be okay in the larger buildings, which are generally not mom and pop. They're generally corporate. Most of our buildings are how many again? Most of the buildings in terms of our registration are smaller than larger. No larger, I think it's more. Can we give me those numbers? So the most amount of buildings that we have in our registry are how many units? That's not what I remember. Well let's go back to the numbers. Why not do it for all units? And then you don't have a lot. Yeah, that's what I remember. Well, let's get to numbers. Why not do it for all units? And then you don't have a life. Yeah, that's what I remember. But I think it matters because I want to know how many people were affecting. But why not? Please. The information here. So 42.7% are between five and ten units. And then our next largest size is 19.2% which are two units and then 16.8% are four units 11 to 20 represent 10.4%. So the biggest was five and up. Correct? 42.7%. I'm sorry. What is below the five units? How much below the five units is 16%. Please. Hold on. So four units. Okay. How about one size fits all, Lester? That would be okay, too. In other words, whether it be a duplex, non-owner occupied duplex right now or three or four on up, doing it graduated at 10% per year of residency. So we eliminated the Y just testing that. But I still would draw a distinction. I'm trying to do a balance between interests of families and interests of tenants. Me too. And so I can see some argument for saying that if it's a smaller building, that's more associated with the family, as opposed to you get to a building of a certain size, and it really is just a business. It may be owned by an individual, but it's a business. And why should that business person have the opportunity to have special privileges in terms of evicting a tenant and not paying A relocation for a different family Isn't isn't what you're saying isn't part of why we're having this conversation is basically what you're saying is that you're trying to balance Somebody who owns property and wants to provide for a family member and we've narrowed it to either their mother or their children And that's it essentially so either their mother or their children, and that's it essentially. So what you're saying is that you want to balance supporting a family member. If somebody owns a building and they have a child and they want to put them in their building, where are you seeing the distinction between if they had a larger building or a smaller building, they still own it. Bill Lillie, who's still talking about individual ownership that's supposed to work? You know, I think for me my concern is, I think relocation fees have been a godsend for us. I think, and I'm just concerned about eliminating them. So how many of them? What I'm saying would keep more relocation fees, what I'm saying would keep full relocation fees for the larger buildings and would allow for relaxation only for the small Abil things what's being proposed is to relax the relocation fees for all buildings Right and only for only if you're only Related only and so I guess my how many of the larger buildings matter fact the lower the smaller ones are individually owned If they're owned in corporate then then this isn't going to apply. And it doesn't apply. Well, there's a lot. I mean, there are quite. If you want to move your mother into a building, really, you're going to, no matter how big the building, you're going to want to do it. I agree. And if I owned a building and I wanted to move my- And you should not have to pay full relocation fee for. If I- If I- If I- If I- If I- If I- If I- I agree with you that if I own a building and I want to put my mother or my children in the building, I should be able to do that. But I also- Also feel that there's somebody who lives in that apartment building whose life is going to change because we're essentially evicting them. And we need to provide a way for them to find another home. So I think we can do both. I'm not understanding why we are now talking about eliminating relocation fees for our family. I mean, we can do both. We can allow for, because to me, that is a just cause, because you're putting your mother in who, I get that. But I don't think that it should be free. That's all I'm saying. How many buildings are we talking about that are? I think it should be, that's, I guess, where I'm trying to understand is why does it make a difference? If it's, I mean, I think we all agree on the owner-occupied duplexes or the duplexes because we see that there's a correlation between those who own single family. So I get the duplexes, but beyond the duplexes, my concern is we're randomly picking whether it's five or three or these are lives at home. Right now we're at all. All buildings. Then we talk right now we're at all. There's no distinction. Okay, so I guess my feeling is I can understand and I mean that if you own a building that you would want to put your mother or your children there and I think that's where we talk about just cause and no cause. I think that could fit under a reason to be allowed to evict somebody for lack of better words. I mean, but I don't think if we're putting in a relative that that means that the person, I mean, because to me, you're now giving anybody who's living in an apartment the ability to not have the confidence that, you know what, oh my God, what happens if the owner of the building one day wants to put their kid there or one day wants to put their mother there they have no protection and that to me is what I'm uncomfortable about so Bob I assume there seems to be consensus for this what I'd like to do in order to move us along is to pause on this one we can come back and revisit it later we can spend the next time but I just want to say briefly that less the suggestion was to offer people who've lived there longer periods of time more protection. So for each year, in this specific case, only in the case of an owner who's moving in, themselves or family member, for each year or there, you get 10% of the relocation. So you may well have been there 10 years, you'll get it all. So to me, that is kind of a compromise solution. But I think less is the time I'm wrong, but I thought that was kicking in only for larger buildings. But now he's saying for all. I could see it for all buildings. But if you're saying that. But if you're saying that. So I would be more restrictive than that. I still say that a bigger building is more like a business. You have more units, more rent coming in to spread the relocation fees over. You have more opportunity that just organically a unit would become available to move a family member in. So I do see it to, so in trying to do the balance, I'm being more restrictive in relaxing relocation fees than less is doing an expert proposal. So I'm being somewhere in between you, Lillie. But what's your suggestion for smaller buildings, let's say for smaller buildings? Well, if you were willing to do that 10% greeted up for smaller buildings, I'd go for that. But then say, the bigger buildings, no relaxation of relocation fees. buildings, no relaxation of relocation fees. Is there an opportunity for asking for the full fee, but if there is a reduction, it goes through the rent control board, with some criteria that is consistent with what the council is discussing now? I think it's all better, good solution. Then if the person, let's say the family member who moves in doesn't stay there for the required three years, retroactively relocation fees would need to be paid. That would be gaming the system in a sense. Oh, we'll get to that. But let's. Well, I think we're creating a very complex system and I'm not sure that it's going to be able to be enforced. And that's, you know, I think we're better off having a simple system that we can come to a compromise on as opposed to making it really, really complicated. I think we all have the same intention. I think we all want to protect the tenant and give some predictability and security. And we also want to protect an owner of a property to allow for them to put a family member. They should have the right to put a family member in their own building. I get that. I agree with that. 100%. If I own a building, I want to be able to put my family member in that building. But I also recognize by me doing that is uprooting whoever's living there. And to me, I feel that I owe something to that person who lives there. We already have given a free year, we've talked about that there is no relocation fees. That's something we've already talked about. So now we're in year two. Somebody has planted their home there. It wasn't. It wasn't. Because we've been talking about just cause and no judge. To me, this is something that is justifiable. This is not a, you know, what I don't like the way, you know, I want more ranch or you're, you know, playing your music too loud or whatever. This is, I think, a fair reason you want to put your relatives, but I don't think that just because I want to put my relatives that whoever is living there doesn't get to have a relocation fee. So what about 50% of the relocation fee or 60% across the board? Is there something else that we can come up with? I guess my point is, part of why this RSO I, has been fair for everybody, for the landlords and the housing providers and the tenants is there's been a sense of predictability in life. And now, anybody who lives in a building as a tenant can live in fear that one day their owner can, you know, will put their son or whoever in their apartment, and they are stuck on the street now trying to find a new apartment, deal with first and last months rents, deal with moving, and they don't have the money to do that. Why is that fair? You actually make a case for exempting the larger buildings. On a proportionate basis, the chances that your apartment is going to be the one that's picked is lower. If you're living in a duplex and the owner wants to put somebody in there, it's your apartment. If you own a triplex and there are two other people and they want to put somebody in there, you've got one in three. But if you own a triplex and there are two other people and they want to put somebody in there You've got one and three, but if it's a building with 10 units in it Then you've only got a 9% 10% chance. I just don't think that you know the odds are actually in your favor in a bigger building I It's not a proper ballistic thing if you're the one who's picked you're the one Yeah, I think we still have consensus around this scaled thing. Are you still in the same space? Yeah, I think we have a move along for the moment, John. I like bless his idea of 10% a year and I would be willing to apply it across the board. So I do think we have at least three on that. I think you have three. Well, we have three on that. We can bring that back if you want one one first for the rest. It does tie to the next one. There was some discussion of notice or is the notice thing went away? No I think there should be extended notice. I mean that's part of the predictability you can't. So it's 9 months notice and 10%. Okay. How much up to now no fault eviction, which we eliminated was three months, correct? It was 60 days. So 60 days. So nine months, I think, is a huge improvement and I'm fine with that. Okay. All right. Yeah, I have recommended nine months. Should the relocation amount change? fine with that. Okay. All right. Yeah. I have recommended I'm not sure. Should the relocation amount change? Or should there be tiered relocation fees tied to length of occupancy? I'm fine. Okay. So I need a little bit of context here. All right. And I'm just going to lay it to the probationary time here. Before you. Yeah. I was just going to say, maybe we should take three first and answer the question should there be a year sort of a no-risk year? And so that's not unreasonable when we discussed it last time, but I've had further thoughts about it. And again, I'm not really sure of the rationale. We've set up a process by which a landlord can approach the rent commission and say that this is a person that should be evicted. Why do we need a different process than that for the first year? I think that we got to this based on the testimony that said that landlords would know within the first year if somebody was a bad tenant. But if somebody's a bad tenant, we're trying to set up a process that's not too onerous. Why do we have to treat that first year differently than we're treating the other time? The question is, would they have to go through the process at all? So I made it. Yeah, they would have to go through the process. Well, it wouldn't have to. And this say, it said they would not have. I made the suggestion and I can tell you what my rationale was is that most leases are a year and then they move from two months to month. And if you have a year lease, but you have no ability to terminate, then it's not a year lease. It's a forever lease. So to me, the notion that you, because you can't get rid of the person or, you know, it's more, it's more than a year. or it's more than a year. So effectively, it eliminates the ability to have a year lease. And I know it's custom, it's part and parcel of the way things work, it's a year, and then it goes to month to month. So my rationale was very simple, that at the end of the year, the, which is kind of a probationary period, before it goes to month to month, the, you know, you sign up for a year, you know, if I sign a car lease for a year, it's not forever, it's a year. And so that to me was the rationale behind. But we're also sending a process that we hope will not be too onerous by which a landlord would be able to make the case that this is a disruptive tenant. Well, but then what is a year lease. Why couldn't the tenant be there? What is a year lease then has no meaning then? Then basically we're saying each lease is in perpetuity or until you can determine according to our process that someone is disruptive. We've effectively been saying that from day one a lease is forever. I have like a diamond, I guess. Well, the lease is providing protection to the land, over the tenant is on the hook for the year. Well, I mean, try, again, that's like a contract at a, try enforcing that. It's mainly for the protection of, you think normally for the tenant. So, but I'm not sure why we want to treat that time period differently than for the rest of the process that we're putting into place. Well, I think the goal was not to have to go through the process. Well, I understand that. I think the odds are within the first year you're going to know. I mean, someone can easily misrepresent themselves and then all of a sudden they do it. And so I think a year is a reasonable period of time. And so then it should be relatively easy for the landlord to go through the process and to make the case that this is a disruptive tenant. It's just onerous. It may not be as onerous as going to court, but it's. Well, I also want to mention that Mark Elliott had brought up something that we hadn't talked about, which goes to this, which was allowing for a tenant to contest as well. Well, okay. Let's put that on. That's the one piece. That's the one piece. Yeah. Let's get through one piece at a time. Well, let's hear some more, Lester. So I agree with what John has said. I think that it is a trial period. There is a one-year lease even then, as I understand it, there has to be notice in advance. Yeah. 10th month or 11th month. There has to be notice. And I think that- I always said Susan do you remember I thought we said six months when did we say in terms of I remember suggesting six months is that correct yes so with within that one year I think we said that we would allow for a six month notice if so essentially it's really a six month test a six month honeymoon is what we had talked about at the last meeting. Well, I would extend that to a nine month honeymoon because I think what you're gonna get is people automatically giving notices after six months because they don't wanna take a chance. At least after nine months you really are gonna know if that tenant is a viable tenant for the long term. Six months, I think it's a two short period. But nonetheless, I do believe that there should be that tryout period during the first year or lower period. Really? So I was okay with the year, but I was also okay with the six months because my concern with nine months is if you are the tenant, that doesn't give you a lot of time to you know go and find another another apartment if you have kids in the school you know to me in reality three months to kind of move and get your life to the next step doesn't feel like that's balanced. That's why I think we came up with the six months and if you were told you have three months from today, it's pretty stressful. So just a matter of process, if we let the year run, release converts to months a month. Could you in fact start the noticing period at the end of the year, but give three months notice on a month to month, please? Will they want to give six months notice? Well, the question is, you know, if you don't want to cut into the, I think that's a good suggestion. You could say that within the year you could give a six months notice up until the end and then they have the right to do it without you have a year to make a decision. No, that's not what you're going to say. You have a year to make a decision. No, that's not what you're going to say. You have a year to make a decision. Any time within that year, if you decide to give notice, they have six months to leave. So if you give notice, it's six months, they're out after a year. If you give notice, it'll have a month, they'd have to leave six months later. Then we're saying the same thing sort of. Well, we are actually worried because what it What it does is it extends the time period to a year to actually test it out. Right. You have up to a year to test it out. Are you okay with it? You have, but you have six months to let the tenant know that you have the intention of them leaving. Right. If my suggestion would be... But then how does that affect the relocation piece? Well, well, well, let's go through one thing. So, I believe that in that situation, because it's's within the year you're giving notice there wouldn't be relocation. So you have to give notice within that year. Right, not after the year. Right, I think that's what you were saying. Right, within the year and then they'd have six months but then also the landlord could not then jack up the rent. That's another thing too. Are you okay with this, Ken? Okay, yeah. Okay, last. Okay. That's another thing too. Are you okay with this concept? Yeah. Okay, last, okay. Let's go back to number two. Relocation fee amount change or should they be tiered due to length of occupancy? So we already have done that for the first year. After that first period of time, whatever that is. This is now moving forward. So let me hear other people talking. I'll never start. The answer to question two is for me is yes. No. And for me, it's no two because we're being, we're, we have the, the trial period. Right. So to me, that covers that once. And then if someone, if someone, all of a sudden, you know, then they come to the board. And then you come to the board and you make the case that this is a disruptive ten. And then, so I'm on board with that. OK. Next page. What about you? It doesn't matter. Next page. It does matter. We want to know what you think. I'm fine with it. I would actually say that I would have split the baby and said from the second to the fifth year, perhaps I would have a reduction. And after the fifth year, it would be. But it's a nuance. And so not to make it more complicated. Let's go to the next slide. Move and write along. So on this one, the bold is you don't have to talk anymore. If the answer is no, then you don't have to do any of the other questions. If the answer is yes, then go through two through four. Okay. So I understand the benefit of banking. I understand that it addresses the issue of in theory If banking is allowed and there's less of a perceived need to raise the rent every year and so it might Be a benefit to tenants as well as providing protection to landlords I I think in practice it makes the system more complicated makes it less predictable for the tenants as to what their rent increases might be, can subject them to a big jump. I would not want to do it without what we've been calling guardrails, which would diminish the amount of the banking. But I think if you put in the guardrails, it just makes it less likely that landlords would take advantage of it. If they know going forward that they really wouldn't be able to make up for their rent in free seats here, there's that much less reason, less rationale for the banking in the first place. And so given all of that, while seeing that there could be some benefits to banking. I shake out as no one banking. Mr. I see the potential benefit in banking. I see that Mark Elliott's position on it is not to have banking. I think what's going to happen is that the landlords will just go ahead and do the maximum amount of the raise. But I agree with Bob that it probably isn't going to be beneficial one way or the other. So I'm okay with no banking. I agree with my colleagues. I'm in no. I would be in favor of banking because I, as said, I think what's going to happen now, we are going to see landlords automatically raise whatever the max is. And I do think though that if we did it there should be a cap And I think that it would need to be regulated but there's three votes not to bank and I would agree with the vice mayor and that also next slide So there's a number of questions here One of the first ones would be, should we defer identifying the habitability standards until we do some sort of inspection, which is a later question when data is available. One of the things that was talked about is we don't actually know what the general habitability standards are in the multifamily. Okay, should we defer or not? Okay. So, if we cannot develop habitability standards in time to be able to implement this ordinance within a few months, I would say that we should develop the habitability standards and then implement them subsequently. As for some of the other questions on this page, I think it makes sense that even if we don't do a comprehensive inspection program every year, every two years, every three years, it's a combination of self-certification, inspections on demand in response to a complaint, and random inspections. I don't think we necessarily have to be comprehensive with all the inspections. I actually think it's kind of owner's boat for the owners and the tenants having somebody doing all of the inspections. But I think by some combination of those three, we'd be able to deal with the, whether or not buildings are adhering to the habitability standard and to be requiring buildings to require to adhere to a habitability standard to be entitled to their rent increases. So let's take that as a recommendation that not necessarily do it now, but there be three elements to the inspections, right? That was my suggestion. It's not necessarily comprehensive. Well, OK. But if there's some agreement around that, maybe that could form something you can come back to us with if you have different ideas, obviously, that too. So, Mr. Husser. So I agree that we should defer it at this time. What I would like to see as a suggestion is that there be a request and anonymous, not necessarily every property inspected every year, every two years, every three years, but that the anonymous request, I'm sorry, that the random request be instituted and the anonymous so that a building owner does not know whether or not it's anonymous or random, because then I think that it would protect the tenants in terms of them reporting something. So if we have a robust random inspection period, I think that would alleviate that problem. Yeah, so I agree in terms of having an anonymous and random, but I think that in terms of, I think it was suggested to defer, I think we need to do that now. Because I mean, I don't want to, of course, hold up our ordinance, but I think we should provide for as soon as possible to allow for a tenant to have an anonymous tip for lack of better words or for a random inspection because I don't want to wait for that element. And I also think in terms of, they have ability standards. I think we have to have a baseline anyway. So how do we do that? Because I really think it's important that, I think there are currently some buildings perhaps that we do need to look at. Are you okay with Councilmember Wanda-Licks suggestion that in the short term we have this trio of inspections that prior to a full definition of habitability standards we would employ. Well, here's maybe a way to deal with it. Could we have a one-year period in which the hearing offices have a greater discretion so that we immediately start with the inspections and cleaning random inspections, that we don't try to put on paper immediately what happened to ability means. Right. But the inspections happen now. The inspections happen now. The hearing office is for a year and have some discretion as to this place doesn't deserve a rent increase. This place is not up to a fair definition of habitability and maybe a year from now we will have gained enough experience to say this is what we mean. Larry looks unhappy with that. Larry looks very happy. That's what you look like when you're happy. Yes, thank you. I haven't given it any thought yet. But you look happy. Yes, you look happy. Wasn't really happy. I'm not sure. So there is a state habitability standard, which we can use. That would be absent developing anything else, the Beverly Hills have it at least, standard. But beyond that, giving discretion to the hearing officers without some guidance, I think is going to result in a diversity of decisions, depending on what hearing officer you get. And so I'm not sure that that's going to result in the outcome that I think the council desires. So in the short term, could we use the state standard as we spend this time developing our own? Could we use the state standard through some series of inspections, both random and anonymous, and over the course of the next little bit we can add to that as we see fit and then bring it back with our own standard at a later day. Certainly you could do that. Okay. So I guess the part that I'm adding to this conversation is that I don't want to wait for that. This is to me something that we do now. But we're saying we're going to start with a state standard. You need a standard against which. Yeah, no, I understand that and I agree with that. And I think in developing or identifying habitability standards, it's coming off the discussion that you had regarding a Beverly Hills standard. We would always enforce the state habitability standards. And then the question is, what I'm hearing is random anonymous inspections, to make sure that apartments are being kept up to those standards. Then in addition to that, maybe you want the commission to be to determine those habitability standards that are the Beverly Hills standards. Going forward. Going forward. Going forward. I mean, just like- Are you okay with that, Bob? Yes. And just to make clear, when I read question one, I thought we were talking about identifying Beverly Hills habitability standards. And I think it's very important that we immediately start the random and anonymous and that they not, that they truly be random and anonymous and that they not, that they truly be random and anonymous. So that they're dispersed and that no tenant could be called out for asking for the inspection. Okay. Yes, I agree. Yes. But on the other hand, isn't that the reason we eliminated no fault eviction was because people were afraid of retaliation. Well, they can't be retaliated against now because we've eliminated it. People are nervous and this will give them so people should feel free to. I think self reporting or reporting of people who feel that they're living in substandard is going to be very important at the same time. I do think we should have a pro act and there should be a pro act of element. But that's how you're going to discover the worst offend. That retaliation is prohibited in many areas of the law and still many people are nervous about coming forward because retaliation still happens. Well, understand, and that's one of the reasons we eliminated because we don't want people to be afraid. We want, in fact, when people come here and point out, you know, the celters and the copens and that sort of thing, that's actually a good thing. And they need to know that when they're doing that, we're going to do what we can to actively protect them. So, you know, but I'm going to support this also. How many more slides do we have? Do we have a lot? Only because if we don't, we may want to call the police chief back. What is the next life? We can always skip and come down. And how many more after this? So one, two, three, four, five, six. So forget the chief. Yeah, some shorter than others. So if I could make a suggestion, maybe if we could. So let's keep going. We're doing good. Okay. All right. Bob, yes or no? Yes, but this. Yes, and this one I want to make the pit, John, because this I've been the advocate for. Am I allowed to hand that an exhibit to people? Yes, but I'm making part of the public record too if that's what he meant. And if anyone wants to see. They have to be allowed. I'm sorry. Here it is. If anyone wants to see this. Oh, we can put it up on the screen. we can put it up on the screen. So, no, there aren't, but we can put up on the screen. We'll get you an extra. So, I think, if you think about the objectives of the rent stabilization ordinance, there were really two key ones. One was to promote stability of the population, to provide protection to people who need protection against rate increases. And the other was, I'm not going to talk about this immediately, so I'll segue into it. I'll say a quick one. Another was to ensure that the building stock in Beverly Hills is well maintained. And I think we can help doing that by trying to focus where we have the greatest protection for renters. If we give everybody the same protection, then that necessarily limits the amount of money that's available for maintaining the building stock. We do a better job by focusing where we're providing the greatest protection. I commend the work that was done to look at what subset of the population might be that we might want to provide greater protection to. And the particular parameters that we used, and we could always change these parameters somewhat, were to look at the lower 20th percentile of the apartment units by rent. To look at if the people living in those units were rent burdened, and to look at if they had sufficient residency period if they were invested in some sense three to five years. And I roughed out some numbers using the number of tenants that would fall into those categories. By multiplying the numbers of tenants in those categories by the average rents for one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom places, to get a feeling for what type of what dollars would be involved that the city would have to provide as a subsidy for those people. And the numbers, of course, are rough estimates, but it shakes out that somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000 or so, I think could provide an extra subsidy that would lower the rent increase by 1% to 2% for a subset of the population that would be in the greatest need of that. What that means is that we're providing greater protection to the people who need the greater protection. Right now with the CPI change, we would have about a 4.2% allowed increase. If the city is providing some money that would lower that a subsidy of 1% that would bring that down to 3.2% that would be providing greater protection for the renters, meanwhile the landlords would be getting the full 4.2%. I also had proposed a somewhat larger spread going from the 4% to 8% immediately by CPI in the middle. Again, that 4% higher basement value would be providing some additional money for the landlords to help try to ensure the maintenance of the building stock. We've gone through a very long process of a year or more hearing from lots of people, lots of perspectives. If we keep the 3% bottom level mediated by CPI, that's very similar to what we have in place already. We haven't done very much at all to accommodate some of the concerns that were advanced by the landlords who are saying that's not enough money from them to maintain the building stock. And what I'm advocating primarily is to provide greater protection for the renters, when I'm saying we'd give renters even more protection than what we would have in a 3% to 7% range mediated by CPI, because I'm reducing it by a percentage or two. So it's more protective to the tenants. And at the same time, it is providing something more to the landlords, because we're not providing equal protection for everybody. We're focusing on those people in need. I think we can implement it and ensure that the city doesn't end up spending too much money on it by designating a pot of money. Let's say in the first year we pick an amount of $500,000, $250,000, and $1,000,000, whatever it is that we pick, but we maximize our exposure. What we could do is we could have people apply for this program tied to our fiscal year, let's say. Apply for the program prior to the start of our fiscal year in July. They have to meet the criteria that we designate, whether it's the 20th percentile, whether it's that they're rent burdened whether they have a three years' resins, whatever it is, we set our criteria, people can apply, get admitted to the program. Over the course of the next year, we figure out what the rent increase for those people is. And let's say we've designated $500,000. And the rent increase for those people is. And let's say we've designated $500,000. And the rent increase for those people happens to miraculously be $500,000. Would correspond to $500,000. Then everybody could get the full amount of their subsidy. And their subsidy, let's say, would be their actual rent increase or capital 1% change. And if the entitlement was $500, and we'd set aside 500,000, everybody gets what they're entitled to. If the too many people applied, and then actually it would amount to $750,000, then on a pro-rata basis, we just give them less so that our total exposure is still 500,000. So we've capped our exposure for that first year when there'd be some uncertainty as to how many people would apply and to what our exposure would be. So I do think that this is something that we can implement as part of the program while capping our exposure. And I do think it does a better job of aligning the rent stabilization program with what the objectives of the program is. And frequently we talk about Beverly Hills being a leader that we want this to be the rent stabilization program that's a better program than exists in some places. And I think this does make it a better program. And one other thing I think it goes to the equity. Why are we going down this path? We're going down this path because we think it's a benefit to the community to provide stability for some members of our community. So I think it's appropriate that the city kick in some of the money to provide that benefit that we use the community to see. So anyway, so I'm urging everybody to give serious consideration to that. Let's go around the first lester. So what do you see is there an average subsidy that you're talking about per year or how much would that come out? I mean I know you're not. I know. Okay, so to get down to some numbers here, if you look at my little table now, it's broken down by the average rent for one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom and four bedroom. Then I picked the numbers from the report that we have in front of us as to the number of units that would be below the 20th percentile in each one of those categories. So for example, there are 129 studios that correspond to the 20th percentile in rent for studios. That of those, if we take an average, 52% of people are rent burdened, meaning they spend more than I think it is 30% of their disposable income, their income, whatever it is on rent. So 30% of the people on those lower rent, so 52% of the people on those lower rent studios would also be rent burdened, so that would lower the number down to 67 people. 92.5% of those people would have been in the units for at least three years, so that would be 62 people in studios that would be subsidizing. 280 people in one bedrooms that would be subsidizing and so on. You multiply that by the average rent for each one of those number of bedrooms, and you can give the total annual rent in that category to issue. And then you can see the amount of money that will correspond to a 1% or 2% subsidy. And it ranges somewhere between about 400,000 to 750,000, depending upon if you adopt just one of the criteria of all three of them. My only point in doing this is that I think it's a manageable amount of money. And for this manageable amount of money, we are providing greater protection to the subset of the population that needs the greater protection. So in concept, I think it's a good idea. Whether or not it should be the lowest 20% or 15% or 25% whether it's severely rent burdened or just rent burdened and the vesting period, I think those are all discussion points. I don't have a problem with the specific amount of money that we're talking about as long as it's capped. I don't know what the cost would be to administer a program like this. I think we need to know about that, too. But in concept, I would like to look at this further. I do not want this to hold up the rest of this. I think we need to go forward with the rest of the ordinance. But I would be receptive to the limit. What I'm suggesting is that we could designate as part of this ordinance that we're going to put $500,000 just amount into a pool and have the registration for the pool be tied into our next fiscal year to let people become aware of this, to give people an opportunity to apply to set our criteria. And then the subsidy would actually begin next fiscal year. It would begin with our fiscal year that starts in July. So this would be part of our budget, your ideas that would be part of the budget process for the following year. Yes. It would be in the grant, one of our grant funds. It could be there. But it would be something that we would adopt, that we're going to do this subject to the criteria that we still have to set to start with the start of our next fiscal year. I would be supportive of looking at this. So I am 100% in support of this. I don't need to look at it. I am completely in support of it. And I do recognize that we have some guidelines that we need to set. And I like your idea, I think it's very reasonable in terms of a timeline to have it in that fiscal budgeting process. I think this is in the spirit of why we are doing in our so one of the reasons. So you completely have my support and I think this would be a way for us to lead and hopefully encourage other cities to think along these lines. Thank you. So would the subsidies go to the tenants or to the landlords? We could discuss that. I was thinking it would go to the tenants that the landlords should not have a reason to start discriminating among who their tenants are going to be. We shouldn't place an extra burden on the landlords that they have to seek out a different avenue to get paid. Landlords will be neutral to this. Landlords to pay just the same. I thought it was for the tenants as well. So their argument, of course, was that you should, you know, if you're going to subsidize it, don't limit the increase and that sort of thing. And I see that landlords, I'm in favor of this. I don't think this is the kind of subsidies when we heard from the landlords that they were suggesting that they were suggesting. However, I would, I've said this before, what we can do to help bless the landlords is, and I'd almost tie it to that, is for those who are mills act eligible, I would maybe wave fees. You talk about a pot of money, you know, which I support above, but I'd put another pot that would allow us to facilitate that so that landlords could get the tax breaks and that they could invest that. So I think a subsidy program like that should, and we're talking about the, you know know only the ones that qualify should work from both ends and I think that would be a model that we could set up and I Be in favor of this would this would be the subsidy for the tenants and the other side would be a pot an equal pot for the landlords that we could help them To designate buildings and save money through mills act So I would put the mills act question kind of you know, barking lot and state. So Bob what happens in the second year? We could always limit our exposure by picking a fixed amount. My concept actually was that the amount could grow at the same percentage as our total city tax that we collect from multifamily units grow so if that grows 3% a year if we set the initial pot of 500,000 that would grow in 3% But in the second year it's a second 500,000 so you're up to a million Well, it would be 500,000 per year So each year is another five hundred thousand? Growing at the same percentage is our total tax. So there be more than a million? No. Well, rent is going to continue to rise. The fund would have to, you'd have to protect the people when somebody's enrolled in this. They're enrolled for life. Or else they're going to lose their subsidy. So conceivably, you could even conceive of a scenario in which the first ex-people, to the extent that we have money enrolled. Second year, there are actually people who are needier to apply. That would force out, assuming that money stays tight, that could force out people on the other end. But those people are already depending on this subsidy. So unless you're going to guarantee the subsidy in perpetuity, how do you manage a constantly changing population? So I was concerned about creating an undibanded liability. And so in my mind, we were fixing it. And we were fixing it at whatever our initial pot is growing at that percentage that our tax revenue increases. And that every year, there'd be that application procedure. Over the course of the end of that year, we would know the total amount, dollar amount, at stake for those individuals who applied. If it works out that the total dollars are at stake, or $1 million, and we'd set aside $5,000. Each party will only get 50% of the subsidy. So there could conceivably be a number of folks. You talk about not knowing the future. Year to year, you're not going to know what your subsidy is. Correct. So the presumption is if it can be helpful, it will be, but you're not guaranteed it. You're not guaranteed the absolute amount, yes. There will be a subsidy, but you're not guaranteed the amount. So it depends upon the number of eligible people who apply. Okay. So, all right, so I think there needs to be clarity around that because you know that once you give somebody that, they're going to expect it forever. It's a drawdown. You know, I agree and I think that's part of what we need to as well. Okay. All right. Rent burden. So rent burden works at the only at the lower end, right? There is no rent burden at the higher end of rent. Yeah, well, well, no. Well, well, you know, but I so I can be automobile burdened by going and buying a rolls Royce because because I know because that's going to really strap me if I got to pay for that every month. But that's why this also the 20th percentile and it it doesn't have to be 20, it could be 10, it could be 30, whatever it is, but it would apply only to the less expensive units. It would have to apply only to the less. That's why I said before I would be in favor of this, but I think we need to look at this more. So that's the delivery of labor point. I would support studying this too. If you want to, you're marks of money, that's okay. If we can't come to agreement around the detail, we'll have some extra money, but I'm okay with moving and forward and seeing what it looks like as we develop. All right, next slide. Okay, so this one was my thing. I thought this also could help tell the program to what our objective sort of rent stabilization program are that by exempting the very high-priced units, we also are excluding from the program parties who don't really need protection from a rent stabilization program. And income versus rental amount? I thought your suggestion, I think it was your suggestion of rental amount is actually, I think, a better way to get in it. And a number? 70% higher, 80% higher? Well, in our report, they did it a little bit differently. I think it's twice the median, 1.5 times the median. I'm not sure. 1.75, I think, by the numbers was shaking out about right. Twice was hitting very few people, but we could figure that out. Lester, so we're still talking about the units all being registered, correct? Yes. So it's just whether or not at a certain level, there should be an exemption and yes, I do agree. Yes, I do. I think it has to be based on the rent amount because otherwise you're going to think we said that. We agree. It has to be. Yeah, but here's also the thing. Does this mean there's then? Does this go back to the old 10% or is it or if you're exempting them is it skies the limit? The skies the limit. So that's what the marketplace will control that. Right? I think it devils into details. To me, it's consistent with who needs protection from a rent-safe organization. I agree, it depends on the level, though, because again, you pay more for a for-unit if you've got all these, you know, if you've got a bunch of kids and that sort of thing and I think you've got a, well that's not gonna be a luxury part. But in each category, I'm assuming we're doing this by separate standards for one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedrooms. Is it bedrooms? And so you still be picked right only on the most luxurious of the three bedrooms. It's right. Well, no, but the amount of rent for a studio, making up a figure. Like a white class. 5,000 bucks would be a lot for a studio, but for a five bedroom, it's not a lot. But I think we're picking the highest percentile in by category. Right. And I'm saying our category is according to bedroom, square feet. How does it? Just bedrooms. Okay. And I'm saying our category is according to bedroom square feet. How does it just bedrooms? Okay, okay. Next. Most quick sort of. As for as all this will be quick. So I think there should be some pastors. A question about the seismic one. Could you double check your numbers? Did you really allow, was the number in the report really for 50% of the past or is that 100% of the seismic? When I looked at the numbers it looked to me like the number in the report is 100% of the seismic cost. I'm sorry, what? So we were talking about a variety of different possible pass-throughs and one of them was seismic retrofit and the report has a past the amount of $57 per month and if you take 57 per month multiply by 12 months in a year by 10 years by nine units you get 100% to the seismic retrofit, not 50%. And so I'm asking if you could check the number that's in the report. The cost was being paid by the tenant, and we also assumed some financing would be involved in the cost. Right. So you made the cost greater because of the financing? We included the cost of the financing in the math. So it's the actual capital cost plus the cost of financing. Okay, so maybe that's where the difference is. So I'm not sure that the pass-through should include the financing. If there's a variety of things that are possible for a pass-through. I think in general, there can be some sharing of things. I think the principle is who benefits. And so if there's an improvement to a building that stays with the building for the lifetime of the improvement. The tenant isn't necessarily there for the lifetime of the improvement. And so that's a reason for passing on only a portion through to the tenant. Looking at the $57 amount as a pass through just for seismic alone, and that struck me just too expensive, too big as a pass-through just for seismic alone, that struck me as too expensive, too big of a pass-through. If you do it without the financing costs, that would drop to about half of that value, that would drop to about $28. Also I don't know, why is it 10 years as opposed to 20 years? I mean, the lifetime of the improvement is at least 20 years if not longer. What was the logic to amortizing it over just 10 years? If it were amortized over a longer time period that also would drop that down. And maybe we do have to go to 25% instead of 50% pass through. Just because that overall pass through was just getting to be too big of an impact on rent by my way of viewing it. So I would like to mitigate that sum. We spoke about the pass-through for the water reliability charge. I think there are benefits to both the owners and the tenants from the water reliability charge. But I think as it is in the report, it's 100% pass-through. That seems too high to me. The tenants, you know, this is going, how long is the, is it a 20-year buildout for the water-run-deprized plan? The 30 years, what's the time period over which the rates are going to be higher that the water reliability charge is going on How we bought it will depend on how we finance right right but But it struck me that it shouldn't be a hundred percent pass through that it should be lesser to To share the benefit between the tenants and the owners. That one wasn't a huge charge. That one was $1.90. I think that one is hand-lobable. It is a benefit to both the tenants and the building owners. And so I see a logic for passing that one through with some proportion. Let's see, what were the other things? Inspection and registration. And those also, those also those actually are I think are pretty much equal benefits to both and those I could see a 50 50 pass through. Yeah. Okay, let's try. So. and the water reliability. If I think we have to be consistent, if we're going to figure into the amortization, our finance costs, I'm not sure why we don't amortize also the building owners finance charge. So I see that as being a pot. I do agree that it's not necessarily 50-50 on that, and I would be certainly willing to look at a number where the owners of the buildings have a larger share, 60, 70, 65, whatever that number is. But I think that to be consistent, I think we need to keep the finance charges in both the water reliability and the seismic. Water reliability is probably a 50-50 proposition, and I believe inspection and registration probably are 50-50, and I'm open to other numbers on seismic. You have a little remember? Yeah, again, in my view, the seismic is something that's, what's the lifetime benefit of the seismic is something that's, you know, what's the lifetime benefit of the seismic? 40 years, 50 years. And so for advertising, it's just over 10 years. It shouldn't be, you know, 50, 50 years too steep of a burden on the tenants when the value of the improvement is actually there for a longer time period. I agree. If you can, I'm going to tie it over 10 years. If you have a short amortization schedule, if the amortization schedule were longer, then the percentage should be higher to the tenant. Yes. Mm-hmm. Did you want to say something? You look like you. OK. I agree with what I've been talking about. OK, so I think I agree with my colleagues. In terms of the 50-50, I think the inspection and the registration makes sense. In terms of the seismic, I agree with what Councillor Member Wanderlick and I think you agreed with Councillor Member Wanderlick as well. It's probably shakes down closer to the 25% as you had said because of the amortization. I think the number- And are you including finance in this too? Yeah. And the water reliability, definitely at 100% was inaccurate and I think it needs to be much less as well. Yeah, but even less than 50, 50 in my opinion. Well, who uses the water? Well, obviously the 10. But we're also the ones that are making the but that's proof for your house and my house too. Yeah that's true. So I would support it. Yes. The 5050 and the size make though to be closer to 20 25% okay I'm going to go back and I have a question for Susan if we do something with mills act can that Money can savings be used for seismic retrofit according to mills act? Or is it restricted to other kinds of improvements? So it possibly could again the mills act is a contract between the city and the property owner. But there are limits to what can be done with the funds. Would it be legal to use Mills Act funds for seismic retrofitting? I'm not sure. I'm sure we have to check. I'm not sure either, but we can check that. Okay. I want to check into that because obviously if that's something we end up doing that should then not be a pass throw but assuming only for those who only for those. We'll get the mills out. We've got the mills out. But other than that, I think a 20 year as opposed to a 10 year amortization makes sense. And I think we should be looking at 2, 3rds-thirds, 1-thirds. But as said, hopefully, in some cases, mills act funds could be used for that, which would eliminate that. Am I being presumptuous that the 2-thirds is for the- Yes. Water reliability, I'd split 50-50, but what we're looking at as pass-through for the problem is for non-meter properties, the actual water usage. And that I do think there needs to be a better way of figuring it out because there you do want that pass-through, I think, to be 100 percent because that's actually based on usage and in theory, you want to reduce, you want to have an incentive for people to conserve water. Now again, I think we need to continue. But it's not metered. How would you do that? What? I mean, I get it with metered, you could do that, but if it's not metered, how can you do that? You'll need to split it up among the people who actually live here in the building, then somehow who live in the building. And- So what if you're somebody who conserves in your next-door neighbors constantly running bass and using their water? That's true now, too. That's true now, too. It's true now, and I think that we need to, I saw Sean I was here somewhere, but I think we need to, I think we need to look and I know there are solutions in Israel they're looking at post-metering that's not as expensive. We need to be on top of that because this is not just an issue about a fair split. This is sustainability. And I think that we absolutely, that's separate from the reliability fee. And I think when it comes to the registration fees and what was it the other inspection fee? Yeah, that should be split 50-50. Okay. Tell them I'm good with that too. There's the question about chapter 5. Yeah, should chapter 5 be included in this? Bob? Right now there is best room. So chapter five was deliberately set up to be especially protective. The seismic is a special circumstance because it's a one time wired improvement and it's expensive. I think I can't say right now I'd have to look to see how much money it would amount to and would be trying to be extra protective for the people in chapter five. I mean, there already is a provision in chapter 5. Is it 17.5% or something like that? What is a maximum for all passrooms? Yes. Capital improvements. And that strikes me as that might be too high if we were to apply that standard to the seismic. And so. For being included. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, it's the 17.5%. OK, so I'm not familiar enough to say right now. And I wouldn't have answered to that question before I could. Yeah, I think we need some more information as well. If it was within the 70, within the maximum, then- Then you're already there right now. But if those costs are being passed through already. Right. It's a 4% cap. 4? What? 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. Are you saying that the overall allowed increase would be maximum before percent, including any pastors? Yes. For chapter 5. In section 4, 5, 304, subsection 3, no capital expenditure, search charge, this is chapter 5 She'll be allowed which exceeds 4% so it's no individual capital improvement. Not cumulative. It's not a cumulative. Is there a cumulative? Yeah. 4% on top of other allowed increases. Do you have any figures? What that would account me or maybe we can bring that for the next session. OK, we'll bring that one back. Let's move on. Want to be done in 10 minutes? Yeah, 10 minutes. Do we have more after this or is this it? If the best thoughts. Whether you want protections for Beverly Hills Unified School District, families, and then this is just clarifying amendments that we would include. So, this is the big one. Okay. Robert. Okay, so I was suggesting 4% to 8% with the subsidy that would lower it down by a point or so for the greater protected class. So I would stay with that. But if we want to do it 3, 7, it's not that much of a difference. I prefer the 4, 8 because it is providing that much more to maintain the building stock in Beverly Hills while at the same time, if we have the subsidy, we are providing the protection for the people who need it the most. And that presumes those are thresholds, lower and higher. So it basically is the CBI. But the maximum, right. The lowest maximum would be the bottom of the range. The highest maximum would be the bottom of the range the highest maximum would be the top of the range I'm gonna do a coral area of what Bob just said and be the Solomon and say 3.5 and 7.5 3.6642 All right, thank you. We'll get you pie for dinner So I think especially All right, thank you. We'll get you pie for dinner. So I think especially given what we've done thus far today, I feel even more strongly that we stay with the three in the seven. Three seven. I was going to go four eight, but Lester that puts it in your ballpark. Yeah, but Bob said he could be considering three seven. All right, we'll go he could be considering 37. All right. We'll go out of the park there. Okay, last turn. I think you stick with your own. I'll go with that and we're done. What are the different out? 3 1 1 2 1 and 7 1 1. They can't hear you. Splitting the difference to go to 3.5, 7.5. They can't hear you. Splitting the difference to go to 3.5, 7.5. But in my mind, that's with us also approving the subsidy so that we are providing extra protection. But I guess my point is, since we are doing the subsidy, why not keep it the three summits? Since we are providing that. Because it would get it down to two. It would 1%%. It's absolutely. I'm okay with 3, 5, 7, 5, with, with, with, assuming there is a subsidy. As am I. Okay. What's, what's on the next slide? Oh, chapter 5. Should chapter 5 be amended? There's currently not a floor. No floor. Okay, Lester. No. No. No. All right. I like that. Oh. Yeah. All right. So we could actually, yeah, we'll do this first. All right. Thank you. Let's do that. All right. Thank you. All right. All right. Thank you. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. Yeah, so we could actually, yeah, we'll do this first. All right. Thank you. Let's do this first. Bob? So to a certain extent, we've already provided this protection by eliminating. No fault of it. No fault. Maybe the only additional protection that would be needed would be. Now we eliminated, what did we eliminate? No fault, no cause. We eliminated no fault. Maybe we need the additional protection of making sure that an eviction that has a cause but no fault associated with it such as an LSEC thing cannot happen during the school year. So I can see a need for the additional protection of those things for which there is a cause but no fall to make sure that that doesn't interrupt the school year. Okay, so and this may be a little too granular. This is specific to BHUSD. So we're talking about children who are in the public schools, not children who are in the private schools or any other schools. I'm asking the question. Well, because our teacher is here. Well, let's get one question at a time. Well, I hadn't thought about that. The goal is to not be disruptive, let's talk about students, with the student academic year. I don't think it's that much of a burden to make people put things off for several months until the end of the academic year so that it wouldn't happen during the academic year. So I think I'm okay with that being for, generally speaking, that if students are being affected. Or students who go to school in our city. Which students who go to, yes our city. Students who go to? Yes. Within the Beverly Hills area, but not necessarily B.H.U.S.D. Yes. But what protections are we offering? That's what I'm not doing. You can't be evicted. You can't be evicted. Because of the LS Act and before the end of year, June 30. Well, shouldn't the larger to specifics if we're going to discuss Alice because- Well, Alice isn't on any of these screens. Well, I thought that Alice already was a an allowed reason to evict somebody. But we heard that we might want to change that. Yes. And that would impact this as well. So it might in some ways make it. So there are other reasons that we have that allow in fiction. We can't. Larry. I mean, if you're going to take the suggestion, you can't take. Until plans were approved, for example, or something that Mr. May have brought up. Yeah, you can't do that for an LSAC because technically the landlord can go out of the business under the LSAC for any reason at all. He doesn't need to have redevelopment planned. So you can do it for land use reasons. You can't do it for rent conditions. Can we extend the LSAC protections? Can you extend, I'm sorry, you mean like notices? Yeah. I don't believe you can, but I can look at that. So my comment on this was that the eviction would be the later of the notice period or the end of the current school year. Okay. I would be okay with that. Okay. And I would apply it to generally to students within the, who are attending school within the city and I would also do it for teachers attending school within the city. And I would also do it for teachers who live within the city. Okay. Bob? I'm okay with that. Stay with it. Louis? I just clarification in terms of the notice period what are you referring to? I mean, I understand the end of school year, but what else are you referring to? In terms of there being any eviction that would be permitted it would have to be effective after let's say August of that year and then speaking since you brought up the term notice what type of notices required well whatever notices is is being given within the the the the nine months or the six months or whatever the notice period is. So are we only talking about Ellis Act evictions? Are we talking about four cause evictions here? So if someone is creating a new sense at the family, no, no, that's not what he said. Talking about no fault evictions. So just cause, just cause. Just cause for instance, an owner wants to move in. But what if so, for example, I don't know, what if that, I mean, that I agree, but what if there is something that is so disruptive, that it's disruptive to other BHUSD families living in the building as well? Then they come to the panel. I get it, but my point is is that could still happen. So the panel is the panel allowed to override these protections for the benefit of the other people who are living there if there is a justice. We haven't gotten to the panel. That's our next slide. Well, but my view of this provision was did not apply to situations in which somebody was found to be disruptive, that somebody could still be- Absolutely. Evicted if they're found to be disruptive. Okay, so then we need to be clear. This is really only for LSACT or if someone moves in themselves. And then I'm fine with that. I'm not sure why teachers should be included because their residency doesn't impact their ability to teach here, whereas BHUSD, the residency of the children, impacts their ability to attend our schools. So I'm not quite sure why it has teachers there. I don't know how many there are. I think we've always tried to encourage having teachers and our first responders, I mean, to live close if they could. I understand but there's a concrete difference and one is as said if a student is evicted they can't in theory and they move outside the city they can't continue to attend school here. But John if you have a teacher and the teacher is not residing there and then isn't that disruptive to the class to the instructional period? That's something we've always wanted to do. Maybe, but in theory you could, you know, teach, what if it's a teacher in the LAUSD? Same thing, anytime a teacher has to move, it's disruptive. So are these only teachers in the BHUSD? What if, you know, in the Beverly Hills? See, I don't know that I'd make that distinction. I think it should be all teachers. I don't think it'll happen very often. I'm not going to be listening to you. I'm OK. I'm OK. Can I ask a question that was related to the comment from the audience. Larry, if you know the answer, so what happens if somebody evics people because they're planning demolition, but the demolition doesn't happen, or they evict people because they say they're going onto the LSAC, but that doesn't happen. So in other words, they say they're going out of business, but then they don't go. Or they're saying they're going to do extensive demolition and then they end up not doing it. So I'm not sure about all the remedies and I can come back to you with that. But I believe that if they argue that there should be an LS Act, they're going out of the business. And then they restore the apartment unit to business. I think they first have to, and if anyone can help me, they first have to offer it to the tenants. And then they don't get any increase in the rent other than what's provided for as a standard for that year. But are they subject to any, you know, someone has to move and all of this, are they subject to any punitive damages because it would seem that could be a ploy. They could say, oh, going out of business, sorry, everyone leaves, going back in business, and then people have already moved. Oh, you don't want to move back in, you know, okay, great. I can go to market, you know? No, no, you can't go to market. That's clear. Okay. Whether there's penalties, I would have to look that up. I'm not sure that there are penalties. There aren't penalties, but they have to first write a refusal goes to the tenant who was evicted. So they have to give them the right to come back and at that same rate. Even if it's three years later. I'd like to look Larry, please look and see if there are other protections that we can offer. I mean, I understand it sounds like what they suggested we're not allowed to do. But are there any other Ellis protections that we may be able to offer? I think that's something that we should find out. Okay. And are there any protections against changes regarding demolition? Yeah, demoing a building and having it sit there and we have now lost inventory of people who could live there. So again, LS Act, no, because they could just leave the building standing there and empty. But we do have provisions in our municipal code that they can't demolish unless they have a building permit for. So they can't demolish the building unless they have a building permit. But they could evict people saying that we're planning to demolish that's for end actually not demolish. Or they could say evict people saying we're we're going out of the rental business We're just gonna keep the building empty because we're gonna be in the land speculation business or something like that And not replace it with something or they could in theory can't they say this we're gonna Turn these into condos that they could do correct correct That and they could go out of the rental business at- Right. We're going to sell the building, make it condos. Larry, we should look at the provision in your existing ILS Act that if, in the event that the units are withdrawn are reoffered for rent by the landlord within two years, in addition to the things you've already talked about, they have to do with the prior tenant. The housing provider is liable and civil action if commenced within three years of displacement to any tenant evicted due to withdrawal of a unit pursuant to this section for actual damages which were proximate result of displacement in accordance with the government code. That's good. So the civil action. Yep's good. So, civil action. Yep. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, I think we came to consensus on that one. It's gonna take us too long to define this, but I would actually suggest that if you have an example of a really good rent commission and what they do We ought to start from something that somebody else has done as opposed to us sort of making it up There's a really good one out there than anybody knows and let somebody wants to take Can't we oh this is not gonna I think a lot of us have thought this through and so I think we can at least get through these questions at least to get our initial take on it. All right. If you want to do that, that's fine. It is 5 o'clock, so do we want to do this now? Well, I would put this off until we have something draft, but it's up to the council. What would you like? What's your preference? I think we should hear the sense of the council before doing a draft. I mean, okay. So we can try to be brief and get through it in a few minutes. I thought we had largely outlined it all, ready in terms of that there'd be the commission that we'd be ruling on the allegations about disruptive tenants deciding whether in those instances in which relocation fees might... They can't hear you. Sorry. In those instances in which relocation fees might be- They can't hear you. Sorry. In those incidences in which relocation fees might be discretionary to decide whether or not they're called for to, would be the rent stabilization commission that would handle appeals as to whether or not an exception to the otherwise allowed rent increase would happen. Are there other things that we're talking about for the happenability standards? And also as Lily mentioned before, not just if you know, there are situations where for example maybe a landlord is lacks and tenants are upset because they have a disruptive neighbor. This should be a place that they could go to too because it's destroying their quality of life. They should have that balance of having the tenants have a ability to. I'll switch here. Yeah, sure. So, anything else? I'm not thinking of anything else. That's true, no. I think that covers it. I was just like some clarification as to who are going to compose these five members. Well that was where three at barge, one tenant, one housing provider, I think that works. But are we talking about all Beverly Hills? Yeah that's where we were talking about that. Should you read it? Absolutely. Clarify that they're residents. Yes, absolutely. Because that's how I feel. That's how, yeah. All right. And the one last thing, I mean I know we're going to move on and I mentioned it before, but it is in tandem with what Bob suggested in terms of subsidy. I do think and I think it should be part and parcel of the notion of a subsidy is looking at assisting landlords with mills act applications because that will and that's something that we have a set amount of money whatever could mirror the amount of money that's going to the tenants to allow them to do that. I think that would be very fair and it would serve our community well. And yeah, absolutely. All right. Any last comments? Okay. Thank you so much. That's a lot. We will adjourn to the. How much of those serve with the amount of time they'll serve? We'll set it up like a commission. Two plus four. I would do, why not? Yeah, we have to have stagger to begin with, too, so everybody doesn't come on and go off. So I think those are the details we have to work out. Work out the details. Okay. How are they selected? Councillor, are we doing an ad hoc? Yes, we should do. I would say if we're going to run it like a commission, it should be, we should pick it the way we pick other commission members. It does not make sense. And it should be a peable decisions, a peable to the council. We'll bring back a framework based on the discussion. Just a question, Mayor Gold. We have a consultant here for the tower discussion, and we can make it to brief if you don't mind. Sure. Okay, so we're gonna move on to the last item on our agenda, which discusses the tower. Free? But truly brief. Yes, with my kid's very brief, I'm thinking just make it go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council members. Earlier this year, funds were within capital improvement program was allocated to study visibility of reoccurpying the city hall tower, which had been unoccupied since 1980s. which had been unoccupied since 1980s. A group of consultants led by architects, raw, international, surveyed the tower, and visually inspected the building, including mechanical plumbing, electrical infrastructure, as well as elevated building on blow pan structure all system of the building. It was determined that in general the tower structure is in fair condition and with some level of seismic strengthening can accommodate the function and special requirements for reuse. In order to accurately assess anticipated performance and determine the level of seismic strengthening, a high level of assessment was recommended. The engineering analysis has been completed by structural firm of MHP. And at at this time I turned the floor to Kyle White to present Council with their findings and recommendations Thanks one down Evening I'm Kyle with MHP we are the structural engineers who performed the seismic assessment of the signal structure. Try to move fast for you guys here. We know the history and all that. Okay, so we'll burn through this pretty quick then. 32 original design code was the 1927 UBC. At that time, it was not common to consider seismic forces in the design of a new structure. So in fact, there are actually notes on the plans that these were only designed, this building was only designed for wind. Fast forward about 50 years. In 1986, a preliminary design was started but never completed to strengthen specifically focus on the tower. And that work included the addition of 30-inch thick concrete shear walls, a huge matte foundation and quite extensive work that would have had a significant impact architecturally to the building. That work was never completed, but a little bit of critical work was completed, which included bracing of the earns and parapids, and you can see some of that work still today. And the last item was reinforcing of some holocletile partitions. So really critical work, but not the overall structural work that was included in that preliminary design. Then, fast forward, another 30 years, and here we are through the course of 2018. We've gone through a seismic risk assessment, which is a very high level overall picture of the building that included just observing the structure itself to see what the current status is, analysis of site seismicity, which is basically the potential effects of earthquakes to this site specifically. I'm then identifying areas which were the further review, more detailed review structurally. I'm then July through October, that was when we were performing the, what we call the Tier 2 seismic assessment, which included detailed structural analysis and 3D structural modeling of the building to give us a really clear picture of the actual performance. As well as development of what became phase strengthening concepts that we think are feasible for the project. Here's just a little picture of our 3D computer model using a program called ETABs. It's a very detailed model. This is just a snapshot from the original plans on the left and then how we've actually modeled almost every piece of concrete in this building to really get a good picture of how it will actually perform and subject to seismic forces. So once we have a model to show us how it behaves, we have to know what type of behavior is good enough. The performance objective that we selected in concert with Mondana and Roland Wiley of RON International was what they call the basic performance objective for existing buildings. This is defined by the seismic evaluation of and retrofit of existing buildings. Document, it's commonly used for mandatory non-Datokoncrete, red different ordinances in areas like Los Angeles and Santa Monica, so we figured that would be appropriate for this structure as well. And then just an idea of what that really means in terms of performance for a building, building satisfying the basic performance objective for existing buildings, generally protect life safety and allow occupants to escape the building, but it does allow for the potential for extensive damage to historic structural elements and non-structural finishes. So in other words, the building is intended to be safe, but it may not look good after the earthquake. Now moving on to the findings of our assessment. Overall, we've kind of divided this into looking at the tower structure and the base of the structure, understanding that the whole goal of the project is the feasibility of strengthening the tower so that it can be reoccupied. The base of the structure is very redundant, which in structural engineering we talk about redundancy, and that just means there are a lot of separate elements capable of carrying load. And so if one of them is overstressed, forces can redistribute to other elements, and that's a positive attribute. However, we would expect moderate damage to some structural elements, and overall fair performance. That's not unexpected for a building of this age or type. Now if we look at the tower specifically, looking at these images down here at the bottom moving from left to right, I'm kind of deconstructing so that you can see what the tower itself looks like within the building. And so as you move left to right, you can see that you've stripped away all the base of the structure that is really providing the support for that. And what you would normally see is these walls right here, these are the walls of the tower. As you see, they stop at the fourth floor level. So all the forces that are in those walls have to distribute out. That's not a positive attribute. And so that's where we've really focused our efforts on identifying a good strengthening strategy for that. So that's what I'm referring to as a discontinuous sure walls and weak-spanable beams. Basically the tower performance will not be expected to be as good as the performance of the building. So we've recommended strengthening for the tower. Important to this is the phasing of the retrofit objectives. So we're focusing entirely on the tower and minimizing impacts architectural and historic finishes. That is the whole goal of our work. And that is something that was not well addressed by the preliminary design that was developed 30 years ago. And strengthening the tower addresses really the most significant hazards to the building and provides a really reasonable level of safety while keeping it cost feasible and architecturally feasible. With that in mind that this is an initial phase, we believe a future phase is warranted as well that would really address the historic preservation of the building that can't really be addressed by the initial phase. And so these two phases work well together. The initial phase would be required whether or not you proceeded with the future phase, but they would work together and don't get in the way of one another. To run you through what the initial phase strengthening looks like on the right here you've got an elevation of the tower and we're basically strengthening the concrete beams and tying them into the concrete walls that support them and then developing all the loads down to the base of the structure using steel plate shear walls. So we've got shot creep within the currently unoccupied tower, steel tension ties to hold the tower down essentially, and then steel plate shear walls to develop the load to foundation. So this is a real quick section of what cutting through one of the tower walls would look like. We're basically just providing an overlay of concrete to add the strengthening that needs to be added. And then the whole intent there is that it would minimize the architecture of the impact because all of this new work would be hidden within a firing that would be part of the tenant improvement. I'm just giving an idea of what a steel plate sure wall is. This is the type of system that was used in LA live, the high rise. In a normal wood building, you would see plywood shear walls, in this case, we would be using steel. We looked at other options, including providing new concrete shear walls, which is what the existing structure has, but the steel plate shear walls are thinner and lighter than more conventional concrete shear walls, and they can be more easily constructed from one side so that we won't have to upset the sensitive finishes on the other side of the wall. This is a plan view looking at the layout that we're proposing for these new steel plate sure walls. They're intended to line up directly below the existing concrete walls of the tower that stop at the fourth floor. And they would be essentially replacing existing normal steel stud non-bearing walls so that the ultimate result would be that they would be totally hidden and hopefully very minimal impact to the current space planning. We understand that at least at the in the building department level there are some areas where these walls may need to be shifted in order to make sure we're not Taking up counter space or blocking off any any access. So this system is flexible to move those walls around to address that issue And then to go into a little bit about the future phase strengthening Typically historic structures. It's not feasible to just add enough concrete so that you don't have any issues with the existing finishes. Typically, they move toward base isolation where you've essentially severed the building from the ground so the earthquake can't actually get into the building to put it one way. That's a very common strategy used for city halls that have same issues as Beverly Hills does where it's a very historic building that they really want to preserve. So LA City Hall, Pasadena City Hall, San Francisco City Hall, Oakland City Hall, and all use this same strategy and it seems to us that Beverly Hills is a good candidate for that as well in the future. So that's all I've got for you. Great. Thank you. We're going to get it done tomorrow. That is sure as possible. Yes, sir. Well, we would look for the council direction to move forward and also we need to increase the budget. We will be bringing a budget augmentation for an additional earmark from the ear and fund balance at December 11th. What does move forward, mean, man? Meaning move forward with the developing the design documents for this upgrade. To assume that we're going to actually do this. That's correct. Do we do the same program if we're planning to reuse the tower as if we weren't going to reuse the tower? We would certainly recommend the strengthening either way. And does it require moving some offices out of City Hall while the restriing thing is going on? There will be work within currently occupied spaces within floors one through four. So I can't tell you in detail how it would impact it, but certainly there are going to be areas that will be under construction and how long is the construction? That's tough to say a year two years. I would expect less than that. Thanks. Are you supporting? supportive and I think we need to keep in mind the possibility, maybe even probability that we'll want to use the floor in the tower so we should consider part of our plan. Yeah, absolutely. Yes. Absolutely. And yes, I mean, I think the whole goal has to be something he really wants. Well, I just we have this amazing building. How ridiculous that we can get the elevator to go all the way up. Yes, we can. Yeah, all the way up. Yes, yes. That was there was an elevator, I believe, and it was filled in. And there's some older offices. To all floor except the top floor. The dome except the dome, you mean, right? Not the dome. The level below the dome because that's where that's where the elevator is. If you want to sit on the dome except the dome, you mean, right? Not the dome, the level below the dome because that's where the elevator is. And that's where the elevator is. Or if you want to sit on the dome. OK, I'm in agreement also. I just want to ask, I don't know that we're going to have time, or I'll be optimistic for a moment. Were it to be that we got through the evening quickly? Were it to be? Do we want to add back the police report at the end of whatever else we have tonight? I don't know if they've left yet. Yeah, I need to check. But if it's something the council would consider, we didn't get to it this afternoon. Are you okay to hang around for that for a little bit? I'm okay with that except in terms of noticing. I don't think people noticed. Yeah, I thought there was at least someone who, and I don't know that she was here, but when you announced that it would be put off, she got up and walked out, so I'm not sure. I'm concerned about if we do it tonight, that nobody knew that we were gonna do it tonight. So I would rather us notice that we're doing it, because I think there's some people that really might care about it. Okay, all right, all right. Okay, all right, with that we're going to adjourn to close session for those matters on the closed session agenda.